Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[glasgowcyclist]

No but i thank everyone of them that makes way for me on shared paths.

But that is a courtesy on their part whereas yours (in the previous example) is an obligation.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It is an odd thing that you see, mostly with car drivers. We are so conditioned to going on green, and not holding up the traffic behind, that drivers will usually start moving despite the human being walking in front of them. They usually stop, rather than run the person down but they do start first.

Yes, I see that often. They're not likely to run someone over but that doesn't stop them trying to intimidate pedestrians out of the way by creeping forward or revving the engine. No need for it.

 

[T4tomo]

[QUOTE 4939277, member: 45"]Yes. And vehicle users are responsible for not driving into people. Continuing on their path while shouting "get out of the way!" twice isn't acceptable. That shows an expectation of entitlement that doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree, I thought we'd moved onto more general rather than specifics.

Re,Specifics I think CA was an odious arrogant little scrote, probably lied about not knowing a front brake was needed to make his fixie legal and safe, was probably riding too fast for the urban environment, although ironically possibly slower than vehicles on same road, and was rightly convicted of wanton and furious etc, mainly as he was riding a bike he couldn't stop safely, had time to slow it down (he shouted twice by his own admission) and chose not too. BUT no way should he have been up on manslaughter charge. The fact that the lady died was extremely unlucky and unfortunate and tragic for her family and friends.

 

[T4tomo]

Yes it is. We have some demarcation, in that we don't normally expect motor vehicles to be driven on the pavement part of the road.

Wasn't your definition, but I was referring to the carriage way part.

Agree we don't expect mv's on the pavement, when they are they should be up for manslaughter if they kill someone, but rarely are; they are normally on a death by careless or reckless charge. One of the things the press in the main is ignoring in the coverage of this case.

In other news it's OK, if you are in a car to just run over a cyclist, as long as you "just didn't see them" (or indeed weren't looking where you were going insulated in your metal bubble, which surely falls into the definition of careless driving does it not???)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ed-prosecution-sees-defendant-acquitted-just/

 

[RoubaixCube]

[QUOTE 4939269, member: 45"]So you don't thank pedestrians for allowing you to pass but expect them to thank you.[/QUOTE]

I pass when the lights turn green.

When i am on foot though i thank drivers for letting me pass if they give way

 

[swansonj]

If we say that roads are a shared public space (which I emphatically do) then aren't we accepting that all users have some responsibility to use that shared space in a cooperative way?

But surely the degree of responsibility on different users of that shared public space varies with the nature of the space?

On a rural A road, the driver of a car (or horse-drawn stage coach) who sees a pedestrian at the side of the road ahead still has a responsibility to consider the possibility that they may be about to step out. But if they do step out in front at the last minute and get hit, they have some responsibility too, and I don't regard acknowledging that as victim blaming.

In a town, otoh, the nature of the shared space is different. It's no longer shared primarily for getting from A to B, it's shared primarily for the business of the daily life of a community. So imho the balance of responsibilities shifts. The responsibility is far more on the driver (whether of car, lorry, cycle or stage coach) to drive in a way that respects the nature of the use of the shared space, and far less on the pedestrian to adjust their sharing of the space to suit others.

 

[classic33]

I pass when the lights turn green.

When i am on foot though i thank drivers for letting me pass if they give way

Green means you may go/continue if it safe/clear to do so. Not Go.

 

[mjr]

If they want to live they should.we have pavements for a reason, they separate pedestrians from cars and lorries etc.

Yes it is. We have some demarcation, in that we don't normally expect motor vehicles to be driven on the pavement part of the road.

You don't? I see it far too often, especially in suburban areas when one motorist is waiting to turn right and there's not enough space on their left for other impatient motorists to push past - then they just mount the pavement without a second thought and barely slowing down and when they finally notice there's a person walking there with nowhere to go because they're not going to jump into a hedge with a solid palisade fence in it, it's a black tyre skid and brown trouser moment:

In a town, otoh, the nature of the shared space is different. It's no longer shared primarily for getting from A to B, it's shared primarily for the business of the daily life of a community.

You think it's primarily for business? Then you must love the current funding system introduced by Cameron's coalition government, with businesspeople from the unelected and unaccountable "Local Enterprise Partnerships" sitting on Local Transport Bodies and allocating almost all the money to motoring projects, which is part of the reason why walking is so ill-served with crossings put where they're best for motoring, not where walkers want them.

 

[RoubaixCube]

[QUOTE 4939351, member: 45"]So when you're on the road and a pedestrian is waiting to cross, you don't thank them for allowing you to pass.

Yet you expect pedestrians to thank you for obeying crossing regulations.

That doesnt make sense.[/QUOTE]

Some do. Im not mad about it. I don't even care tbh but it would be nice

 

[swansonj]

...
You think it's primarily for business? Then you must love the current funding system introduced by Cameron's coalition government, with businesspeople from the unelected and unaccountable "Local Enterprise Partnerships" sitting on Local Transport Bodies and allocating almost all the money to motoring projects, which is part of the reason why walking is so ill-served with crossings put where they're best for motoring, not where walkers want them.

I chose the word "business" deliberately. I did not mean the restrictive meaning you appear to have taken.

 

[classic33]

I chose the word "business" deliberately. I did not mean the restrictive meaning you appear to have taken.

As in going about your business, which is how I read it.

 

[mjr]

I chose the word "business" deliberately. I did not mean the restrictive meaning you appear to have taken.

And it stuck out like a sort thumb with its implication that only people carrying out business are worthy. It's easy to claim it's not what you meant when challenged, but it would be much more believable if you could just explain what you did mean without playing for time...

 

[Dan B]

business: things with which you/people are busy. Seems uncontroversial

 

[theclaud]

And it stuck out like a sort thumb with its implication that only people carrying out business are worthy. It's easy to claim it's not what you meant when challenged, but it would be much more believable if you could just explain what you did mean without playing for time...

Give over!

 

[swansonj]

And it stuck out like a sort thumb with its implication that only people carrying out business are worthy. It's easy to claim it's not what you meant when challenged, but it would be much more believable if you could just explain what you did mean without playing for time...

I wasn't playing for time, I was trying to avoid wasting time by explaining what I thought should have been clear enough. However, seeing as you ask so politely:

The phrase I used was "the business of the daily life of the community". The daily life of the community includes going to work; going to school; shopping; going for a drink or a coffee or sandwich; drinking your coffee or eating your sandwich; getting drunk; meeting a friend by previous arrangement; bumping into a friend unexpectedly; snogging you lover; having an argument; taking an old person for a walk; going for a walk or cycle yourself; being happy; being depressed; and just aimlessly spending time being rather than doing.

All of those things are part of what makes up a healthy community. They are therefore legitimately the business of a community. I used the term deliberately to indicate that these things are not fripperies to be subjugated to the "higher" purpose of driving a car on "business", but are at the core of what society - and therefore its use of its shared space - are all about.