# Cyclist kills pedestrian



## mr_cellophane (8 Jul 2008)

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=208306&in_page_id=34



> Howard, from Buckingham, faces a £2,000 fine if convicted but denies dangerous cycling.



He was on the pavement, how dangerous is that ? Where is the jail sentence ?


----------



## magnatom (8 Jul 2008)

mr_cellophane said:


> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=208306&in_page_id=34
> 
> 
> 
> He was on the pavement, how dangerous is that ? Where is the jail sentence ?



If the facts are correct (and we always need to be wary of newspaper articles) then it is shocking that more serious charges are not being considered. 

Manslaughter perhaps?

Of course it is possible that the pedestrian did intentionally step in front of the cyclist. However, he should not have been there in the first place and at the very least the option that he was completely at fault and thus guilty of manslaughter should be investigated.

Sympathies for the young girls family.


----------



## summerdays (8 Jul 2008)

You can't do 20 mph on the pavement... even my 7 year old gets told that he has to give way to any pedestrians (not that he does 20 mph yet). I think he should face dangerous cycling in these circumstances, not just a fine.


----------



## pinkkaz (8 Jul 2008)

My reading of the article was (from his point of view):

- Going 20mph on the road, shouts at group of kids to get out of the road
- They get out of the way, he keeps going
- Girl steps out in front - he mows her down
- H mounts the pavement (which the witness sees when he looks behind)
- He tries to perform cpr

I only formed this impression when it gets to the end of the article and puts in a few more "facts". The article certainly starts off by giving the impression he was cycling on the pavement, but if you read it it does not actually say this.

Of course, we don't know the facts yet, but I'm getting a sensationalist reporting vibe here...


----------



## domtyler (8 Jul 2008)

If he was cycling on the pavement then he definitely deserves to be banged up for a long time. If he was on the road then I don't see why a £2,000 is applicable.


----------



## jely (8 Jul 2008)

true, you never know what really happened... it's just a terrible tragedy no matter who is right or wrong and i feel for everyone involved


----------



## Wolf04 (8 Jul 2008)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...own-and-killed-teenage-girl,-court-hears.html

Similar reports in most of the online versions of the press. Seems a much more severe charge is called for on the face of it. Though obviously don't have all the facts.


----------



## liambauckham (8 Jul 2008)

"Rhiannon and eight of her friends were walking to a chip shop after drinking beer in a park."

group of chavs by the sound of it


----------



## dodgy (8 Jul 2008)

How many other riders here have had teenagers play chicken with them? It's happened to me loads of times.

Not saying the rider in this story is in some way right, I don't think he is at all based on what we know right now. But teenagers do have a certain penchant for this kind of thing.

Dave.


----------



## domtyler (8 Jul 2008)

liambauckham said:


> "Rhiannon and eight of her friends were walking to a chip shop after drinking beer in a park."
> 
> group of chavs by the sound of it



There is simply no need for brain dead comments like this!


----------



## jely (8 Jul 2008)

liambauckham said:


> "Rhiannon and eight of her friends were walking to a chip shop after drinking beer in a park."
> 
> group of chavs by the sound of it



chavs, white collars, blue collars... doesn't matter. the loss of a life is a tragedy


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Jul 2008)

dodgy said:


> How many other riders here have had teenagers play chicken with them? It's happened to me loads of times.


Endemic on Parrs Wood road in Manchester, fwiw. Personally, I move further out into the road, as relatively few are willing to play chicken with motor traffic as well (although as Fossy will testify, knowing the same stretch of road, it's not entirely unheard of - I seem to remember him having seen them trying to face down Freelanders on occasion...).


----------



## mickle (8 Jul 2008)

If it happened on the road, according to the Highway code, if a pedestrian has started to cross the road one must slow down and let them cross. He was wrong whether it was the road or the pavement.

A tragic loss of life but is it more or less tragic than the deaths of the other 9 people who died on our roads that day.

And I hate to say it but since few (if any) motorists get ever sent to prison for killing peds why should he? Unless we think that killing someone with a bicycle on the pavement is somehow worse than killing them with a car on the pavement.


----------



## mickle (8 Jul 2008)

liambauckham said:


> group of chavs by the sound of it



Your point? What is a chav and how does being a chav affect ones right to cross a street without being mown down.

Tw@.


----------



## cupoftea (8 Jul 2008)

Don’t forget we don’t know the full facts and I doubt the press will publish them.

No one should die, but we've all had kids playing chicken with us and you can only do so much. Kids think this sort of behaviour is funny like playing on the railway lines etc

A couple of years ago a 6 year old stepped into the in front of me trying to get me to crash or pull out into the path of another vehicle.

What got me was he did this in front of his parents and when I shouted at him to get out of the road ( I did not swear ) his parents had a go, the usual "what's it got to do with you"

Oh and this was on the dual carriageway heading into Stratford from central London.

If I’d hit him then it would have legally been my fault as peds are allowed in the road and as such that’s probably why this guy is only getting a £2000 fine rather than prison.

Don’t forget that the lorry driver that killed that cyclist turning left last year whilst reading a newspaper was only fined £500


----------



## Twenty Inch (8 Jul 2008)

pinkkaz said:


> My reading of the article was (from his point of view):
> 
> - Going 20mph on the road, shouts at group of kids to get out of the road
> - They get out of the way, he keeps going
> ...



What I wanted to say. The Metro article sets out to give the impression he was on the pavement, but doesn't actually say that. In fact his bike may have been on the pavement because he put it there after the collision. 

The girl may have been pushed in front of him by a mate. This has happened to me. She may have played chicken. This has happened to me. She may have lost her balance after two cans of lager and stumbled in front of him unwillingly.

The Telegraph article firmly places him on the road. The witness sounds like he's trying to place him on the pavement, but has anyone here deliberately bunny-hopped from road to pavement at 20mph into a group of pedestrians?

Sounds like the guy was an idiot for not braking or moving out of the way, but also sounds like a drunk and unruly gang of teenagers were being idiots on the road. Sad story.


----------



## TWBNK (8 Jul 2008)

mickle said:


> Your point? What is a chav and how does being a chav affect ones right to cross a street without being mown down.



I don't know about the right but I imagine it affects the chances. Statistically that is. Risks taken and whatever.


----------



## mr_cellophane (8 Jul 2008)

Very strange the whole road is only 100 metres long. Why would he need to do 20 mph there ?
From Google maps, it looks like it leads to a footbridge over a river.


----------



## mickle (8 Jul 2008)

How do we know he was doing 20mph? Is there a speed camera on that stretch?


----------



## domtyler (8 Jul 2008)

mickle said:


> How do we know he was doing 20mph? Is there a speed camera on that stretch?



He must have been going at a fairly decent pace to have killed someone in a collision.


----------



## hackbike 6 (8 Jul 2008)

Does depend how the ped took the collision though.I mean if it's a fall over job and bang head on pavement then that's dodgy ground to start with.


----------



## fossyant (8 Jul 2008)

Hmm difficult to comment on this one - if he could avoid them, then he should have if safe to do so...

I have had to do that on two occasions, both at a similar point, one ended up with me close to the opposite curb - both times at 25 mph plus.

One was a group of school girls, in uniform, all crossing the road - not looking - I shouted, some stopped, some moved, others back tracked - I swerved to the wrong side of the road (no cars fortunately) - same stretch months later, a small group of chav's started crossing, shouted a warning, 3 stopped, one 'made a fist' and attempted to hit me.... I've also followed a Discovery that had to do an emergency stop because of kids playing chicken on the way home from School.... same road.

Without knowing the exact circumstances in this case, it's difficult to pin blame - a tradgedy. Bunch of kids drinking, slightly hazy memory, 2 cans of Stella....not good.


----------



## Mr Pig (8 Jul 2008)

User said:


> I have to agree that the reporting sounds sensationalist...as the story just doesn't seem to add up.



I totally agree. I've been in this situation a few times and I'll bet this one was similar. 

Bunch of kids with a drink in them out larking about see a cyclist coming and taunt him. Walking about on the road shouting at him, I've had them sticking their arms out to try and stop me.

Cyclist dosn't want to get stopped by this gang of unruly kids when he has no idea what they might do next so he decides to try and nip past them. He even shoults a warning that he's not stopping, now why would he do that if the kids wern't trying to stop him? Do you shout that you're not stopping at people who are happy to move out of your way? 

The kids are more or less blocking the road so at the last minute he flips onto the pavment hoping to nic past. One of the kids jumps in front of him, perhapse misjudging his speed and momentum, she did contain two cans of lager, and is hit. 

She is knocked over. Odds are not on her side and she smacks her head in the wrong place and the poor kid dies. Only witnesses are her mates, who are now a bunch of angels, as was their dead friend. 

It is tragic that the girl died. We've all larked obout as kids, been a nusance to others, and lived to talk about it but honestly, some of you people are far too judgmental when you don't know the facts. Maybe the guy was a moron blasting along the pavement but there arn't enough facts here for anyone to know that. Probably not even the judge. Sometimes true justice can't be done, but we don't like that do we?


----------



## Mr Pig (8 Jul 2008)

PS. I had a guy walk out in front of me this morning reading a newspaper!


----------



## Absinthe Minded (8 Jul 2008)

liambauckham said:


> "Rhiannon and eight of her friends were walking to a chip shop after drinking beer in a park."
> 
> group of chavs by the sound of it


Well, you sound like a complete w*a*nker, how's that?


----------



## Nigeyy (8 Jul 2008)

Let's face it, not knowing the true facts this could be taken from completely opposite sides of the spectrum.

He *might* have been cycling on the pavement at a high speed, not paying attention, etc, etc and of course he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (I'd still advocate that even though it appears many times it doesn't work the other way when a motor vehicle driver mows down a cyclist, but that's another topic). Or he could have been cycling on the road and decided that a warning was enough and damned if he was going to move over for a group of kids. There's no excuse for either.

or.....

