# Dutchman cleared of 'manslaughter by furious or wanton driving' in Manchester .



## Cycleops (7 Sep 2022)

I'm sure a lot of you have read the about the trial. His defence was 'if a car can go 30mph why can't I?'
Only the DM appear to have the story.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dily-harm-smashing-pedestrian-later-died.html


----------



## MichaelW2 (7 Sep 2022)

"The court heard Mr De Bruin he pressed his brakes and 'tried to swerve to the right' to avoid Mr Gunn, who had moved 'backwards and forwards' in an effort to avoid the oncoming cyclist."

The key part of this is " moved backwards". Pedestrians moving backwards into collision seems to be common factor in many of the few cycle related pedestrian deaths. You cannot predict the motion of a pedestrian and if you aim to avoid, they may change direction to interception course again.
Sometimes you have to choose between braking and manouvering since you cannot do both at the same time.
Add in a cycle lane, forcing the rider close to the curb where you have no distance or time to react.
I generally veer out to a primary position if I see a pedestrian think about stepping off the curb.


----------



## Brandane (7 Sep 2022)

Predictable comments already, re "cyclists should have to sit a test and have insurance". It never crosses their tiny minds that most cyclists already hold driving licences. Or that perhaps cyclists DO have insurance, while an alarming percentage of car drivers do NOT!


----------



## PK99 (7 Sep 2022)

Brandane said:


> Or that perhaps cyclists DO have insurance, while an alarming percentage of car drivers do NOT!



BUT, if you are injured by an uninsured motorist, the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) acts as Insurer of Last Resort and you can claim damages from them.

No such claim is possible for injuries caused by an uninsured cyclist.


----------



## Saluki (7 Sep 2022)

I don’t suppose that he was seen jumping a red light helped much, sometime before the collision when evidence was heard, but 20mph on a road, isn’t unheard of. Also what had wearing headphones got to do with anything? Not illegal, just maybe ill advised in a busy area. I look around our area and see many car drivers wearing them. Also ill advised.

I don’t suppose that had a car hit a pedestrian, that the DM would have dedicated as many column inches. Sad though it is that a person died in the collision.


----------



## Cycleops (7 Sep 2022)

In the comments people were saying the justice system in the country has broken blaming the judiciary.
It was Jury trial though. The judge would only have done a summing up. I'm sure there must have been at least a few anti cyclists on it, yet they chose to acquit him. I can't see a fairer way to bring him to account.


----------



## Cycleops (7 Sep 2022)

Saluki said:


> I don’t suppose that had a car hit a pedestrian, that the DM would have dedicated as many column inches. Sad though it is that a person died in the collision.


I doubt the story would have even have made the nationals.


----------



## classic33 (7 Sep 2022)

Cycleops said:


> I doubt the story would have even have made the nationals.


Maybe the name got their interest.


----------



## Regular.Cyclist (7 Sep 2022)

This no doubt helped the case for the defence:-

“During an interview with police, Ms Orzsic said that it was difficult to blame either of the men regarding the collision and added: 'They just saw each other at the last second.'”


----------



## presta (7 Sep 2022)

This happened to me about 30 years ago, I'd guess I was doing 14-15mph (because I'm not that fast), and there was an OAP ahead standing at the kerb. He gave me no reason to suppose he hadn't seen me, but he stepped off the kerb at the last minute, and my left shoulder caught him square on the jaw (that he hadn't got right out in front of the bike shows how late it was when he moved).

I turned to find him spitting out a mouthful of teeth, but fortunately they were false ones, so when he assured me he was fine I rode off, but in hindsight if he'd had a brain haemhorrage an hour later I could have been in quite a difficult position (and so would he, of course).



Cycleops said:


> if a car can go 30mph why can't I


It is a limit though, not a challenge, and if people spot a bike they're less likely to be expecting it to be moving at 30mph. I recall descending Kirkstone Pass at speed, and as I approached a slow bus coming up the other way trailing a queue of cars, I was quite anxious that one of them might get impatient, and think "oh, he's only on a bike, he won't be going very fast".



MichaelW2 said:


> The key part of this is " moved backwards". Pedestrians moving backwards into collision seems to be common factor in many of the few cycle related pedestrian deaths. You cannot predict the motion of a pedestrian and if you aim to avoid, they may change direction to interception course again.
> Sometimes you have to choose between braking and manouvering since you cannot do both at the same time.


Walking along the pavement toward someone coming the other way, it's very common for each to sidestep the same way, then both go the other way etc. Bike or car, I tend to be more of a braker than a swerver, but I don't really know why, it's just my automatic reaction.


----------



## Arjimlad (7 Sep 2022)

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...r.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

More details here. There was, of course a lot more to the defence than the Daily Mail reported. Seems like an unfortunate mistake by the pedestrian who sadly paid the price with his life. The jury has decided after hearing all the available evidence.


