Safe Speed Forums

Another gem from the Daily Wail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... d-her.html

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

This does raise a few issues irrespective of the conflicting evidence in this specific incident.

- Will the "car driver is always to blame" proponents accept in any collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist that the cyclists MUST be to blame as they are on the faster, heavier machines?

- If a death results from such a collision, is this an appropriate charge and penalty?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Any accident where the car or cycle is on the pavement is the car or cyclists fault. Many pedestrians are disabled. My wife is un able to leap out of the way due to her MS and loss of ballance and poor muscle control. You have absolutly no idea if they are blind or deaf. You cannot judge someones ability to avoid or detect you. Even the bleedin' coppers ride on the pavement round here! It realy P's me off. I would love to start sniping at them with a paint ball gun.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

This report does indeed raise a few issues here. First of all, one of the witnesses saw the cyclist "speeding". Secondly, his speed was estimated at between 17 & 23 mph. If this is a re-working of the old "Speed Kills" argument, then it's practically meaningless as a cyclist cannot be prosecuted for speeding. I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend were "tipsy" youths deliberately step out in front of cyclists.

We know that the cyclist shouted a warning. I think he said the wrong thing by declaring that he wouldn't stop. Highway Code rule 46 states that any bicycle used on a public road MUST have a working bell or horn fitted. We can't tell from the report and to the same extent, we don't know if he was wearing any hi-viz clothing.

The report states that it's illegal for a cylclist to ride on the pavement. Hmm, well yes BUT Rule 48 states:

Cycle Tracks

These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or footways. Cyclists and may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you should keep to the side intended for cyclists. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, elderly or disabled people and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Well it appears to me that an arrogant asshole on a bicycle came across some snotty drunken teens on the pavement.

Had he not been on the pavement it would not have happened.
Had he observed propper safety actions...seeing a hazard, slowing and if necessary stop it would not have happened.

Though I hate drunken teens there is nothing to suggest their actions would or would not have occured if they had not been under influence.

I dont think we will see much justice come from this one, instead we have to suffer this pathetic legal system that will see yet another completely inapropriate sentance.

Imagine if a car driver had mown down a bunch of pedestrians in a car park at 20 mph, having thought he'd discharged his duty of care by peeping his horn at them that he'd no longer have to try and avoid them.

Amazing.

I have to say that, while drivers in areas where there are also pedestrians will almost without exception proceed extremely gingerly, it is far from uncommon for cyclists on pavements to ride directly at pedestrians in the expectation that they will move out of the way. It was only a matter of time before a tragedy like this happened.

He was convicted and fined £2200. Wonderful

Seems completely inconsistent with the four and a half years handed out to Mervyn Richmond (the trucker who was on the phone).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 496370.stm

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

He should've been jailed

The carbon fibre titanium bicycle was built to Howard's specifications.

Despite its cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back.

Howard, who has a previous conviction and is well-known in his home town as a 'thrill-seeker', was also ordered to pay £750 in costs.

His bike cost almost £4,800. His fine barely goes halfway. I would've had his bike confiscated and crushed.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

You don't think this happens at least once a week somewhere in the UK?

Not just cyclists though, motorcyclists, car drivers and lorry drivers will often aim, at speed, for the place where they expect pedestrians not to be when they pass that spot on zebra crossings and other walkways, or even just in the road.

I am sure it does weepej, Its probobly the same guy and the appropriate laws and penalties are in place(for car drivers). Why do so many cyclists hate the whole world?
And why wasn't he charged with somthing more serious like ABH?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

A car driver mowing down a pedestrian having peeped his horn at them and then made no attempt to steer or brake. I like to think that would make the papers.

There seem to be some discussion as to whether he on the pavement or the road. It not matter as regardless of whether the kids had feet in the the roadway .. you still do not continue without either easing off or changing road positions to avoid or diffuse the danger.

If he was on the road und the kids close to pavement .. then he "riding in the gutter" und not a metre out from the kerb in secondary position. He come across as an arrogant moron. Had he done this on continent - he may well have been charged with offences which would have fined him more appropriately or handed down a jail term. I have to say that this ist one offence whereby the UK could have used that bit of the law relating to disqualifying from driving even if not actually driving at the time of the offence. If they can ban a pensioner for telling folk to slow up before they reach a scam van... "under some anti-social order provision" - then I am sure they could have done this or arranged a ban on a ghost licence thus preventing this person from behaving likewise in a car.

There have been two deaths this year caused by arrogant cyclist's on these "high performance bicycles". As we have pointed out .. the more on bicycles.. the greater the danger und then there will be legislation similar to that "enjoyed" by car owners/drivers.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Whether they were on the pavement or road is not relevent to guilt he was acting recklessly. A car driver is prosicuted even if the victim is drunk lying in the center of a duel carriageway!The fact they were on or very near te pavement just makes this case worse.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Well, it didn't result in death but I saw the latter part of your description happen this morning.

Cab driver came barraling down a side road, racing the green light (so he didn't get stuck behind a red), load of pedestrians in the road.

He beeped his horn as he came, no slowing down, no deviation, the peds had to scatter to get out of his way.

If one of them had taken a wrong turn, or fell or stumbled or simply froze he absolutely would have struck them.

If his intension was 'move or I'll hit you' I don't see any difference between deliberately hitting her with a base ball bat instead of a bicycle, except that if he'd used the bat he would be doing time now.

The law is an ass!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I seriously don't expect he wanted to hit anybody, that could've been equally fatal to him.

If the CPS thought he did I imagine he'd've been charged with murder or at least manslaughter.

I very much doubt it. If he can afford a bike like that I expect he was kitted-out with matching gear too. You can't expect pedestrians to go around wearing helmets or on constant lookout for 'missiles', unless they are crossing a road of course.

When this 'thrill-seeker' was on a collision course he would not have known if she had the sobriety or alacrity to jump out of his way. Who amongst us could say hand on heart that if we were in her position we wouldn't have been caught off guard too, just as she was.

This arrogant shouted "'Move, because I'm not stopping.' and furthermore said "he could have avoided Rhiannon if he had slowed right down". I'm sure if I shouted that on my motorbike to a pedestrain who jumped into my path it would go down like a lead balloon in court.


Imagine what sentence a rider would have got if he'd been on something a little heavier called a moped doing 20 mph instead? By virtue of having a licence he would have had the book thrown at him but as a cyclist it seems he can ride with impunity.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

This seems to be the same situation as the cyclist. A warning was given but he didn't attempt to stop or slow down.



So, if the taxi driver above "didn't want to hit anybody" but, unfortunately, did so, would it be OK to charge him with only careless driving?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Well, there are levels.

The bigger the vehicle (and faster it's travelling) and hence the greater potential for disaster, the more weighty the lack of care aspect becomes IMO.