They might have been playing chicken. Theoretically he could have been cycling and slowed down* and gave some space (or not -let's face it, sometimes it's just not a good idea to slow down to 2-3mph when there's a group of teenagers) and one of them shoved their friend in front -or perhaps she did it on purpose or accidentally -we might never know. Of course her friends might not be dependable and objective witnesses here -particularly if one of them did push her (I'm not saying this happened, just taking extreme sides here).

It's a tragedy and I feel for the girl's parents. Hopefully the truth will come out -though that won't bring her back. Before that happens, it's all supposition.

*fyi: a kid I went to school with died when he was drunk and fell backwards and hit his head on a kerb -the cyclist didn't need to be necessarily going fast. That's not to say I'm saying this was the case here, just that you can fall down from walking and still kill yourself.


----------



## Nigeyy (8 Jul 2008)

Aaah, you beat me to it.



Mr Pig said:


> It is tragic that the girl died. We've all larked obout as kids, been a nusance to others, and lived to talk about it but honestly, some of you people are far too judgmental when you don't know the facts. Maybe the guy was a moron blasting along the pavement but there arn't enough facts here for anyone to know that. Probably not even the judge. Sometimes true justice can't be done, but we don't like that do we?


----------



## magnatom (8 Jul 2008)

mickle said:


> .
> 
> And I hate to say it but since few (if any) motorists get ever sent to prison for killing peds why should he? Unless we think that killing someone with a bicycle on the pavement is somehow worse than killing them with a car on the pavement.



However, (taking into account we don't have all the facts), if a car driver was to do what is alleged here, and drove at a group of teenagers, was unwilling to stop or swerve and knocked one over, I think there would be a good chance of that driver going to prison.

However, as has been said by others it would appear that we have no-where near the full story.


----------



## Riding in Circles (8 Jul 2008)

We will be unlikely to ever get the full story, what we will get however is a lot of negative backlash in the press.


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2008)

It's mostly a sad story. It seems difficult for me to read. I agree with Mickle and pinkazz and twentyinch. There just seems too little evidence and calling for manslaughter when he may have been on the road, did shout a warning, acted like a jerk for not slowing down on the road (if he was on it) and this happened. It seems like careless cycling. He could have avoided them but then I've heard of cases that sound similar to this with cars and not so good outcomes and there was no call for manslaughter there. We've all surely heard tragic stories in towns late at night, vigilence is always needed but sometimes they happen anyway .

The speed also seems to be a red herring. Unless there's video evidence of it there's little to conclude either way. Motorists regularly underestimate speeds of bikes and pedestrians overestimate them. Moreover any other motor vehicle would have been doing a much higher speed and have many times the kinetic energy so it seems a red herring to me, it's just trying to dress that up as a "dangerous speed" to get the conviction and then perhaps linking it with being on the pavement for dramatic effect.

Peds can also say funny things about pavements. I had a mate who got into several arguments with people when he's had to slow down and giveway to approach driveways and other rights off way and had peds going on about he's been pavement cycling and trying to knock them over. People will sometimes say you're pavement cycling to cause trouble. You slow down too much sometimes and they'll have you off their bike, had people try and happy slap before.


----------



## skwerl (8 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> However, (taking into account we don't have all the facts), if a car driver was to do what is alleged here, and drove at a group of teenagers, was unwilling to stop or swerve and knocked one over, I think there would be a good chance of that driver going to prison.
> 
> However, as has been said by others it would appear that we have no-where near the full story.



but then a car driver doesn't risk a mugging, beating, etc. if he stops in his car so it's failry safe for him to do so.
Playing chicken is one thing but stopping cyclists so they can assualt them is another. How do you know what's going to happen next.
imagine if the story was about a guy who got dragged off his bike and stabbed - "Why did he stop when he saw a group of teenagers trying to block his path?" would no doubt be the response from a lot of people.


----------



## Keith Oates (8 Jul 2008)

It seems to me that there are too many 'ifs' and 'buts' in the news report, best to leave the courts sort it out and then comment when (hopefully) the true story is known!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## magnatom (8 Jul 2008)

skwerl said:


> but then a car driver doesn't risk a mugging, beating, etc. if he stops in his car so it's failry safe for him to do so.
> Playing chicken is one thing but stopping cyclists so they can assualt them is another. How do you know what's going to happen next.
> imagine if the story was about a guy who got dragged off his bike and stabbed - "Why did he stop when he saw a group of teenagers trying to block his path?" would no doubt be the response from a lot of people.



True, but if he truly feared for his safety, I am sure he could have moved out further onto the road (if he was on the road) or stopped and taken another route. There is no situation where I would ride at a group of pedestrians as I know that both they and I could be seriously hurt in a collision.

Anyway, we do not know if the group had any intent, it would appear that we are not even sure of exactly where the cyclist was (the speed does appear to be confirmed by cctv according to one article). When I initially mentioned manslaughter, I was not suggesting he was guilty of it, I was just surprised (based on the limited information we had) that it had not been considered.


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2008)

Sorry magnatom but I just don't agree. The CCTV said 17-23mph. Complaining about 17mph on a road just seems sensationalist to me. If it were another form of transport they'd be saying at this trial I saw a group messing about in the road, I was driving very slowly at about 20mph and praising them for that and just when I saw them move out of the way one of them stepped out into the road.

P.S. Perhaps manslaugter was considered, but from the very hazy picture I think it seems reasonable to instantly dismiss it.


----------



## LLB (8 Jul 2008)

Just to add a bit of balance to this story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7495025.stm


----------



## Twenty Inch (8 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> We will be unlikely to ever get the full story, what we will get however is a lot of negative backlash in the press.



To which the response is: "Yes, it's really sad, but 3000 people get killed and 25,000 people get injured by cars every year."


----------



## gavintc (8 Jul 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Just to add a bit of balance to this story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7495025.stm




Balance ??? 

A nutter killls a woman with a car - connection with this story? oh yes someone died.


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2008)

Perspective.

Linf's got a point as both will be depicted as maniacs.


----------



## magnatom (8 Jul 2008)

marinyork said:


> Sorry magnatom but I just don't agree. The CCTV said 17-23mph. Complaining about 17mph on a road just seems sensationalist to me. If it were another form of transport they'd be saying at this trial I saw a group messing about in the road, I was driving very slowly at about 20mph and praising them for that and just when I saw them move out of the way one of them stepped out into the road.
> 
> P.S. Perhaps manslaugter was considered, but from the very hazy picture I think it seems reasonable to instantly dismiss it.




Umm, I never suggested that 17-23mph on the road was dangerous! I often cycle at that speed myself! However, it is still unclear (as I stated) if the cyclist was on the road or not. Would you agree that 17-23mph is crazy on a pavement (if that is what happened)?


----------



## LLB (8 Jul 2008)

gavintc said:


> Balance ???
> 
> A nutter killls a woman with a car - connection with this story? oh yes someone died.



The assertion is that both vehicles were used as weapons against pedestrians. Both unacceptable, both deserve a substantial custodial sentence.


----------



## skwerl (8 Jul 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> The assertion is that both vehicles were used as weapons against pedestrians. Both unacceptable, both deserve a substantial custodial sentence.



you don't know that. Another case of blatant assumption based on little or no fact.
And that goes for both stories. The car one just mentions someone was hit. yes it was a hit and run, which is clearly bad but it doesn't give any more details. the tagline of 'deliberate' in quotes = made up by BBC or quoted by a witness who isn't in a position to say so.


----------



## magnatom (8 Jul 2008)

User said:


> Just a point of clarification. Normal CCTV can't actually say what speed you were doing and most speed cameras don't/can't register bicycle speeds (due to lack of mass to trigger the sensors).
> 
> The speed is most likely to have been estimated by a traffic officer attending the scene of the accident, perhaps using time elapsed between CCTV images. Not a totally accurate method of measurement.
> 
> I'm not having a go at anyone - just a reflection on the poor standards of reporting.



I agree, but by referencing points in CCTV footage you can get an idea of speed. This is why the speed is quoted as 17-23mph.

I did something similar once to prove a bus was traveling well over a 30mph speed limit. It certainly has large error bars but it does provide a range.


----------



## ChrisKH (8 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Umm, I never suggested that 17-23mph on the road was dangerous! I often cycle at that speed myself! However, it is still unclear (as I stated) if the cyclist was on the road or not. Would you agree that 17-23mph is crazy on a pavement (if that is what happened)?



My first thought on reading one of the witnesses statements was how difficult it was to do 20mph on the roads, let alone the pavement. Her perception of the cyclists speed just didn't tally with reality. Regardless, you can hit someone at 10mph and if they hit their head they can still die.


----------



## dodgy (8 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I totally agree. I've been in this situation a few times and I'll bet this one was similar.
> 
> Bunch of kids with a drink in them out larking about see a cyclist coming and taunt him. Walking about on the road shouting at him, I've had them sticking their arms out to try and stop me.
> 
> ...




I'd be willing to bet money that that ^^^ is a pretty accurate reflection of what actually happened.

Dave.


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Umm, I never suggested that 17-23mph on the road was dangerous! I often cycle at that speed myself! However, it is still unclear (as I stated) if the cyclist was on the road or not. Would you agree that 17-23mph is crazy on a pavement (if that is what happened)?



I know you didn't but at least one of the articles did (telegraph did) choosing some of its opening remarks to do so. 

17mph on the pavement is crazy. Whether drunk or not at a lower speed than that could have knocked someone vurnerable over and head hits the wrong place lead to serious injury or death. For me in particular the telegraph just tries to bring 3 strands together - the speed, possible link to the pavement and the not slowing down. What I don't like is the implication that the speed is dangerous or turning a warning (that may have been given in good faith or a worry about the gang) and turn it into a sign of mania or even that they did it intentionally. That a warning was given seems not in dispute. Bad judgement still seems to have occured though.