----------



## Regular.Cyclist (7 Sep 2022)

From my memory from living around there a number of years ago (if I am reading the story correctly) the Tesco Express would be on the right hand side of the road. Mr Gunn would then have been crossing from the far side and reached the cycle lane on the near side where the collision occurred.


----------



## Jameshow (7 Sep 2022)

I don't think the cyclist was riding with due care and attention the Nissan Micra driver was and thus missed him. 

The driver went through a red light ( showing contempt of the law) and was wearing ear phones was distracted. 

I for one tend to slow down when I'm riding through a town even if below the speed limit.


----------



## cougie uk (7 Sep 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I don't think the cyclist was riding with due care and attention the Nissan Micra driver was and thus missed him.
> 
> The driver went through a red light ( showing contempt of the law) and was wearing ear phones was distracted.
> 
> I for one tend to slow down when I'm riding through a town even if below the speed limit.



Ear phones are distracting ? 
So anyone in a car with the windows wound up and the radio on is just as distracted?


----------



## GeekDadZoid (7 Sep 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I don't think the cyclist was riding with due care and attention the Nissan Micra driver was and thus missed him.
> 
> The driver went through a red light ( showing contempt of the law) and was wearing ear phones was distracted.
> 
> I for one tend to slow down when I'm riding through a town even if below the speed limit.



It's hard to judge with he reported details as there are lots of variables. But I have seen similar situations on the motorway where the leading vehicle heading towards the rear of a queue doesn't slow down but just changes lanes to avoid it, the car behind gets a suprise view of stationary traffic and has to slam the anchors on. 

I have actually been in a collision with a pedestrian at the other end of the Wilmslow Road / Oxford Road, very different circumstances and outcome fortunately.

Very sad for the deceased and his family what ever the circumstances.


----------



## PK99 (7 Sep 2022)

cougie uk said:


> Ear phones are distracting ?
> So anyone in a car with the windows wound up and the radio on is just as distracted?



No.

Speakers and earphones are fundamentally different.


----------



## Profpointy (7 Sep 2022)

PK99 said:


> No.
> 
> Speakers and earphones are fundamentally different.



How so?


----------



## PK99 (7 Sep 2022)

Profpointy said:


> How so?



In a car, passenger next to me. Listening to radio.

Earphones: I cannot hear the passenger speak at normal volume.

Speakers (at normal sensible volume) : I can easily hear the passenger and can zone out the radio.


----------



## Profpointy (7 Sep 2022)

PK99 said:


> In a car, passenger next to me. Listening to radio.
> 
> Earphones: I cannot hear the passenger speak at normal volume.
> 
> Speakers (at normal sensible volume) : I can easily hear the passenger and can zone out the radio.



with the windows shut, can you hear what's going on outside? That is to say, better than you could with earphones in?


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Sep 2022)

On the face of it the cyclist has a good point. If the speed limit is 30mph and he is riding at 20mph. He is not committing any offences. I dont think that the fact that he is wearing headphones would have any bearing in these circumstances.

What we do not really know is the full circumstances surrounding the accident and that is what the jury had to decide. The newspaper report gives the impression that it was a doddery old man who stepped out in front of the cyclist at the last moment and the cyclist tried to avoid him. It appears that this is the impression that the jury came to. Strange that the CPS thought there was a case to answer once they had all the information in front of them.

I cannot see any other outcome if it was a car involved.

But this is why we have a jury system and its not uncommon for people to whinge when the verdict does not go their way.

It is sad however it happened.


----------



## Brandane (8 Sep 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> If the speed limit is 30mph and he is riding at 20mph. He is not committing any offences.



If the speed limit (for motor vehicles) is 30 mph and he is riding at 40 mph, he is still not committing any offences. Unless the speed is a contributory factor to other offences such as furious cycling or reckless conduct (is that just Scottish law? Maybe... ).

Speed limits do not apply to non motorised vehicles in the UK.. 

Long may these freedoms continue. I for one do not want to be subject to the same laws as car drivers. There are obvious reasons why they are quite rightly subject to more stringent laws, which most of them seem to ignore anyway.


----------



## Phaeton (8 Sep 2022)

Brandane said:


> There are obvious reasons why they are quite rightly subject to more stringent laws, which most of them seem to ignore anyway.


I know it's fashionable to slag off car drivers, but do most seem to ignore the law? Like everything there is a percentage that will, just like footpath, red light jumping cyclist, don't lower yourself to DM levels.


----------



## Joffey (8 Sep 2022)

PK99 said:


> No.
> 
> Speakers and earphones are fundamentally different.



Unless the earphones are on transparency mode


----------



## cougie uk (8 Sep 2022)

PK99 said:


> In a car, passenger next to me. Listening to radio.
> 
> Earphones: I cannot hear the passenger speak at normal volume.
> 
> Speakers (at normal sensible volume) : I can easily hear the passenger and can zone out the radio.



