Another pedestrian injured by cyclist

[mustang1]

Regardless of the speed he was doing, the lady gave him no chance to avoid her. She pretty well ran into him. I doubt the guy was thinking straight, between the adrenaline and the head knock that he appears to have taken, and that could be part of the reason why he walked off eventually.

No doubt if the bike is illegal he'll have the book thrown at him, but I think the blame lies mostly with the lady and the rider is fortunate there is CCTV of the incident.

The headline should have been:

Numpty pedestrian seriously injures herself after running into cyclist and causes him injury. Pedestrian seriously in

 

[jarlrmai]

The headline should have been:

Numpty pedestrian seriously injures herself after running into cyclist and causes him injury. Pedestrian seriously in

You're not helping here mate.

 

[wheresthetorch]

Sadly it's just been reported that the pedestrian has died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Sadly it's just been reported that the pedestrian has died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026

Ah, that's awful.

 

[mjr]

Yes, it's awful. The reporting's very bad too.

 

[T4tomo]

I thought the BBC article was quite balanced. It identified Ebike vs regular and the fact the fact that only 3 of 400 odd ped deaths involved a cycle.

 

[mjr]

I thought the BBC article was quite balanced. It identified Ebike vs regular and the fact the fact that only 3 of 400 odd ped deaths involved a cycle.

Then I think your compass has been tilted by how anti-cycling reporting usually is! It's biased because:

• it puts "hit-and-run" in the headline and calls it "a suspected hit-and-run" in the first paragraph when there's no such criminal offence for cycling;
• it says the walker was "struck by" the cyclist - something that they often refuse to do when a motorist hits a cyclist, preferring at best something like "cyclist killed in collision with van" (making the cyclist the lead actor and ignoring any driver's involvement);
• it makes no mention of the CCTV showing the walker crossing against the lights into the path of plainly-visible approaching cyclists;
• it mentions the barely-related Alliston case - so far, there's no official mention that the Specialized e-MTB wasn't road-legal IIRC;
• it perpetuates the myths that law becomes bad merely by being old and that dangerous driving is a good offence (despite the far higher numbers of motoring-caused deaths...);
• it mentions that only 3 of 400 odd walker deaths involved a cycle but doesn't mention what kills the overwhelming majority of walkers.

And that's just the obvious stuff.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I thought the BBC article was quite balanced. It identified Ebike vs regular and the fact the fact that only 3 of 400 odd ped deaths involved a cycle.

Just to give it perspective I'm much in the same vein as yourself, didn't think it was that bad

 

[numbnuts]

Luckily the Mail is not allowing comments which makes a change
RIP to the lady

 

[jarlrmai]

Do we know yet if this was a legal eBike or not yet?

 

[mjr]

Do we know yet if this was a legal eBike or not yet?

NAFAIK. We now know it was a Specialized and they do at least make e-MTBs, so there's a chance it was legal... but it could have been modified, of course.

 

[classic33]

Then I think your compass has been tilted by how anti-cycling reporting usually is! It's biased because:

• it puts "hit-and-run" in the headline and calls it "a suspected hit-and-run" in the first paragraph when there's no such criminal offence for cycling;
• it says the walker was "struck by" the cyclist - something that they often refuse to do when a motorist hits a cyclist, preferring at best something like "cyclist killed in collision with van" (making the cyclist the lead actor and ignoring any driver's involvement);
• it makes no mention of the CCTV showing the walker crossing against the lights into the path of plainly-visible approaching cyclists;
• it mentions the barely-related Alliston case - so far, there's no official mention that the Specialized e-MTB wasn't road-legal IIRC;
• it perpetuates the myths that law becomes bad merely by being old and that dangerous driving is a good offence (despite the far higher numbers of motoring-caused deaths...);
• it mentions that only 3 of 400 odd walker deaths involved a cycle but doesn't mention what kills the overwhelming majority of walkers.

And that's just the obvious stuff.

A woman lies dead, the result of a hit and run, and you complain about how it's been worded. Have some respect for her and her family.

 

[DaveReading]

A woman lies dead, the result of a hit and run, and you complain about how it's been worded. Have some respect for her and her family.

I'd have thought that, given the outcome, it would be a pretty good idea to report the facts correctly.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

A little bit of fag packet arithmetic says if he was doing 15mph and weighed approx 90kg with the bike weighing 23kg he hit her with a force of 2948N or 300kgf- that's pretty substantial and it's little wonder her injuries were so bad.

If he were doing 20 mph, the impact would have been 3960N or 403 kgf.

To put that in perspective, a bullet hits with a force of 1218N or 124 kgf.

(somebody better with numbers may come along and correct this)

 

[numbnuts]

It looks like his bike may have been legal, I'm sure the papers would have said
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...green-trendy-week-claimed-British-victim.html