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2008)

User said:


> Just a point of clarification. Normal CCTV can't actually say what speed you were doing and most speed cameras don't/can't register bicycle speeds (due to lack of mass to trigger the sensors).
> 
> The speed is most likely to have been estimated by a traffic officer attending the scene of the accident, perhaps using time elapsed between CCTV images. Not a totally accurate method of measurement.
> 
> I'm not having a go at anyone - just a reflection on the poor standards of reporting.



I agree. It seems self evident to me. I remember the case of a milk float once arguing about it's speed using sequential frames from CCTV. All I'm saying is even if we agree on a speed, the impression given in the telegraph is that even on a road, that speed is dangerous. That seems to be innacurate, negligent bordering on malicious reporting.


----------



## Riding in Circles (8 Jul 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> To which the response is: "Yes, it's really sad, but 3000 people get killed and 25,000 people get injured by cars every year."



So people are used to it, the fact that this is a rare occurrence is why it will get the press and why the backlash will be large. When someone gets killed by a car it's normal everyday, such is life nothing can be done, one person killed by a bicycle, rare and we will see people calling for cycles to be banned.

Don't expect sense to prevail, although it will still be forgotten within 3 months.


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2008)

Well I suppose! It has been pointed out elsewhere in the same issue we'll all become sterile from cycling!


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jul 2008)

User said:


> Doesn't bother me! It's not as if I want kids....



That's evolution in action that is... 


_Sorry..._


----------



## jely (8 Jul 2008)

User said:


> Doesn't bother me! It's not as if I want kids....



then i guess you won't be sitting upright in the saddle ... gee, that's a surprise.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jul 2008)

User said:


> Say's the man who ride a recumbent....



LOL, pity that doesn't quite work. Not only are they safer than uprights, but they don't burdizzo your how's your fathers!


----------



## hackbike 6 (8 Jul 2008)

BentMichael isn't


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jul 2008)

*shuts up quick*


_ACtually I rather like that photo..._


----------



## Riding in Circles (8 Jul 2008)

User said:


> I was thinking more along the line of the silly comments of "Oi mate, I almost didn't see you", of which bent riders are so often the recipients...



As opposed to wedgie riders who get "SMIDSY", which would you prefer? Almost didn't see you or didn't see you at all?

I have never had anyone say "almost didn't see you", I have had a few conversations with drivers at lights saying, "don't you worry about people not seeing you?", I ask them if they saw me and they say "that's true", the ones that pull out in front of me are the same ones that pull out in front of trucks or speeding ambulances.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jul 2008)

LOL! Not to worry Catrike, I'm sure you didn't know that the User and I are mates, we just like taking the mickey out of each other. (Oooeeer Mr!).


----------



## hackbike 6 (8 Jul 2008)

Hi BM.


----------



## Riding in Circles (8 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> LOL! Not to worry Catrike, I'm sure you didn't know that the User and I are mates, we just like taking the mickey out of each other. (Oooeeer Mr!).



There is an inappropriate joke there somewhere.


----------



## Mr Pig (8 Jul 2008)

marinyork said:


> Motorists regularly underestimate speeds of bikes and pedestrians overestimate them.



They are indeed both hopeless at judging the speed of a bicycle. Riding home tonight, after the guy walking out in front of me reading his paper this morning, a woman overtook me then pulled in right in front of me to pick someone up! I had to brake to avoid running into the back of her car as there was too much traffic behind for me to pull out. 

I tapped oh her window and said "excuse me but do you realise that I you stopped right in front of me and I almost ran into the back of you?". She said "I did see you and you were quite far back". I just left it at that but she obviously didn't realise that I was doing nearly twenty-miles-an-hour. 

Few car drivers would overtake another car then pull in right in front of it but they seem to make the assumption that once a bike is behind them it moving too slowly to need further consideration. 

I hate commuting on a bike! :0(


----------



## Jaded (8 Jul 2008)

Given that bikes on a road can be going anything from about 8mph to 30 plus, I don't find it odd at all that drivers find it difficult to judge speed.


----------



## Mr Pig (8 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> I don't find it odd at all that drivers find it difficult to judge speed.



Cars can cover a far greater speed range than bikes but it's still the responsibility of other road users to judge their speed accurately.


----------



## Jaded (8 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> Cars can cover a far greater speed range than bikes but it's still the responsibility of other road users to judge their speed accurately.



Not on urban roads they don't. Bikes have a far greater range.


----------



## domtyler (8 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> Not on urban roads they don't. Bikes have a far greater range.



LOL, no they don't. A car can be going anything from from 1mph to 50mph or even more, even a twenty limit. A bike has a much small range than this.


----------



## Jaded (8 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> LOL, no they don't. A car can be going anything from from 1mph to 50mph or even more, even a twenty limit. A bike has a much small range than this.



Have you ever been on a road? Have you ever observed traffic?


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> Have you ever been on a road? Have you ever observed traffic?



Dom's right. There's large variability in driving styles and speeds. 

Anyway, I meant cars underestimating cyclists speeds as a general principle rather than a discussion about why they do it. As for left hand chops, perhaps it is difficult in some circumstances to guage the speed but whenever I've had it done to me as a ped, on a bike or in a car it's been sheer bloody impatience that seems the likely culprit.


----------



## Jaded (8 Jul 2008)

marinyork said:


> Dom's right. There's large variability in driving styles and speeds.



I'm sorry, but dom is wrong. He is trying to make a point because he wants to argue with me. 

In urban areas cars generally travel at roughly the same speed as others around them. Go out and watch. 

Bikes do not. You get wonderfully slow matrons with cadence around 20 travelling so slowly you think they may fall over, and you get racing snakes going above the motor vehicle speed limit. That's why drivers are (to quote Mr Pig) "hopeless at judging the speed of a bicycle".

For many drivers a quick glance up; see a cyclist; which is it? Matron or Merx?

Do you feel lucky punk?


----------



## goo_mason (8 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> In urban areas cars generally travel at roughly the same speed as others around them. Go out and watch.



I'd agree there, but there's also the situation where suddenly there's less traffic, the road ahead seems empty as far as they can see to the next bend and the speed-merchants in their Subaru Imprezas and wee boys in their tarted-up Corsas suddenly decide they can drive like Michael bloody Schumacher as the road is now theirs and it's clear. Ooops - except for the cyclist and who cares if we brush their elbow at silly speeds because they have no right to be there.

In built-up areas though, the traffic is all generally going at the same rate as there's no room to speed up or slow down dramatically because they're nose-to-tail at around 30mph.


----------



## Mr Pig (8 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> In urban areas cars generally travel at roughly the same speed as others around them.



I think you'll find that they're still covering a wider speed range than bikes. Easily. Only in congested streets do cars clump together. 

The road outside my house is a thirty limit. I'd say the average speed along it is forty, maybe ten percent do fifty to sixty and on a Friday/Saturday night when the road is quiet and the noobs are out I reckon some of them hit the ton! I sometimes wonder how they slow down in time for the 'S' bend under the bridge at the end.

Anyway, who cares. Car drivers should not cut-up cyclists, end of. If they can't judge the speed of a bike it's because they're too selfish to bother learning.


----------



## Riding in Circles (8 Jul 2008)

Well he was found guilty and fined £2200.


----------



## mickle (8 Jul 2008)

Guilty of what?


----------



## Jaded (8 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I think you'll find that they're still covering a wider speed range than bikes. Easily. Only in congested streets do cars clump together.
> 
> The road outside my house is a thirty limit. I'd say the average speed along it is forty, maybe ten percent do fifty to sixty and on a Friday/Saturday night when the road is quiet and the noobs are out I reckon some of them hit the ton! I sometimes wonder how they slow down in time for the 'S' bend under the bridge at the end.



I take it that you think your road is a fairly representative urban road then?




Mr Pig said:


> Anyway, who cares. Car drivers should not cut-up cyclists, end of. If they can't judge the speed of a bike it's because they're too selfish to bother learning.




No, it is quite possibly because they actually have difficulty in judging someone's speed.


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2008)

Similarity or difference? I see differences in speed and style rather than similarity. Anyway we seem to agree there's a problem in judging speeds. I'd rather they exercise a bit more caution and patience if what Jaded said is true.


----------



## Jaded (8 Jul 2008)

marinyork said:


> Anyway we seem to agree there's a problem in judging speeds. I'd rather they exercise a bit more caution and patience if what Jaded said is true.



Yes.

I cycle whilst under the assumption that every other person is out to kill me. That way I'm pleasantly surprised quite often.


----------



## Mr Pig (8 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> It is quite possibly because they actually have difficulty in judging someone's speed.



So they're really well qualified to drive a motor vehicle then?! I don't care 'why' they can't judge the speed of a bike. The point is that if they're going to drive on public roads they should be able to, don't you think? Whatever kind of road it is?

If someone smacks into the back of a motorway traffic jam and kills three people do you think the judge will let him off because his lawyer says 'Well he's not very good at judging stopping distances, bless'? Nope, because if you drive a car it's something you are supposed to be able to do.


----------



## Jaded (8 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig, you obviously know little about the science of human perception.


----------



## Riding in Circles (9 Jul 2008)

mickle said:


> Guilty of what?



Dangerous cycling. Still no real reports on what happened though, seems to be a lot of conflict in the statements of the eye witnesses.

The family are not happy with the verdict.

