I didn't see him!
What is it with motorists who claim they did not see a cyclist before hitting them? And what is it with law enforcement officials who think this form of blindness makes one still safe enough to drive. If a driver is not able to see then they should have their licence removed. Last year I was hit in a gentle collusion by a driver with a fogged up windscreen. I could see he was going to hit me and I managed to move enough to be able to land safely after being knocked off. I was lucky, unlike those who are killed by such drivers.
The above link excludes any reference to night, as an unlit cyclist at night is a hazard to themself and others. A driver need feel no guilt over hitting such a cyclist, not should he feel any guilt for hitting cyclists going the wrong way, (passed one a couple of days ago); cyclists on footpaths (every driveway is an intersection, and intersections have greater risk); cyclists weaving in and out of parked cars, (they conceal themselves doing this, and act unpredictably); cyclists going through red lights (obviously). Wearing a magic helmet doesn't save one doing any of these, not when helmets are only effective against simple falls at low speeds.
The media over play helmet effectiveness, implying a lack of helmet explains why someone dies after being hit by a car doing 60km/h, or says such things as died, despite wearing a helmet. This brings me onto another thing that gets me ranting, the media playing its audience as fools, slanting the news one way or the other. (Do we get any tragedies nowadays that are not horrific?) I will save that rant for another time.