We've all seen cars not noticing emergency vehicles coming through junctions. How do they miss the sirens ?

Do we even know if the cyclist was listening to anything ?

And what noise does a pedestrian make anyway ?


----------



## PK99 (8 Sep 2022)

cougie uk said:


> We've all seen cars not noticing emergency vehicles coming through junctions. How do they miss the sirens ?
> 
> Do we even know if the cyclist was listening to anything ?
> 
> And what noise does a pedestrian make anyway ?



You are shifting the discussion.

The point you initially made was:



cougie uk said:


> Ear phones are distracting ?
> So anyone in a car with the windows wound up and the radio on is just as distracted?



*Earphones isolate *the user from the external environment in the way a speaker does not.* They isolate and distract.* With speakers, we can filter sounds 

Ever hear your name in someone's conversation across a room at a party?

_"The cocktail party effect is the phenomenon of the brain's ability to focus one's auditory attention on a particular stimulus while filtering out a range of other stimuli, such as when a partygoer can focus on a single conversation in a noisy room."

https://www.audiology.org/the-cockt...ail-party effect refers,stimuli (i.e., noise)._

As cyclists, we all know the problem of earphone users not hearing bike bells or even full-throated bellows from behind, I find that is not a problem when the walker in front is listening to a mobile speaker as opposed to headphones.


----------



## Cycleops (8 Sep 2022)

IMO being able to listen to what’s going on around you is essential to safety when you’re riding, but I don’t think it has any bearing on the case in point.


----------



## Phaeton (8 Sep 2022)

Cycleops said:


> IMO being able to listen to what’s going on around you is essential to safety when you’re riding, but I don’t think it has any bearing on the case in point.


Are you suggesting nobody who is deaf should be allowed to ride a bike, at what point would you have this rule kick in? 20% hearing loss, 50% hearing loss, would you take into account the sound register?


----------



## Cycleops (8 Sep 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Are you suggesting nobody who is deaf should be allowed to ride a bike, at what point would you have this rule kick in? 20% hearing loss, 50% hearing loss, would you take into account the sound register?


I didn’t say that. Completely irrelevant.


----------



## icowden (8 Sep 2022)

Cycleops said:


> I'm sure a lot of you have read the about the trial. His defence was 'if a car can go 30mph why can't I?'
> Only the DM appear to have the story.
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dily-harm-smashing-pedestrian-later-died.html



That's why I really hate the Daily Mail. That wasn't his defence at all. That was a small part of his defence. The greater part will have been argued by his barrister and counter argued by the prosecution. He didn't even say that at trial. He said it whilst in shock when questioned by the Police, and this was admitted as evidence in the trial. The soundbite doesn't even cite the question he was asked. 

The real story is that based on the evidence before them and the arguments of both the prosecution and defence barristers the jury agreed that it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.

Typical Daily Fail headline designed to make cyclists sound bad.
"ooh look - typical arrogant cyclist gets off after killing old man" is a sentiment that's going to sell papers to the sort of people who read the Fail.


----------



## Phaeton (8 Sep 2022)

Cycleops said:


> I didn’t say that. Completely irrelevant.


Yes you did, you said it was "is essential to safety when you’re riding" if t's essential then surely I should not be riding?


----------



## Cycleops (8 Sep 2022)

Essential to me. I wasn't talking about you or other cyclists, sorry if you thought I was


----------



## PK99 (8 Sep 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Are you suggesting nobody who is deaf should be allowed to ride a bike,



That whataboutery is often raised in such discussions.

But:

_Previous research, including studies performed by the lab director, Helen Neville Ph.D., has shown that *people who are born deaf are better at processing peripheral vision and motion.* Deaf people may process vision using many different brain regions, especially auditory areas, including the primary auditory cortex.

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/news/2012...rformed,including the primary auditory cortex._

And:
_A new study__ provides evidence of this rewiring in the brains of deaf people. The study, published in The Journal of Neuroscience, shows p*eople who are born deaf use areas of the brain typically devoted to processing sound to instead process touch and vision.* Perhaps more interestingly, the researchers found this neural reorganization affects how deaf individuals perceive sensory stimuli, making them susceptible to a perceptual illusion that hearing people do not experience_

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superpowers-for-the-blind-and-deaf/


----------



## Alex321 (8 Sep 2022)

Profpointy said:


> with the windows shut, can you hear what's going on outside? That is to say, better than you could with earphones in?



Yes.

Headphones shut out most of the external noise, there is a lot you will hear over the sound of the radio that you wouldn't if you had headphones on. Even with the windows shut in a car.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (8 Sep 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I don't think the cyclist was riding with due care and attention the Nissan Micra driver was and thus missed him.
> 
> The driver went through a red light ( showing contempt of the law) and was wearing ear phones was distracted.