BBC News report


----------



## dantheman (9 Jul 2008)

as said, we dont have all the facts, its obviously a terrible accident, as otherwise he wouldnt have stopped..

however, she supposedly was with 8 friends, yet only 1 of friends side put across in these articles, and at 17 you dont really have that much experience of alcohol, and it seems to do more due to your body not being as used to it. the articles also do not tell you how much the friend(s) had been drinking, so we dont know their reaction times etc, i remember drinking over 17 pints, and some shorts when about 17/18 on a pub crawl- and i remember being "absolutely fine" at the end..- at the end of the day, i couldnt have been.. 2 pints of stella is way over the driving limit, accepted, she wasnt driving, but she also wasnt "absolutely fine"
the second article mentions the cyclist caught on cctv, admittedly we dont know if thats right, or if it was the collision or not that was caught, but this may have something to do with "only" the fine..
we have all probably seen kids act like twats playing chicken with us, especially in groups, especially after drinking, and yes, after any youngster dies, they are always noted as being "a little angel who wouldnt hurt a fly/do anything wrong to anyone" - not saying that she was bad, but a lot of them are...


----------



## mickle (9 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Dangerous cycling. Still no real reports on what happened though, seems to be a lot of conflict in the statements of the eye witnesses.
> 
> The family are not happy with the verdict.
> 
> BBC News report



Dangerous cycling? I don't recall ever hearing of anyone being convicted of dangerous cycling, wonder if it's a first.


----------



## Riding in Circles (9 Jul 2008)

User said:


> Interesting that the police spokesman says it is unclear whether she was on the road or pavement.
> 
> It'll be interesting whether this goes to appeal. I reckon it will.



I imagine the cyclist will just want it over with and will accept it and move on, I imagine I would, it cannot be good knowing that a girl is dead.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Jul 2008)

Blimey. Would we have had nine pages of debate about how it might have been the pedestrian's fault if he'd been riding a motorbike or driving a car, I wonder?


----------



## Mr Pig (9 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> The family are not happy with the verdict



Are they ever?


----------



## Riding in Circles (9 Jul 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Blimey. Would we have had nine pages of debate about how it might have been the pedestrian's fault if he'd been riding a motorbike or driving a car, I wonder?



This is a cycling forum, did you notice?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Jul 2008)

Yes, I understand that. My point was that had he been driving a car, we'd have all been shouting for him to be strung up by the bottom of the first page. (Well, maybe not all of us, but certainly the excitable minority.) As it is, lots of us are saying things like "well, perhaps she was playing chicken with him and she'd had two cans of Stella so she must have been incapable of even standing up and anyway she was a chav so perhaps it wasn't really the cyclist's fault after all." It's just not something we'd have done had a motorised vehicle been involved.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jul 2008)

mickle said:


> Dangerous cycling? I don't recall ever hearing of anyone being convicted of dangerous cycling, wonder if it's a first.




It used to be known as "reckless cycling" but it was changed to "dangerous cycling" in the 1991 RTA. The Court can reduce the offence to "careless cycling" at its discretion.

The cyclist was found guilty - and rightly so in my opinion.


----------



## Riding in Circles (9 Jul 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Yes, I understand that. My point was that had he been driving a car, we'd have all been shouting for him to be strung up by the bottom of the first page. (Well, maybe not all of us, but certainly the excitable minority.) As it is, lots of us are saying things like "well, perhaps she was playing chicken with him and she'd had two cans of Stella so she must have been incapable of even standing up and anyway she was a chav so perhaps it wasn't really the cyclist's fault after all." It's just not something we'd have done had a motorised vehicle been involved.



I think the general tone of the thread is that it is a tragedy and the details are a bit sketchy, at the end of the day the only person who could say if she stepped in front of the cyclist deliberately or not is now dead, any speculation beyond that will always just be speculation.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (9 Jul 2008)

And now cyclists will have to live with this case as it will constantly be referred to whenever we are deemed to be reckless.

The cyclist in the case seemed to be a arrogant twunt, he could have steered well clear but decided not to. I did a similar thing once whilst out running. A group of teens were walking towards me, blocking the pavement. I could have stepped off the pavement and gone around but barged through them instead, knocking into one girl quite heavily. I regret that action to this day. It was a nasty and unecessary thing to do.


----------



## Jaded (9 Jul 2008)

More than twice the fine given the the van driver that killed a cyclist on the Dun Run.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> More than twice the fine given the the van driver that killed a cyclist on the Dun Run.



Were the circumstances similar in any way?


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

He certainly does seem to have been an "arrogant and vile little man" though, I think they got that right. Can you imagine shouting "Get out of the way 'cos I'm not stopping" at a group of young kids and then ploughing straight into them?


----------



## Twenty Inch (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> More than twice the fine given the the van driver that killed a cyclist on the Dun Run.



Christ I remember that. He was drunk and on the wrong side of the road by all accounts. The driver that is.

Interesting comparison - it shows the inherent bias in the justice system.


----------



## Jaded (9 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> He certainly does seem to have been an "arrogant and vile little man" though, I think they got that right. Can you imagine shouting "Get out of the way 'cos I'm not stopping" at a group of young kids and then ploughing straight into them?



I read that he stopped and administered CPR. That's pretty vile and arrogant, isn't it.

What would you shout to a bunch of youths in the road? Something like "I'm not going to stop" which might be interpreted differently?


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> I read that he stopped and administered CPR. That's pretty vile and arrogant, isn't it.
> 
> What would you shout to a bunch of youths in the road? Something like "I'm not going to stop" which might be interpreted differently?



The fact that he stopped only goes to show that he knew he had done some serious harm to a young girl simply as he couldn't be arsed to stop. You can't change the fact that he deliberately ploughed into a group of kids killing one of them in cold blood. You can call that what you like but in my book he is getting away pretty damn likely being described as arrogant and vile.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> I read that he stopped and administered CPR. That's pretty vile and arrogant, isn't it.



It strikes me as the least he could do, having just ridden into one of them and injured her badly enough to kill her.



> What would you shout to a bunch of youths in the road? Something like "I'm not going to stop" which might be interpreted differently?



I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but I would probably not shout anything at them. Or if I did, I'd be prepared to either stop or go around them. I certainly wouldn't just ride into them at full welly. (If indeed that is what happened - I agree that we don't know all the facts of this case. Although, of course, that applies to all cases commented on on this forum.)


----------



## Jaded (9 Jul 2008)

domtyler:

What would you shout? (You never answered that one)
Have you ever felt threatened by a group of youths at thre roadside?
Would you stop if you thought you'd get a hammering?
Were you there?
How many witnesses were there for the prosecution and how many for the defence?


----------



## caesar (9 Jul 2008)

*You can't change the fact that he deliberately ploughed into a group of kids killing one of them in cold blood. 

*Is this a fact though? Has anyone heard his side of the story?


----------



## Origamist (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> I read that he stopped and administered CPR. That's pretty vile and arrogant, isn't it.
> 
> What would you shout to a bunch of youths in the road? Something like "I'm not going to stop" which might be interpreted differently?




He did help the victim after the crash, that's why he was not fined the full amount. 

However, he should have braked and steered around the group, not try and cut through a narrow gap near the kerb. According to the judge: 

"You had ample opportunity to greatly reduce your speed. You had oceans of room to avoid any possible contact between you and any of the group."


----------



## Jaded (9 Jul 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Or if I did, I'd be prepared to either stop or go around them. I certainly wouldn't just ride into them at full welly.



I've read a few comments on threads about riding at night when there are youths out and about - e.g. at closing time, and one response from the riders has been to carry on, and to shout that they are carrying on. 

Would you stop everywhere? What if it's a rough part of town? What if you couldn't go round? 

A terrible thing has happened and the girl's family are rightly very upset. 

domtyler's agreement with the 'vile and arrogant' comment is simply him being a tabloid junkie. I thought he was a better person that that.


----------



## Jaded (9 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> He did help the victim after the crash, that's why he was not fined the full amount.
> 
> However, he should have braked and steered around the group, *not try and cut through a narrow gap near the kerb*. According to the judge:
> 
> "You had ample opportunity to greatly reduce your speed. You had oceans of room to avoid any possible contact between you and any of the group."



So there were kids in the road then? Where in the road? Was it on CCTV?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Jul 2008)

Hmmmm, OK, some fair points there. However, if they were too scary for him to stop before he rode into one of them, how was it that they weren't scary afterwards when he stopped to give CPR? You'd have thought he'd have been frightened of being lynched by them.


----------



## Riding in Circles (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> So there were kids in the road then? Where in the road? Was it on CCTV?



Yes it was on CCTV according to the news report, if he had felt threatened he would not have tried to make a gap, he would have steered wide of them don't you think?


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

caesar said:


> *You can't change the fact that he deliberately ploughed into a group of kids killing one of them in cold blood.
> 
> *Is this a fact though? Has anyone heard his side of the story?



Hi Caesar, it is a key piece of evidence that the 'cyclist' shouted at the group of kids to "Get out of the way 'cos I'm not stopping".


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (9 Jul 2008)

caesar said:


> *You can't change the fact that he deliberately ploughed into a group of kids killing one of them in cold blood. *
> 
> Is this a fact though? Has anyone heard his side of the story?




Presumably the court did and found him guilty.


----------



## dondare (9 Jul 2008)

My experience is that you can't avoid pedestrians crossing the road by riding round them, they just keep moving until you're all on the other side and they're still in your way. So you have to slow down, perhaps stop, and wait. But if they're larking about, playing chicken or intent on making you stop in order to nick your bike (as anyone who reads the tabloids would expect "feral youths" to behave after a few Stellas) then this isn't an option. 
The reasons for the kids being in the road and the reasons for the cyclist not stopping do not seem to have been covered, this could be anything from manslaughter to self defence.


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> I've read a few comments on threads about riding at night when there are youths out and about - e.g. at closing time, and one response from the riders has been to carry on, and to shout that they are carrying on.
> 
> Would you stop everywhere? What if it's a rough part of town? What if you couldn't go round?
> 
> ...



