The fact that the collision occurred at all is proof of one of two possible courses of action.
The driver failed to see a cyclist lawfully upon the road ahead of him.
The driver saw the cyclist and deliberately drove over her.
I think we can discount 2.
So lets analyse 1.
Either he could not see her, through physical disability in which case he should not be driving.
Or he did not see her due to inattention, distraction, or negligence.
which is evidence of at least S3 RTA, driving without due care, or S1 Death by dangerous driving.
Either way the driver is negligent and culpable and i fail to see how flxh can blithely comment that "accident happen" when this is as serious a matter. Hence the "terse" reply.
This affects us all and dismissing it with a shrug and a "meh" is an attitude I find abhorrent.
The fact that the collision occurred at all is proof of one of two possible courses of action.
I think we can discount 2.
So lets analyse 1.
Either he could not see her, through physical disability in which case he should not be driving.
Or he did not see her due to inattention, distraction, or negligence.
which is evidence of at least S3 RTA, driving without due care, or S1 Death by dangerous driving.
Either way the driver is negligent and culpable and i fail to see how flxh can blithely comment that "accident happen" when this is as serious a matter. Hence the "terse" reply.
This affects us all and dismissing it with a shrug and a "meh" is an attitude I find abhorrent.