If he drover through a red light the Nissan Micra driver is hardly driving with due care and attention


----------



## Ming the Merciless (8 Sep 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Yes.
> 
> Headphones shut out most of the external noise, there is a lot you will hear over the sound of the radio that you wouldn't if you had headphones on. Even with the windows shut in a car.



Twaddle


----------



## PK99 (8 Sep 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Twaddle



Thank you for your erudite and well-thought contribution to the discussion.


----------



## cougie uk (8 Sep 2022)

PK99 said:


> You are shifting the discussion.
> 
> The point you initially made was:
> 
> ...


 I'm out walking the dog now.
I have headphones on. I can hear the birds tweeting and the wind rustling the leaves and the pad of my dogs paws.

It's a podcast I'm listening to so just because I have headphones on doesn't mean I'm isolated. I can hear so much more than any driver can.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Sep 2022)

PK99 said:


> Thank you for your erudite and well-thought contribution to the discussion.



doesn't make him wrong. I too find your claim hard to believe. OK, just maybe for full on headphones, but in-ear ones - not my experience of them

As an aside it is strongly recommended to wear actual ear plugs on a motorcycle as wind noise at speed damages hearing

It is a very big claim that (even) small earphones on a push bike stop you hearing stuff around you more than windows shut and radio in a car. It's implausible frankly.

That said, I've never worn earphones cycling but have in the office and at home and I can hear stuff in my vicinity


----------



## Jameshow (8 Sep 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> If he drover through a red light the Nissan Micra driver is hardly driving with due care and attention



The rider drive through the red light apparently - my mistake.


----------



## PK99 (8 Sep 2022)

Profpointy said:


> doesn't make him wrong. I too find your claim hard to believe. OK, just maybe for full on headphones, but in-ear ones - not my experience of them
> 
> As an aside it is strongly recommended to wear actual ear plugs on a motorcycle as wind noise at speed damages hearing
> 
> ...



A number of times in the past few weeks on shared paths or park trails I have ridden up behind an in-ear earphone-wearing pedestrian, bell a diggling for some way and, when close giving a vocal warning, increasing to a full-on 100kg male bellow, only for the pedestrian to remain oblivious to my presence until I am very slowly alongside and physically startling.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Sep 2022)

PK99 said:


> A number of times in the past few weeks on shared paths or park trails I have ridden up behind an in-ear earphone-wearing pedestrian, bell a diggling for some way and, when close giving a vocal warning, increasing to a full-on 100kg male bellow, only for the pedestrian to remain oblivious to my presence until I am very slowly alongside and physically startling.



Fair enough but would they have heard you any better in a car with the radio on?


----------



## Phaeton (8 Sep 2022)

PK99 said:


> A number of times in the past few weeks on shared paths or park trails I have ridden up behind an in-ear earphone-wearing pedestrian, bell a diggling for some way and, when close giving a vocal warning, increasing to a full-on 100kg male bellow, only for the pedestrian to remain oblivious to my presence until I am very slowly alongside and physically startling.



But that could well be down the volume that they were set at & not the absolute fact they were wearing them, also in this instance surely it was the cyclists eyes that were more important than hearing. Either way it was a tragic accident & the jury believed it was just that.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Sep 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Twaddle



That is a ridiculous mis-spelling of "completely correct"


----------



## Alex321 (8 Sep 2022)

Profpointy said:


> doesn't make him wrong. I too find your claim hard to believe. OK, just maybe for full on headphones, but in-ear ones - not my experience of them


The cyclist was described as "wearing headphones" in this case. And that is what I was talking about - note I specifically said "headphones" rather than "earphones"



Profpointy said:


> As an aside it is strongly recommended to wear actual ear plugs on a motorcycle as wind noise at speed damages hearing
> 
> It is a very big claim that (even) small earphones on a push bike stop you hearing stuff around you more than windows shut and radio in a car. It's implausible frankly.


I'm not sure anybody has claimed that.



Profpointy said:


> That said, I've never worn earphones cycling but have in the office and at home and I can hear stuff in my vicinity



There is a massive difference in my experience between what you can hear with headphones on and what you can hear with the in-ear earphones. I use both on a regular basis (not when cycling or driving)


----------



## icowden (8 Sep 2022)

Jameshow said:


> The rider drive through the red light apparently - my mistake.


The cyclist turned left and went through a red light to do so, rather than coming to a stop (as you should) and then continuing. Presumably the road was clear. Not excusing it, but it doesn't seem like the worst offence in the world. What's puzzling me is the reference to Tesco express as I can't find one on the route the cyclist was on. Sainsbury's local - yes, Tesco no.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Sep 2022)

Brandane said:


> If the speed limit (for motor vehicles) is 30 mph and he is riding at 40 mph, he is still not committing any offences. Unless the speed is a contributory factor to other offences such as furious cycling or reckless conduct (is that just Scottish law? Maybe... ).
> 
> Speed limits do not apply to non motorised vehicles in the UK..
> 
> Long may these freedoms continue. I for one do not want to be subject to the same laws as car drivers. There are obvious reasons why they are quite rightly subject to more stringent laws, which most of them seem to ignore anyway.