I feel a little outraged when I hear of motorists getting away scot free with killing innocent people on the roads, on this occasion a cyclist has clearly behaved in an appalling way on the roads resulting in a young girls death, bringing shame and derision in the whole of the cycling fraternity and I feel a little outraged at the paltry sentence. You defend him if you wish, that is you and you probably wont change.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> So there were kids in the road then? Where in the road? Was it on CCTV?



He admitted this in his own testimony - that there were kids in the road. He did not expect the girl to try and get back to the kerb after his warning shout.

He said:

"After calling someone and not moving or walking further right, I didn’t think they had any intention of getting back to the path."


----------



## Origamist (9 Jul 2008)

User said:


> I will be interested to see if this goes to appeal and in some ways I hope that it does. I think there are some important issues that need to be addressed, in particular about cyclists and speed.
> 
> *One thing that surprised me about this case (though on reflection I shouldn't be surprised) is that the police, CPS and court seemed to find it difficult to believe that a cyclist can do 20+mph.* I routinely do so such speeds on my commute, where the road is relatively clear (e.g. along the Mall). If this judgement stands, will it be used to condemn me? Yes, I know it's not precedent setting but that won't sop people from trying to use it.
> 
> Also, as a matter of interest, I wonder whether the district judge was a cyclist?



I think the Court were more surprised that he did not moderate his speed when confronted with peds in the road.


----------



## Jaded (9 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> I feel a little outraged when I hear of motorists getting away scot free with killing innocent people on the roads, on this occasion *a cyclist has clearly behaved in an appalling way* on the roads resulting in a young girls death, bringing shame and derision in the whole of the cycling fraternity and I feel a little outraged at the paltry sentence. You defend him if you wish, that is you and you probably wont change.



Your words.

Were you there? How can you be sure it is so clear?

Tabloid junkie.


----------



## Jaded (9 Jul 2008)

dondare said:


> The reasons for the kids being in the road and the reasons for the cyclist not stopping do not seem to have been covered, this could be anything from manslaughter to self defence.



Unfortunately a possible lead up to the events that domtyler's blinkers make him unable to see.


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

When this person was a couple of feet away from hitting the girl there is only one speed he should have been going and that is zero - a fact.


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> Your words.
> 
> Were you there? How can you be sure it is so clear?
> 
> Tabloid junkie.



He killed an innocent person because he couldn't be fucked to slow down or alter his course. By most peoples definition that is appalling behaviour, by your definition killing people is clearly no big deal.


----------



## jely (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> Your words.
> 
> Were you there? How can you be sure it is so clear?
> 
> Tabloid junkie.



i don't think there's any need for name calling (as such)... everyone is allowed to have their opinion and feel how they want. I know that I feel sorry for all parties involved. Howard *might* be vile and arrogant, he *might not* be... but now he has to live with the knowledge of killing someone for the rest of his life. She *might *or *might not* have been a little angel, but we'll never know. We can all speculate but that's all we can do...


----------



## Jaded (9 Jul 2008)

jely, I agree, however my comments are entirely down to dom's assertion that the cyclist is a vile and arrogant man.


----------



## marinyork (9 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> I think the Court were more surprised that he did not moderate his speed when confronted with peds in the road.



Are you for real? We don't know that he didn't moderate his speed. Anyway if a car had been doing 20mph like I said before we'd all be saying how slow it was going and how careful they were unlike rhythym thief's claims otherwise.

A warning was shouted, that is not disputed. You can read this in two possible positive lights - that he meant the warning in good faith or that they were larking around and he felt threatened. Either way that's very different from the twisted use of the warning to depict him as a maniac. Something went wrong somewhere but I feel the warning actually decreases his responsibility. The speed issue on the road is really a red herring and being used to bamboozle the court who are not familiar with road cycling.


----------



## magnatom (9 Jul 2008)

Blimey! The last 7 pages seem to have appeared quickly. I'm not reading through all of that. Anyone care to save me time and summarise?


----------



## Origamist (9 Jul 2008)

User said:


> Where is the evidence that he didn't moderate his speed?
> 
> Don't forget, a judge's summing up is his view of the case - not necessarily a recitation of fact.





marinyork said:


> Are you for real? We don't know that he didn't moderate his speed.



He shouted: "move, because I'm not stopping" - doesn't sound like he was too interested in slowing down. His speed, estimated at between 17mph - 23mph also suggest this. 

What's more: 

"The defendant admitted, when interviewed, that he could have braked or stopped when he first became aware of the pedestrians."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topsto...ist-killed-our-beautiful-girl-89520-20635650/

He chose to bisect a group of kids on the road at speed - it was the wrong choice, IMO.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (9 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> He killed an innocent person because he couldn't be fucked to slow down or alter his course. By most peoples definition that is appalling behaviour, by your definition killing people is clearly no big deal.




That's how I read it.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jul 2008)

marinyork said:


> Are you for real? We don't know that he didn't moderate his speed. Anyway if a car had been doing 20mph like I said before we'd all be saying how slow it was going and how careful they were unlike rhythym thief's claims otherwise.
> 
> A warning was shouted, that is not disputed. You can read this in two possible positive lights - that he meant the warning in good faith or that they were larking around and he felt threatened. Either way that's very different from the twisted use of the warning to depict him as a maniac. Something went wrong somewhere but I feel the warning actually decreases his responsibility. The speed issue on the road is really a red herring and being used to bamboozle the court who are not familiar with road cycling.



You sound like a SafeSpeeder - do you not think impact speed is important in collisions?


----------



## CopperBrompton (9 Jul 2008)

And here's the proof of the stupidity of the recent CTC statement: it has now been linked to this case

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk?articleid=4268523

Ben


----------



## marinyork (9 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> You sound like a SafeSpeeder - do you not think impact speed is important in collisions?



Not really in this case. They could have been doing 10mph and killed them. Someone could have been jogging along and barged past and killed them. I've already said that perhaps the charge of careless cycling is appropriate as he may have done something wrong, just the way in which speed was described and used in this case and the same with the warning really gets my wick.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jul 2008)

marinyork said:


> Not really in this case. They could have been doing 10mph and killed them. Someone could have been jogging along and barged past and killed them. I've already said that perhaps the charge of careless cycling is appropriate as he may have done something wrong, just the way in which speed was described and used in this case and the same with the warning really gets my wick.



I'd rather collide with a cyclist doing 10mph, than 20mph. 

Lower speed impacts are *usually *less serious - do you disagree?


----------



## Riding in Circles (9 Jul 2008)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> And here's the proof of the stupidity of the recent CTC statement: it has now been linked to this case
> 
> http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk?articleid=4268523
> 
> Ben



And so it begins.


----------



## marinyork (9 Jul 2008)

See my other posts.


----------



## dondare (9 Jul 2008)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> And here's the proof of the stupidity of the recent CTC statement: it has now been linked to this case
> 
> http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk?articleid=4268523
> 
> Ben



Given as "Background".



Hard to see any relevance at all between the CTC statement (which I disagree with) and this incident. 

A more sympathetic paper might have found some stories about attacks on lone cyclists by gangs of teenagers for "Background".


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> And here's the proof of the stupidity of the recent CTC statement: it has now been linked to this case
> 
> http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk?articleid=4268523
> 
> Ben



Sorry Ben but that comment is as stupid as the level of journalism in this case has been low. One dumb bastard on a bike does not mean that cycling is any more or less safe or change the numbers of largely innocent people who are killed by idiots in motor vehicles every day of the year.


----------



## gavintc (9 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> Sorry Ben but that comment is as stupid as the level of journalism in this case has been low. One dumb bastard on a bike does not mean that cycling is any more or less safe or change the numbers of largely innocent people who are killed by idiots in motor vehicles every day of the year.



Completely agree.


----------



## cupoftea (9 Jul 2008)

I afraid that without all the facts you have to trust the CPS and the inquest that viewed the incident as an accident.

Would I cycle at 17mph through a group of girls on the pavement, probably not, however he did stop after the accident and give first aid, he did'nt just ride off, he took responsiblity and I imagine he belives it wasn't his fault.

I feel sorry for her family at this difficult time

RIP


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

cupoftea said:


> I afraid that without all the facts you have to trust the CPS and the inquest that viewed the incident as an accident.
> 
> Would I cycle at 17mph through a group of girls on the pavement, probably not, however he did stop after the accident and give first aid, he did'nt just ride off, he took responsiblity and I imagine he belives it wasn't his fault.
> 
> ...



No, they found the cyclist guilty of dangerous cycling.


----------



## jely (9 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> jely, I agree, however my comments are entirely down to dom's assertion that the cyclist is a vile and arrogant man.



i know... and i agree just because he shouted out at that particular time, it does not necessarily make him a vile and arrogant man (regardless of what the father says too)

I consider myself a polite person the majority of the time but there have been times that I've ridden into work and done some serious swearing at someone who steps off the curb in front of me... and i have no doubt they would have gone back to their office and called me a vile and arrogant girl... which i consider myself not.

Saying that though, I know I'd never cycle into a group of people.


----------



## Mr Pig (9 Jul 2008)

I've been in situations where I've sped up passing peds. 

There are areas of the cycle track popular with neds who stand drinking then smash the bottles on the track. I've had run-ins with these morons before. If they stop you they will try to take money off you, try to take the bike or other items off you or just plain threaten you for the fun. I've been threatened by a guy who wanted money, shoving his face into mine saying he was going to hammer me, in the middle of Airdrie main street on a Saturday afternoon! These people are nasty.

On the bike I've has stones and a can of lager thrown at me, the stones were from thirty-foot up and could've killed one of us. If I pass a bunch of neds on the cycle track I'm very sorry but I'm not stopping either! I'll tuck into the same side of the track as them and hope I can be on them before they realise I'm coming and think of something to do. It usually works but I've had them try to grab me as I pass. 

