Highway Code – Cyclist dies: local press bias | 3bikes.fr, your Cycling, Gravel & Triathlon magazine

The local press in Dordogne’s coverage of a road accident involving a cyclist this week is causing debate. Conscientiously or very clumsily, the journalist for the local edition of the major regional daily Sud-Ouest limited the responsibilities of the reckless driver. This frequent attitude fosters a sense of impunity among traffic law offenders, and it puts lives at risk.

On Wednesday, December 18, in Bergerac (Dordogne), an octogenarian cyclist was hit by a truck driver and died the following night after being airlifted to a hospital in Bordeaux.

An unfortunate news item, and one that happens far too often in France, where 175 cyclists died on the road in 2018 (a figure that increases every year), representing 5% of the total number of deaths in road accidents.

The Observatoire national interministériel de la sécurité routière (National Interministerial Road Safety Observatory) even estimates that for every hour spent in the saddle on the road, a cyclist is three times more likely to be a victim of an accident than a motorist.

These are frightening figures, and they are often poorly reported by both the national and regional or local press. Or rather, they are sometimes explained by cyclists’ recklessness, forgetting that even if clumsy or ill-intentioned, a cyclist has never killed a motorist behind a wheel. Forgetting also the fundamental safety rules when the risks of collision are highest, especially when overtaking or passing one or more cyclists.

The handling of information concerning the Bergerac accident is symptomatic of a complete lack of awareness of everyone’s responsibilities, in what could even be classified as voluntary manslaughter. Even if we do not know all the details and circumstances, it would not occur to us to prejudge the final report of the investigation.

Nevertheless, here is what we learn from reading the Sud-Ouest article published on December 19, and partially updated on December 20 after several complaints on Twitter.

Link to the current online article: Sud-Ouest

Initially, the journalist wrote that the cyclist had “hit a truck that was following him.” A clumsiness partially corrected later, but which nevertheless demonstrates an obvious bias from the beginning of the article.

A sentence corrected by “A cyclist traveling in the Bergerac-Périgueux direction was turning left, towards the Vaures district, when a small truck following him collided with him.” We note that the notion of a small truck is bolded, and that it is still referred to as a collision, whereas it is purely and simply a driver who hit a cyclist from behind. It seems obvious to us that the driver must always remain in control of his vehicle, and that when he respects the mandatory safety distances (1m laterally in town, and enough from behind to have time to brake), this should not happen.

The journalist continues: “The circumstances of the impact are not yet clearly established, but the cyclist fell heavily.” We will explain what happened. A “small truck” (undoubtedly over 3 tons) hit a cyclist weighing less than 100 kg with his bike from behind. What do you think could happen in such cases?

“Wearing no protection, he was in critical condition upon the arrival of emergency services.” The journalist bolds and thus emphasizes the fact that the cyclist was wearing no protection. What is he talking about? A helmet, armor, a bodywork? He seems to forget that helmets are not mandatory for cyclists, except in competition and for children under 12 on public roads. And also to forget that a polystyrene helmet has little effect against a 3-ton truck or more.

Questioned on Twitter and in the article’s comments, the editorial team nevertheless agreed to later modify this paragraph, remove the bolded part, and replace it with “The victim, who was not wearing a helmet (…)” but still implying that the victim, because they were not wearing a helmet, bore some responsibility for their death.

However, further in the article, we learn the real causes of the accident:

“This Thursday, December 19, the truck driver, under the influence of alcohol at the time of the facts, was interviewed by the national police.”

Note “l’empire” instead of “l’emprise” but let’s move on…

Shouldn’t it have simply started there? A drunk guy (illegal), driving a truck was following too closely (illegal) a cyclist who wanted to turn left (allowed) and who was riding without a helmet (allowed) and because of his recklessness killed him.

A father, a grandfather, a man who went for a bike ride or to do his shopping, struck down on the road by a reckless driver who had drunk too much. The reality is as stark as that. And as long as public opinion does not become aware of all this, first guided by the simple, unbiased explanation of the facts by the local press, and then as long as public authorities do not provide an adequate response to this kind of behavior (precise and frequent signage on the prohibition of driving too close to a cyclist, the risks incurred, and real sanctions), this kind of accident, excuse me, homicide, will continue to occur.

=> SEE ALSO: All our Mag articles