You are of course correct regarding the speed and not mo


Alex321 said:


> Yes.
> 
> Headphones shut out most of the external noise, there is a lot you will hear over the sound of the radio that you wouldn't if you had headphones on. Even with the windows shut in a car.



That depends on which headphones you are wearing. I wear bone conductor headphones and my ears are not covered. I can hear everything around me and hold a conversation. The ones that cover your ears should be made illegal in vehicles and on bikes.


----------



## Alex321 (9 Sep 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> That depends on which headphones you are wearing. I wear bone conductor headphones and my ears are not covered. I can hear everything around me and hold a conversation. The ones that cover your ears should be made illegal in vehicles and on bikes.


I've always called the ones which cover your ears "headphones" and the ones which don't "earphones". I thought that was standard usage, but it seems maybe not, from posts in this thread.


----------



## Phaeton (9 Sep 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> The ones that cover your ears should be made illegal in vehicles and on bikes.


Another person advocating deaf people should not ride bikes


----------



## Alex321 (9 Sep 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Another person advocating deaf people should not ride bikes



No he wasn't.

A person with good hearing blocking that is not very similar to being permanently deaf. Deaf people learn to compensate for their lack of hearing. People who can normally hear OK rarely have the same compensatory skills.


----------



## Phaeton (9 Sep 2022)

Alex321 said:


> No he wasn't.
> 
> A person with good hearing blocking that is not very similar to being permanently deaf. Deaf people learn to compensate for their lack of hearing. People who can normally hear OK rarely have the same compensatory skills.



You know this from personal experience do you? I wish people would stop telling me about my super powers that I have no knowledge of


----------



## Alex321 (9 Sep 2022)

Phaeton said:


> You know this from personal experience do you? I wish people would stop telling me about my super powers that I have no knowledge of



No, I don't have personal experience (thankfully). And it is not some "superpower", it is just that People lacking one sense HAVE to rely more on their other senses, and as a consequence they do usually see more (in the case of deaf people)/ hear more (in the case of blind people such as my granddaughter) than those of us with all our senses.

I am reasonably sure that if you are deaf, you are still very nearly as aware of what is going on around you as I am, and more aware than I would be if I were wearing headphones.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Sep 2022)

There are many variab


Alex321 said:


> I've always called the ones which cover your ears "headphones" and the ones which don't "earphones". I thought that was standard usage, but it seems maybe not, from posts in this thread.



But are earphones also those that you stick in your ears? Bone conductor heaďphones are quite a new terminology.


----------



## Phaeton (9 Sep 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I am reasonably sure that if you are deaf, you are still very nearly as aware of what is going on around you as I am, and more aware than I would be if I were wearing headphones.


Your logic appears flawed by your own admission I am already more aware than you (with or without my nonexistent superpower), adding headphones to the equation is irrelevant, it is also irrelevant to this tragic accident as what the cyclist could or could not hear would not have made any difference, unless somebody had shouted to him "Watch out that man is about to step out into the road"

What's your thoughts on a deaf person riding whilst wearing earplugs?


----------



## Alex321 (9 Sep 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> There are many variab
> 
> 
> But are earphones also those that you stick in your ears? Bone conductor heaďphones are quite a new terminology.



Yes, I've never actually come across those before, and not sure what terminology really covers them from that POV. I suppose they are a type of "headphone", even though they don't cover the ears or block external sound.


----------



## Alex321 (9 Sep 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Your logic appears flawed by your own admission I am already more aware than you (with or without my nonexistent superpower), adding headphones to the equation is irrelevant, it is also irrelevant to this tragic accident as what the cyclist could or could not hear would not have made any difference, unless somebody had shouted to him "Watch out that man is about to step out into the road"
> 
> What's your thoughts on a deaf person riding whilst wearing earplugs?



I fully agree it is irrelevant to this accident.

I'm not sure just where I have suggested you might be more aware than I am. My words were "you are still very nearly as aware of what is going on around you as I am".

If they are profoundly deaf, then wearing earplugs is not going to make any difference.

I don't necessarily agree with the previous poster that wearing headphones should be made illegal when driving or cycling, but I do think it is not a good idea to *voluntarily* wear something that reduces your overall ability to sense what is going on around you without good reason, and I can understand the reasoning behind that suggestion.

And that doesn't just apply to driving or cycling, but to any activity that carries significant risk if you fail to notice something. Obviously, there are situations where you have no real choice in the matter, such as environments so noisy you have to wear headphones to avoid damaging your hearing, or so bright you have to wear a mask to avoid damaging your eyesight. But those come under the "without good reason" above.