Maybe this guy was arogant. Maybe he was just scared.


----------



## caesar (9 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I've been in situations where I've sped up passing peds.
> 
> There are areas of the cycle track popular with neds who stand drinking then smash the bottles on the track. I've had run-ins with these morons before. If they stop you they will try to take money off you, try to take the bike or other items off you or just plain threaten you for the fun. I've been threatened by a guy who wanted money, shoving his face into mine saying he was going to hammer me, in the middle of Airdrie main street on a Saturday afternoon! These people are nasty.
> 
> ...



I thought that at first, but as someone said earlier, if he was scared, would he have stopped having hit one of them, or would he have carried on and 'phoned an ambulance from a safe distance away? I suppose it's possible that he was scared to start with but then realised after he hit her that they were younger or less scary than he thought, but if I was in the same position, I'd hang back and wait for them to finish crossing, or if they were just walking along, until the road cleared so I could ride past at speed with plenty of clearance.


----------



## small fish (9 Jul 2008)

When I've been scared of a group of teenagers I've give them as wide a berth as possible - not ridden through a the midle of them giving them opportunity to grab or push me. 

I have to say that from all the accounts I've read the guy sounds like he was guilty as charged and lucky not to have been charged with manslaughter.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jul 2008)

Backlash continues apace:

"Cyclists 'don't obey road laws'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7497432.stm


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (9 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> Backlash continues apace:
> 
> "Cyclists 'don't obey road laws'"
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7497432.stm




Can't wait to read the intelligent, well-informed responses to this piece. Have you visited commentator Hugh Bladen's Association of British Driver's web site?

It's a doozie: http://www.abd.org.uk/


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

It's a shame that this selfish c*** has done more to put back the cause of cycling than a million red light jumpers.


----------



## jely (9 Jul 2008)

i'm sorry but they're not far wrong. i apologised to a lady the other day for some tw@ jumping a pedestrian red light ... she smiled and thanked me for apologising but it's tw@s like that stupid biddy who gives us a bad name... it's more than just one selfish c***, Dom!

so no, i won't criticise the bbc and a story like that cause there are self-gratification artists out there who do think they have the right to do flout the law.


----------



## tdr1nka (9 Jul 2008)

Grrrrrrrrr. The thing that really winds me up is when a cyclist from another part of the country does something like this and everyone starts barking on about cyclists in London!!

This country is hyped and hate fuelled sooo far up itself thanks to the media.

FFS


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jul 2008)

jely said:


> called me a vile and arrogant girl... which i consider myself not.



Aussie, aren't ya?


_LOL, sorry, just kidding! _


----------



## dondare (9 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> Backlash continues apace:
> 
> "Cyclists 'don't obey road laws'"
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7497432.stm



I've made a couple of contributions, which you may or may not agree with.


----------



## domtyler (9 Jul 2008)

dondare said:


> I've made a couple of contributions, which you may or may not agree with.



Are you going to reproduce them here so we can see them?


----------



## magnatom (9 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> Backlash continues apace:
> 
> "Cyclists 'don't obey road laws'"
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7497432.stm



 I think the CTC were certainly naive with their recent press. However, it has been said now and we can't take it back.

One positive thing (maybe?) is at least people are now talking about the issues. However, what is needed is reasoned argument and discussion not the witch hunting that the press seems to enjoy so much.

I really despair about the UK press......


----------



## tdr1nka (9 Jul 2008)

Second to the death of the girl, the worst thing about all this is the timing.
As the summer hols approach the media hits the silly season and a story like this could run all summer. It even seems to have eclipsed the horrors of the murder of the two French students.

At last the topic of cyclists v motorists has reached the fore but lets hope something else big and positive for a change comes along to stop the witch hunt.


----------



## dondare (9 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> Are you going to reproduce them here so we can see them?




Well, here's one, I don't have a draft of t'other so we'll have to wait and see if they show it.


I've been cycling in London for over 30 years and I've learned to ride legally and safely. Cyclists who ride on the pavement are not only breaking the law and endangering pedestrians but actually face more risk from traffic than those who ride correctly on the road. Think: if the pavements are so safe, how is it that nearly 700 pedestrians get killed each year in traffic accidents? As for red light jumping, a very irresponsible report a few months ago implied that this might be safer than waiting, but I've never seen a cyclist run a red for that reason. The only thing to watch out for here is that you're not to the left of a turning lorry; it's awareness and positioning that keeps you safe, not law-breaking.
A great many cyclists know all this and ride within the law at all times; only no-one ever sees them, people only notice those cyclists who draw attention to themselves by conspicuous bad behaviour.


----------



## dondare (9 Jul 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Second to the death of the girl, the worst thing about all this is the timing.
> As the summer hols approach the media hits the silly season and a story like this could run all summer. It even seems to have eclipsed the horrors of the murder of the two French students.



God help us if their killer owns a bike.


----------



## marinyork (9 Jul 2008)

I hope apart from possible appeal regulator mentioned for specific reasons that it does get changed for some positive news. Having a media circus exploiting and pestering them dragging it out is not good for the family of the dead.


----------



## jely (9 Jul 2008)

jely said:


> called me a vile and arrogant girl... which i consider myself not.





BentMikey said:


> Aussie, aren't ya?
> _LOL, sorry, just kidding! _



damn... you've already met an Aussie before - so i guess i should give up the sweet, innocent act then hey


----------



## Riding in Circles (9 Jul 2008)

jely said:


> damn... you've already met an Aussie before - so i guess i should give up the sweet, innocent act then hey



Sweet and innocent, yeah right. What would be the fun in that?


----------



## Mr Pig (9 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> Backlash continues apace



Getting a little defensive arn't we? That's a fairly balanced article that gives air to both side of the argument.


----------



## cupoftea (9 Jul 2008)

The whole thing is being blown up by the media and this type of story appeals to the driving daily mail reader.

All cyclists are a menace and should be shot, hung and drawn and quartered, how do cyclist dare use the roads or pavement or even exist. Car driving is the only way forward and everything else is wrong Blah Blah Blah

Unfortunately wait a week and another female cyclist will go under the wheels of lorry turning left in London and no one will care and when the drivers fined £4.50 people will say oh well just another accident.

I just wish all of these deaths could be stopped


----------



## mr_cellophane (9 Jul 2008)

They just showed where it happened on ITV news.

There is only one correct verdict - Guilty and throw away the key.

Here is where it happened - http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf

All of them were heading towards a path at the end of the close. The cyclist just shouted a warning as he headed for the dropped kerb.


----------



## Batzman (9 Jul 2008)

Yeah, I thought he was mad to be doing that kind of speed into that path at the end of the close (if that's what he intended)


----------



## CopperBrompton (9 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> One dumb bastard on a bike does not mean that cycling is any more or less safe


Of course not, but it is no surprise at all that the media has linked the accident to the CTC excusing cyclists who break the law.

Ben


----------



## Jaded (9 Jul 2008)

Batzman said:


> Yeah, I thought he was mad to be doing that kind of speed into that path at the end of the close (if that's what he intended)



Is it a dead end close, about 100m long, with a stream across the end?


----------



## mr_cellophane (9 Jul 2008)

That's the one. There must be a bridge over the river. From the TV news report, they didn't show any "No Cycling" signs and there wasn't a barrier to force cyclists to slow down. It was a wide path, but still 20 mph !

Let's see what the BBC show now.


----------



## gavintc (9 Jul 2008)

On my way home tonight I was developing a degree of sympathy as kamikaze pedestrians were a problem on Argyle St today. I realised that it is difficult to check behind to make sure that any avoiding swerve would not take you into the path of a car. BUT, having looked at the map, there is little you say in defence of his actions.


----------



## wafflycat (10 Jul 2008)

I find it interesting to compare *the reporting* of the case subject of this thread, where the cyclist has killed a pedestrian - all over the media, all over the TV news, being used to justify generalised anti-cycling, anti-cyclist hysteria, with this case, reported the same day which has barely amde a mention. Could it be that when the dead person is a cyclist and the person responsible is a motorist it's not newsworty, it's somehow more acceptable? There's an average of nine people a day killed on our roads and many more injured, mostly by drivers of motorised vehicles, yet there is nothing like the level of hysteria of reporting that there has been for one case where a cyclist has killed a pedestrian. Note, I am referring only to the *reporting* of incidents

From The Times, July 9th 2008 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4301595.ece


*""Widow calls for change in law after lorry driver is fined £275 for killing cyclist"*
_Steve Bird _

_The widow of a cyclist killed by a lorry criticised the courts toady after the driver was fined only £275 for careless driving. _
_Glenn Syder, a father of four, died after being struck by Kashmire Nahal's lorry when the motorist pulled out of a busy junction in Havant, Hampshire, last November. _
_Nahal, 36, from Hayes in Middlesex, pleaded guilty at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court yesterday to careless driving and failing to give way. _
_He was fined £275, ordered to pay £60 costs and given six penalty points on his licence. _
_Angela Syder, the victim's widow, described the sentence as “ludicrous” and called on the Government to immediately implement the new charge of causing death by careless driving. _
_The new law was introduced as part of the Road Safety Bill in 2005 and was given Royal Assent in November 2006, but has not been given a starting date by the Government although it is expected to come into force this August. _
_The charge would carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. The current charge of careless driving has a maximum sentence of a £2,500 fine. _
_Mrs Syder, 52, from Fareham, said: “It just doesn't seem right that someone can do this and cause all this devastation and just be given a fine and a few points on his licence. _
_“I'm extremely upset and angry by the whole process. _
_“Surely the fine should have been more hefty than it was — the driver hasn't even been banned from driving. _
_“I thought the sentence was very low, I thought he would get fined somewhere near the maximum and to get off with so little is terrible. _
_“The Government needs to implement the changes in law that have been agreed about a new offence of causing death by careless driving so that the sentences in cases like this reflect what has actually happened. _
_Yesterday the family of a teenager fatally injured by a cyclist criticised his “laughable” fine claiming that he should have been tried for manslaughter. _
_Jason Howard, 36, was fined £2,200 after he was found guilty of dangerous cycling. He hit 17-year-old Rhiannon Bennett, who struck her head on the pavement as she fell and died of her injuries. _
_Her father, Mick Bennett, condemned Howard as an “arrogant and vile little man” who should have faced manslaughter charges and been jailed for several years. _
_Referring to the need for the new law of causing death by dangerous driving to come into force, Cathy Keeler, of Brake, the road safety charity, said: “In situations where there is now a law sitting on the statute book, ready to come in, we don't understand why the Government has not set a start date. _
_“In courts day after day penalties are being imposed which are completely inappropriate for devastation that has been caused. £275 for a life seems ridiculous.” "_


----------



## Andy in Sig (10 Jul 2008)

I've just read through this thread and it seems to me that this bloke was bad as a man, not as a cyclist in that his shouted warning that he wasn't going to stop was effectively a threat. Unfortunately for the girl he carried it out. I've no doubt he had not the least intention of so much as causing injury but the problem is that he deliberately took the risk that that would be the case. The kids may well have been acting stupidly and selfishly but that becomes almost irrelevant.

