-
I can understand why. She may have been negligent in not looking/using a crossing (potentially, I don't know for sure). But Alliston's choice to ride brakeless was more than negligent imo.
-
She didn't jaywalk. There is no such concept in the UK. She exercised her legal right to cross where she needed to.
She may have been negligent in not looking/using a crossing (potentially, I don't know for sure).
No pedestrian is negligent for not using a crossing.
-
Sadly you're unlikely to get much airtime with that viewpoint because of the respective demographic of the victim and perpetrator.
A mother will naturally elicit sympathy whilst a pierced & tattoo'd hipster oik will attract derision at best. This will lead to diminishing of her part and amplification of his. In fact, that's borne out by the press coverage. The press being naturally good at exploiting this tendency of people to lead with emotion.
That society values certain demographics above others should come as no surprise. They may appear to chop and change depending on the issue of the day but when the chips are down the hierarchy is shown to be firmly established.
You are reading a single comment by @Crispin_Glover and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Tenners
Oliver Schick
diceface
@Crispin_Glover
I'm aware that it was a bit of an impact post and I'm very much pro the idea that peds being the most vulnerable road users need to be protected, HOWEVER it sticks in the craw that the widow's sentiment seems to be that the rider risked the life of a pedestrian by using a bike that was inadequate for the roads, but doesn't counter that with the fact that the pedestrian risked her own life by jaywalking. Both made fateful decisions that day but it's only the brake that's being demonised.