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Sep 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I don't necessarily agree with the previous poster that wearing headphones should be made illegal when driving or cycling, but I do think it is not a good idea to *voluntarily* wear something that reduces your overall ability to sense what is going on around you without good reason, and I can understand the reasoning behind that suggestion.


So I assume you never use the radio in your car and keep the windows open at all times? Did you put a special order in to not have any tint on your car windows, how about the size of the A and B pillars?

A would suggest that looking at the risks and compensations would be a good idea.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Sep 2022)

These ‘enhancements’ to a particular sense brought about by the absence of another really only apply to those born with that loss. There is no change for those who, for example, were born with hearing but become deaf later in life.

I’m hearing impaired since about eight years ago, requiring two hearing aids, but even when I don’t have them in, I often hear the music from cars that have all their windows up. If I can do that from inside a bus, what’s it sound like inside the car? Nobody seems to get as agitated about that as they do when a cyclist wears earphones, even though they have no idea what volume is set or if they are even playing anything.

Why does one form of transport attract this criticism but not the other? My view is that it stems from the same nannying attitude displayed by those who nag cyclists for not wearing a helmet (no debate here, please). They don’t know what they’re talking about but they hear it parroted so often that somehow ‘it stands to reason’ so they trot it out too.


----------



## PK99 (9 Sep 2022)

Phaeton said:


> You know this from personal experience do you? I wish people would stop telling me about my super powers that I have no knowledge of




From my post up-thread

The science is pretty clear: Deaf people compensate using other senses



PK99 said:


> But:
> 
> _Previous research, including studies performed by the lab director, Helen Neville Ph.D., has shown that *people who are born deaf are better at processing peripheral vision and motion.* Deaf people may process vision using many different brain regions, especially auditory areas, including the primary auditory cortex._
> 
> ...


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Sep 2022)

PK99 said:


> From my post up-thread
> 
> The science is pretty clear: Deaf people compensate using other senses



0.2% of people are born deaf, whilst 15% of people over 18 have hearing loss. The percentage of people with hearing issues who can compensate it pretty low.


----------



## Phaeton (9 Sep 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> 0.2% of people are born deaf, whilst 15% of people over 18 have hearing loss. The percentage of people with hearing issues who can compensate it pretty low.



Especially when they were promised their new hearing aids on the 15th August & they are still waiting after it taking 8 weeks to get an appointment in the first place.


----------



## PK99 (9 Sep 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> 0.2% of people are born deaf, whilst 15% of people over 18 have hearing loss. The percentage of people with hearing issues who can compensate it pretty low.



There is a big difference between deaf and hearing loss 
(I am on day two of my single-side NHS hearing aid. LHS is age normal profile for 65. RHS is typical profile of 95-year-old)

The discussion was about deaf people compensating. The science shows that born deaf and those who become deaf both develop sensory compensation, though undoubtedly to different degrees. In the same way that the brains of Cab drivers doing the Knowledge change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/


----------



## Mike_P (10 Sep 2022)

Never worn earphones or headphones cycling but cannot see what difference that makes when all too common wind noise cancels out vehicular noise etc. Re cyclists cannot be done for speeding that is why the charge was furious or wanton , if a cyclist is considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they can be charged with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ which is a criminal offence under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948) Source;https://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk...the-road-traffic-laws-that-apply-to-cyclists/
So obeying speed limits where possible is advisable.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Sep 2022)

Mike_P said:


> Never worn earphones or headphones cycling but cannot see what difference that makes when all too common wind noise cancels out vehicular noise etc. Re cyclists cannot be done for speeding that is why the charge was furious or wanton , i*f a cyclist is considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they can be charged with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ *which is a criminal offence under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948) Source;https://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk...the-road-traffic-laws-that-apply-to-cyclists/
> So obeying speed limits where possible is advisable.



That offence only applies where the riding results in bodily harm to a person. It couldn’t be used for a cyclist merely exceeding a posted speed limit for motor vehicles.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35


----------



## Mike_P (10 Sep 2022)

True as the case the subject of the thread shows the rider was well within the speed limit which assisted his case positively. If however he had been exceeding the limit the outcome may have been different. No one normally speeding in/on whatever vehicle does so with expectation of hitting someone but if it happens then matters can change for the worse.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Sep 2022)

How can he exceed a limit that doesn't exist?


----------



## Jameshow (10 Sep 2022)

I don't understand why cyclists should be exempt from speed limits doing 25mph on a bike past a school 20mph is pretty dangerous imho. 

Or coming down a hill at 40mph and carry it into a village 30moh section. 

If a speeding car is a gun then a bike is a knife stealthy and dangerous when miss used.