Then there is the second point that the whole thing is then used as a springboard to bash cyclists with the bloke on one link pointing out how some cyclists go the wrong way up one way streets etc. Either streets need side lanes as in places like Holland where cyclists can go the wrong way or the police need to nick them just as readily as they would car drivers. It might be an idea if one is aware of a street where that regularly happens at certain times of the day to tip coppers of so that people can be done. Cycling legally will make cities safer and only add a few seconds to journies.


----------



## Origamist (10 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> Getting a little defensive arn't we? That's a fairly balanced article that gives air to both side of the argument.



It's polemically entitled: *Cyclists 'don't obey road laws' *and the article makes no effort to examine the wider picture of road traffic accidents, motor vehicle lawlessness and how the courts generally deal with KSIs on the roads. 

It's opportunistic, "man bites dog", journalese. However, I grant you, worse is still to come in the next day or two.


----------



## toontra (10 Jul 2008)

I haven't read the whole thread (and don't have time to) so my point may have been made already - if so, apologies.

Round my way ferrule brats often play chicken with cyclists, and occasionally mug them with serious consequences (i.e. severe injury). If you swerve to avoid them you may well still hit them because when they scatter you never know which way they'll run. If you slow down you stand a far greater chance of being mugged.

I'm not for a minute saying that's what happened in this case, but if kids were playing chicken with me in the road then I would do exactly what this guy did - i.e. shout a warning, speed up and go in a straight line.


----------



## jiggerypokery (10 Jul 2008)

It seems that as a group we really are hated on many levels and that this guy and his sentence have raised many many hackles. But what surprises me is the way that people jump to conclusions and then in a Life of Brian style shout "Stone Him!!!!!". See here for instance.. http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=100821.html


----------



## mr_cellophane (10 Jul 2008)

Andy in Sig said:


> It might be an idea if one is aware of a street where that regularly happens at certain times of the day to tip coppers of so that people can be done. Cycling legally will make cities safer and only add a few seconds to journies.



*Lloyds Avenue* - even motorbikes do it in order to get to the bike bay. One cyclist does it everyday as his office is half-way up. He then has the cheek to ring his bell to get peds to mind out as he turns into the loading bay.

toontra
Where is that in London. I have never heard of a cyclist being mugged.


----------



## toontra (10 Jul 2008)

mr_cellophane said:


> *
> toontra
> Where is that in London. I have never heard of a cyclist being mugged.*


*

I'm in the nice leafy part of Islington. The local rag has stories every few weeks of cyclists being mugged around here. I myself have had kids try and block the street a couple of times, and from my living room window I saw a cycle courier dragged off his bike and beaten (they were trying to nick his bike but with my help he managed to cling on). I don't think my area is even particularly bad!*


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (10 Jul 2008)

I had a thought. Why wasn't the ped wearing a helmet? This would never had happened if she had.

'Don't be ridiculous' I hear you cry.

But that is what we are told ever time a non-helmet cyclist gets injured or killed.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (10 Jul 2008)

Oh and btw I have been mugged and beaten whilst out on my bike.


----------



## mickle (10 Jul 2008)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> Oh and btw I have been mugged and beaten whilst out on my bike.


Me too, beat me senseless and took my bike. Not in some sink estate in Sarf Landon neither, Hereford Cathedral Close.


----------



## Origamist (10 Jul 2008)

According to someone who was at the court (admittedly an anonymous forumite): 

"Most of the quotes regarding what is supposed to have happened were simply copied from the prosecutors opening speech. That speech turned out to be hugely inaccurate, and was not supported by most of the prosecution's own witnesses. Perhaps the most telling example of this is that not one single witness reported the cyclist as saying "I'm not going to stop" - the claim that he did was made solely by the prosecutor."

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/503603557/m/75700379201/p/3


----------



## Andy in Sig (10 Jul 2008)

mr_cellophane said:


> *Lloyds Avenue* - even motorbikes do it in order to get to the bike bay. One cyclist does it everyday as his office is half-way up. He then has the cheek to ring his bell to get peds to mind out as he turns into the loading bay.
> 
> toontra
> Where is that in London. I have never heard of a cyclist being mugged.



Perhaps if you made a note of when offences most frequently took place (so as to guarantee some custom for the law) and then tipped them off.


----------



## Andy in Sig (10 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> According to someone who was at the court (admittedly an anonymous forumite):
> 
> "Most of the quotes regarding what is supposed to have happened were simply copied from the prosecutors opening speech. That speech turned out to be hugely inaccurate, and was not supported by most of the prosecution's own witnesses. Perhaps the most telling example of this is that not one single witness reported the cyclist as saying "I'm not going to stop" - the claim that he did was made solely by the prosecutor."
> 
> http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/503603557/m/75700379201/p/3



What's really needed is a transcript of the trial.


----------



## Origamist (10 Jul 2008)

Andy in Sig said:


> What's really needed is a transcript of the trial.




AFAIK, there are no official recordings or transcripts of trials held in magistrates' courts.


----------



## Notsoblue (10 Jul 2008)

I've heard of cyclists being attacked on the regent's canal towpath. A friend of a friend was very seriously assaulted by a group of youths and sustained terrible head injuries that he's still recovering from. I can see a situation in which someone could be cycling down a path blocked by a group of kids and would be reluctant to stop. Plus from the article it was clear that the group had been drinking.

From the scant details we have of the case its possible to interpret the events in many different ways depending on your attitude to cycling. Whats clear though is that it was a very very tragic incident, no matter what the circumstances a young person died and this poor chap will have it on his mind for the rest of his life.


----------



## domtyler (10 Jul 2008)

The one positive that may come of this is that maybe people will now take the message on board that standing in front of a speeding bike is not such a good idea. Maybe some people will think twice before taking that chance or mucking around in front of cyclists.


----------



## domtyler (10 Jul 2008)

Andy in Sig said:


> What's really needed is a transcript of the trial.



You want us all to be grasses now Andy?


----------



## Bob (10 Jul 2008)

*Another cyclist hits a pedestrian*

Here's a clip illustrating how a pedestrian on the road can sometimes be very difficult to avoid, even for a Tour cyclist with a potential Stage win at stake and a cycle-savvy pedestrian..


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92xoz4OflxQ


----------



## Nigeyy (10 Jul 2008)

Sadly yes. And if another post contains an element of truth, the "fact" that he shouted "I'm not going to stop" may be questionable too, which makes things even murkier, and that's not even considering how fast -or slow -he was going. It was fascinating to see that one report (can't remember which) described him as "hurtling at 20mph" -hardly a term that would be applied to a much heavier, dangerous automobile (then it would be probably described as "driving with care").

I'm definitely not saying he wasn't reckless, but the facts of the case still don't seem to be clear nor heard by many people outside the courtroom -and certainly the witnesses were likely not to be objective.

I wonder what he has to say?




jiggerypokery said:


> It seems that as a group we really are hated on many levels and that this guy and his sentence have raised many many hackles. But what surprises me is the way that people jump to conclusions and then in a Life of Brian style shout "Stone Him!!!!!". See here for instance.. http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=100821.html


----------



## fossyant (10 Jul 2008)

Notsoblue said:


> I can see a situation in which someone could be cycling down a path blocked by a group of kids and would be reluctant to stop. Plus from the article it was clear that the group had been drinking



Exactly - I'd not stop, but obviously try to pass them with as wide a berth as possible - certainly would not try to squeeze past as I know how unpredictable people can be. I have it on good authority that the Fallowfield Loop, whilst a good cycle track, is not a place you want to be when the yoofs are out and about - you'd have no way of avoiding them.

I had a fella just walk out on me last night - not looking, stepped out. Fortunately for him, I had just pulled away from the lights so was not at cruising speed. shoot himself though, and apologised profusely..... I said.. "no problem....nearly though !!!

There will be an awful lot of bad press about this due to the poor sensationalised reporting.


----------



## Origamist (10 Jul 2008)

Uncle Mort said:


> There's a "why oh why" comment on this in the Grauniad by the lovely Naomi Alderman (scroll to the bottom of the page). Doesn't add much to the debate, but then again, she never does.



That's one shoot column. She seems to be the spawn of Private Eye's 
*Polly Filler* (a vapid and self-centred female "lifestyle" columnist, whose irrelevant personal escapades and gossip serve solely to fill column inches).