----------



## BoldonLad (10 Sep 2022)

cougie uk said:


> Ear phones are distracting ?
> So anyone in a car with the windows wound up and the radio on is just as distracted?



Depends on the volume of the radio/earphones, IMHO. When a car overtakes me, with ‘music’ so loud that car hear it on the outside of the car, I wonder, “could the driver, for example, hear an emergency vehicle siren”, above the racket inside the car.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Sep 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I don't understand why cyclists should be exempt from speed limits doing 25mph on a bike past a school 20mph is pretty dangerous imho.
> 
> Or coming down a hill at 40mph and carry it into a village 30moh section.
> 
> If a speeding car is a gun then a bike is a knife stealthy and dangerous when miss used.



Although I agree with you, it's a difficult one, as you then get into the realms of mandating speedometers on bicycles, at which point do you decide they have to be fitted, on the age of the rider, the age of the bike, all new bike must be fitted with them, all existing bikes must be retro fitted with them. I understand why potentially it wasn't included 100 years ago as we didn't have the technology, however we now do, so maybe the law ought to be changed.

Edit:- Or how & who will enforce it is another matter


----------



## cougie uk (10 Sep 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Depends on the volume of the radio/earphones, IMHO. When a car overtakes me, with ‘music’ so loud that car hear it on the outside of the car, I wonder, “could the driver, for example, hear an emergency vehicle siren”, above the racket inside the car.



And clearly they can't. We've all seen cars oblivious to the emergency vehicle trying to get past ?


----------



## Alex321 (10 Sep 2022)

Mike_P said:


> Never worn earphones or headphones cycling but cannot see what difference that makes when all too common wind noise cancels out vehicular noise etc. Re cyclists cannot be done for speeding that is why the charge was furious or wanton , if a cyclist is considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they can be charged with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ which is a criminal offence under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948) Source;https://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk...the-road-traffic-laws-that-apply-to-cyclists/
> So obeying speed limits where possible is advisable.



Much more likely in most cases that they would be done under section 28 (Dangerous Cycling) or 29 (Careless or inconsiderate cycling) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.


----------



## Alex321 (10 Sep 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I don't understand why cyclists should be exempt from speed limits doing 25mph on a bike past a school 20mph is pretty dangerous imho.
> 
> Or coming down a hill at 40mph and carry it into a village 30moh section.
> 
> If a speeding car is a gun then a bike is a knife stealthy and dangerous when miss used.



Well the law was written to only apply to "motor" vehicles.

I suspect at least part of the reasoning being that motor vehicles are required to have a speedometer (with some exceptions), while bicycles aren't, and most probably don't.


----------



## Phil Fouracre (20 Sep 2022)

As a complete aside re the difference between ‘headphones’ v in ear ‘speakers’. I’ve been using shokz bone headset for paragliding, but, have found them very intrusive in use, being under helmet. Gone for a basic speaker/mic on curly cord positioned appx 30cms from face and find it much less distracting. Nothing to do with cycling, but….


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Sep 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I don't understand why cyclists should be exempt from speed limits doing 25mph on a bike past a school 20mph is pretty dangerous imho.



Physics


----------



## icowden (21 Sep 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I don't understand why cyclists should be exempt from speed limits doing 25mph on a bike past a school 20mph is pretty dangerous imho.
> Or coming down a hill at 40mph and carry it into a village 30moh section.
> If a speeding car is a gun then a bike is a knife stealthy and dangerous when miss used.


They aren't. They can't be done for speeding however as it is not mandatory for a bike to have a calibrated speedometer - thus it is not reasonable to expect a cyclist to know how fast they are going. They can however be done for careless cycling, wanton cycling, dangerous cycling etc if their pace is not appropriate for the circumstance and depending on what has happened.

I'd have thought that with 99% of cyclists not wanting to fall / be knocked off / badly injured that it would be reasonably rare for someone to be cycling well over the speed limit for any period of time.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Sep 2022)

icowden said:


> They aren't. They can't be done for speeding however as it is not mandatory for a bike to have a calibrated speedometer - thus it is not reasonable to expect a cyclist to know how fast they are going. They can however be done for careless cycling, wanton cycling, dangerous cycling etc if their pace is not appropriate for the circumstance and depending on what has happened.
> 
> I'd have thought that with 99% of cyclists not wanting to fall / be knocked off / badly injured that it would be reasonably rare for someone to be cycling well over the speed limit for any period of time.



They *are* exempt from speed limits, because posted speed limits only apply to *motor* vehicles.

But the rest of what you say is, of course, absolutely correct.


----------



## icowden (21 Sep 2022)

Alex321 said:


> They *are* exempt from speed limits, because posted speed limits only apply to *motor* vehicles.


Yes - I meant to say that they are not exempt from the law as a result of exceeding a speed limit as dependent on cirucmstances there are other things they could be charged with. But quite right.


----------



## matticus (23 Sep 2022)

I've only just heard about this incident - sorry, late, I know.

But my, this thread has filled up my bingo card! Nothing left to say really, except maybe:

RIP the pedestrian, and glad to see a sensible verdict reached.


----------



## Solocle (23 Sep 2022)

icowden said:


> They aren't. They can't be done for speeding however as it is not mandatory for a bike to have a calibrated speedometer - thus it is not reasonable to expect a cyclist to know how fast they are going. They can however be done for careless cycling, wanton cycling, dangerous cycling etc if their pace is not appropriate for the circumstance and depending on what has happened.
> 
> I'd have thought that with 99% of cyclists not wanting to fall / be knocked off / badly injured that it would be reasonably rare for someone to be cycling well over the speed limit for any period of time.



Not any period of time, but the first time I broke 50 mph was down East Chevin into Otley. It becomes 30 mph halfway down, about where you're just getting up to speed.

There's also a really excellent forward view.





I wouldn't ride at a speed that I felt was unsafe - but 50 mph felt safe there!


----------



## icowden (23 Sep 2022)

Solocle said:


> I wouldn't ride at a speed that I felt was unsafe - but 50 mph felt safe there!


But that's the point. If you were flying at 50mph and saw an upcoming 20mph sign and cars parked by the side of the road, I suspect that you'd apply some brakes...


----------



## Phaeton (23 Sep 2022)

icowden said:


> I suspect that you'd apply some brakes...



I suspect that there are lots that wouldn't


----------



## brommieinkorea (24 Sep 2022)

I learn a lot about British law every time I read stuff in this forum..
But, it's nice to see that justice has more or less prevailed. In the US this would probably have gone badly for the cyclist because: It is illegal to wear headphones/earbuds in or on a vehicle here, and using them while operating any vehicle shows a lack of regard for safety. Additionally the prosecution would have pointed out that had the cyclist stopped at the red light (did he not deny running a light?), he would not have been in the same place at the same time and would have completely missed the pedestrian .
Someone mentioned physics. Yes it is fairly improbable that a bicycle colliding with a healthy adult would cause said pedestrian's death.
I do believe this seems a complete accident and neither party looked well enough to avoid it , sad really.


----------



## classic33 (24 Sep 2022)

Solocle said:


> Not any period of time, but the first time I broke 50 mph was down East Chevin into Otley. It becomes 30 mph halfway down, about where you're just getting up to speed.
> 
> There's also a really excellent forward view.
> View attachment 662087
> ...


Have you been passed going down there by someone in a car.

The danger point/point to watch for is where the "newer" housing starts. Very few cars parked up on that hill.


----------



## Solocle (24 Sep 2022)

classic33 said:


> Have you been passed going down there by someone in a car.
> 
> The danger point/point to watch for is where the "newer" housing starts. Very few cars parked up on that hill.



Nope, not been passed by a car. What did get annoying was when a car passed you at the top of the hill, and then held you up 

I always viewed the bend just before crossing the A660 as the natural point to slow down, which held when I went down there again doing LEJOG.


----------



## classic33 (24 Sep 2022)

Solocle said:


> *Nope, not been passed by a car. What did get annoying was when a car passed you at the top of the hill, and then held you up*
> 
> I always viewed the bend just before crossing the A660 as the natural point to slow down, which held when I went down there again doing LEJOG.



Almost as though they've to give the car a breather/chance to get its second wind before continuing.


----------



## icowden (25 Sep 2022)

Solocle said:


> I always viewed the bend just before crossing the A660 as the natural point to slow down, which held when I went down there again doing LEJOG.


That video is amazing but terrifying...


----------



## Vantage (25 Sep 2022)

Looks a bit bumpy.


----------



## Solocle (25 Sep 2022)

Vantage said:


> Looks a bit bumpy.



Tbh it looks worse than it is, I had a vibration problem with the camera that I eventually solved with some electrical tape.

The 2nd clip, Fleet Moss, from the same day, is faster, and *that *was bumpy. I think with fresh legs and a serious attempt I could break 60 mph down there, rather than 57. 

Otley really feels smooth, at least in comparison.


----------



## simongt (1 Oct 2022)

MichaelW2 said:


> You cannot predict the motion of a pedestrian and if you aim to avoid, they may change direction to interception course again.


Indeed. Recently whilst walking along a shared path, I'd moved to my right to look at a feature; this is a former railway line, and as I was moving back onto the path proper, I was suddenly made aware of a cyclist moving rather faster than he should have been ( I'd heard the sound of his tyres on the tarmac ) as there were other pedestrians on the path, approaching me. He began swerving to left and right as he got very close, he was exclaiming 'Whoa, whoa, whoa' and as I wasn't too sure which direction he intended to take, I was also dodging to try and avoid him. Whether he had a bell or not, but he made no audible warning of his approach in good time, hence the dance routine between us.


----------