My favourtie: 

_This week Naomi watched Charles Laughton's 1955 film The Night of the Hunter: "Film noir at its very creepiest and most powerful. Watch it and shudder." She read Bitch magazine: "It's a sassy feminist take on pop culture; this issue included articles on feminism in Star Trek and the first female Torah scribe. It always makes me think new thoughts."_

Actually, the guff on cycling is even worse...


----------



## jely (10 Jul 2008)

jiggerypokery said:


> It seems that as a group we really are hated on many levels and that this guy and his sentence have raised many many hackles. But what surprises me is the way that people jump to conclusions and then in a Life of Brian style shout "Stone Him!!!!!". See here for instance.. http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=100821.html



wow... there are some very angry people in that forum!


----------



## andyfromotley (10 Jul 2008)

Sorry i dont know if this has been posted in this thread but i thought it would be relevant. I heard and interview, on 5 live, with the Senior Investigating Officer, for this fatal accident. He was a police sgt from the forces roads policing unit, and he was quite impressive and even handed. i would think that he knows as much about these events as anyone.He made the following points

There was a cctv camera which caught the cyclist right up to the point of collision. Hence there is no question about the speeds. (IIRC first seen at nearly 30, down to 17 just before impact)
The court was unable to decide from conflicting accounts whether or not he was on the pavement.
The evidence is that there was ample room for the cyclist to avoid the pedestrian simply by moving to the left.
It really was a good balanced interview although they did have that idiot Mike rutherford on straight afterwards. i think this was about 11.30pm on tuesday evening if anyone can link it to the bbc listen again feature?

andy


----------



## ChrisKH (10 Jul 2008)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Of course not, but it is no surprise at all that the media has linked the accident to the CTC excusing cyclists who break the law.
> 
> Ben



Actually I thought it was inexcusable for ITN to use a spokesman from the AA who said something about this being compelling evidence for an increase in penalties for dangerous cycling. In the face of laughable penalties for drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians. Talk about spin. Why I won't be joining the AA - reason 1.


----------



## sheva (10 Jul 2008)

ChrisKH said:


> Actually I thought it was inexcusable for ITN to use a spokesman from the AA who said something about this being compelling evidence for an increase in penalties for dangerous cycling.* In the face of laughable penalties for drivers who kill cyclists* and pedestrians. Talk about spin. Why I won't be joining the AA - reason 1.


todays sun contains a story of a lorry driver who pulled out of a junction, didn`t see a cyclist on the main road, and knocked him down. the cyclist was killed as a result of this. punishment for the lorry driver? £275 fine and six points for driving without due care and attention.


----------



## Origamist (10 Jul 2008)

sheva said:


> todays sun contains a story of a lorry driver who pulled out of a junction, didn`t see a cyclist on the main road, and knocked him down. the cyclist was killed as a result of this. punishment for the lorry driver? £275 fine and six points for driving without due care and attention.



Already mentioned:

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=328836&postcount=166


----------



## Cab (10 Jul 2008)

It does seem very telling that the media is full of awful negativity about the dangers of cycling. One death a year, on average, caused by pedestrians being hit by cyclists? Out of the, what is it, 9 deaths _per day_ on our roads?

A little sense of perspective would be a nice thing.


----------



## stephenb (10 Jul 2008)

slightly OT but I half caught something on TV (beeb I think) about 7.45 this morning with some bloke from one of the cycling groups and another bloke from Headway (??) talking about cycling safety, helmets etc. Didn't sound like anything new. Anyone catch it or know a link to it?


----------



## Cab (10 Jul 2008)

stephenb said:


> slightly OT but I half caught something on TV (beeb I think) about 7.45 this morning with some bloke from one of the cycling groups and another bloke from Headway (??) talking about cycling safety, helmets etc. Didn't sound like anything new. Anyone catch it or know a link to it?



Saw it. Wasn't especially interesting; a well meaning but sligly poor at communicating guy from the CTC versus a guy from a head injury charity who was in possession of no facts but whose 'common sense' was that helmets save lives. Dull and tedious, IMHO.


----------



## HLaB (10 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> Saw it. Wasn't especially interesting; a well meaning but sligly poor at communicating guy from the CTC versus a guy from a head injury charity who was in possession of no facts but whose 'common sense' was that helmets save lives. *Dull and tedious, IMHO*.


I'd agree with that, "Oh No here we go again ", I'm quite glad I never caught the full thing.


----------



## Cab (10 Jul 2008)

Oh, and a couple of journalists who started from the premis that helmets are good and the CTC guy is just wrong for saying that the stats in support of that are, at best, questionable. That didn't help. 

Another shining example of cycle-friendly journalism from Auntie.


----------



## andyfromotley (10 Jul 2008)

User said:


> (1) Except, as has been pointed out before, CCTV cameras do not measure speed - they may be useful for getting an estimate, but that is that they are useful for.
> 
> (2). No - the court found that there was no evidence he was on the pavement.
> 
> ...



1 err yes they do, they measure time and distance, the rest is a fairly simple calculation.
2. No, i think the court heard conflicting evidence and couldnt decide. That is not the same as no evidence.
3. My mistake i think you will find.

instead of disagreeing with me you could have gone to the listen again feature on the i player and ..........errmmm listened again.

andy


----------



## Riding in Circles (11 Jul 2008)

mickle said:


> Me too, beat me senseless and took my bike. Not in some sink estate in Sarf Landon neither, Hereford Cathedral Close.



I had someone try it about 5 years ago in Gravesend, I stamped a nice impression of a cleat in one chaps head and his mate ran away.


----------



## liambauckham (11 Jul 2008)

kill all the chavs i say


----------



## Riding in Circles (11 Jul 2008)

liambauckham said:


> kill all the chavs i say



Evolution is kicking in on that score as we speak.


----------



## liambauckham (11 Jul 2008)

actually no, smart, decent people are only having one (if any) children, mainly due to rising living costs, crime etc. whereas chavs are having shitloads of kids who are just as retarded as them.

in the good ole days the village idiot would do something stupid that would get themselves killed and thus taken out of the gene pool. Nowadays there will be someone in a high-viz jacket stopping the village idiot from eliminating himself and then encouraging them to have shedloads of kids and live on welfare with no consequences 

so the future isnt bright, england will end up like bladerunner whereas america will be just like idiocracy


----------



## summerdays (11 Jul 2008)

For me I think the thing that is highlighted by this case is: the public is shocked and horrified that a cyclist killed a pedestrian, however it seems almost routinely accepted that some pedestrians or cyclists will be killed by cars ... far less outcry.


----------



## Riding in Circles (12 Jul 2008)

liambauckham said:


> actually no, smart, decent people are only having one (if any) children, mainly due to rising living costs, crime etc. whereas chavs are having shitloads of kids who are just as retarded as them.
> 
> in the good ole days the village idiot would do something stupid that would get themselves killed and thus taken out of the gene pool. Nowadays there will be someone in a high-viz jacket stopping the village idiot from eliminating himself and then encouraging them to have shedloads of kids and live on welfare with no consequences
> 
> so the future isnt bright, england will end up like bladerunner whereas america will be just like idiocracy



They seem to be doing a pretty good job of stabbing each other to death at the moment.


----------



## lynx (12 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> They seem to be doing a pretty good job of stabbing each other to death at the moment.



But they have already reproduced, so not removed themselves from the gene pool.


----------



## lynx (12 Jul 2008)

Actually can someone give me a precis of the 21 pages?


----------



## Riding in Circles (12 Jul 2008)

lynx said:


> Actually can someone give me a precis of the 21 pages?



Cyclist rides like a nob, kills teenage girl, gets £2200 fine, media paints all cyclists as dangerous and ignores the daily deaths caused by motor vehicles, cyclists get annoyed that no one acknowledges the crap we have to put up with while still being sympathetic to the loss of this one life.


----------



## lynx (12 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Cyclist rides like a nob, kills teenage girl, gets £2200 fine, media paints all cyclists as dangerous and ignores the daily deaths caused by motor vehicles, cyclists get annoyed that no one acknowledges the crap we have to put up with while still being sympathetic to the loss of this one life.


This brings me to a few questions?

What is the definition of a cyclist?

That is the same precis of the discussion on several other cycling sites.


----------



## Riding in Circles (12 Jul 2008)

lynx said:


> This brings me to a few questions?
> 
> What is the definition of a cyclist?
> 
> That is the same precis of the discussion on several other cycling sites.




Now don't start that.


----------



## lynx (12 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Now don't start that.




Ok, just a quick why?

I have a cycle and commute and occasionally mountain bike but don't class myself as a cyclist.


----------



## Riding in Circles (12 Jul 2008)

lynx said:


> Ok, just a quick why?
> 
> I have a cycle and commute and occasionally mountain bike but don't class myself as a cyclist.



Nope, not playing.


----------



## Jaded (12 Jul 2008)

a person who rides a bicycle

That's you, that is.


----------



## magnatom (13 Jul 2008)

A driver is someone who drives a car. An car driving or tinkering enthusiast is someone that loves to drive cars or tinker with them.

A cyclist is someone who cycles a bike. A bike or cycling enthusiast is someone who loves bikes or cycling.

Pretty straight forward in my opinion. If you are cycling a bike, you are a cyclist. There are good cyclists, bad cyclists, cyclists who use their bikes to just get from A to B, cyclists who cycle around the world etc....


----------



## lynx (13 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> A driver is someone who drives a car. An car driving or tinkering enthusiast is someone that loves to drive cars or tinker with them.
> 
> A cyclist is someone who cycles a bike. A bike or cycling enthusiast is someone who loves bikes or cycling.
> 
> Pretty straight forward in my opinion. If you are cycling a bike, you are a cyclist. There are good cyclists, bad cyclists, cyclists who use their bikes to just get from A to B, cyclists who cycle around the world etc....



Now that makes alot of sense.

Thank you


----------

