Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[youngoldbloke]

When you step out of your house, though, watch out for all the balls flying about from people playing cricket in the road.

There is that too

 

[Mr Celine]

All aboard the hyperbole train is it?

Since pedestrians are allowed to use what you term "the road", indeed may walk down the middle of it if they want, play cricket on it if they wish, without any special permission, clearly, yes, you are wrong.

Walking up the middle of the road can get you an ASBO.

http://www.bordertelegraph.com/news...SBO_by_walking_home_from_hospital_on_the_A68/

 

[Mr Celine]

"The same offence"?

I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the reporting in the Border Telegraph.

However ISTR he had previously been charged with obstructing the highway.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Walking up the middle of the road can get you an ASBO.

http://www.bordertelegraph.com/news...SBO_by_walking_home_from_hospital_on_the_A68/

Nope. Repeatedly obstructing the highway, and doing so in a way that endangers (EDIT: or inconveniences) other highway users can get you an ASBO.

Perhaps they could issue ASBOs to pavement parkers, speeders, drink drivers, the uninsured, those with illegally loud exhausts, amber gamblers, red light jumpers, those who sail through pedestrian crossings when the lights are agin them, those who overtake on the zig zags, and the nobbers that don't allow pedestrians to cross side roads. To name but a few of the anti-social behaviours to be seen every day in our public shared spaces.

But it is ok because operating a motor vehicle entitles you to behave like an anti-social nobber, doesn't it..
.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 4939910, member: 43827"]Your selective bit of my post asks the questions to clarify your point of view. The full post, if you read that far, did not disagree that a carriageway is a shared space.[/QUOTE]
My pov needed no clarification. It was clear. If you agree with it why question it?

 

[jarlrmai]

Nope. Repeatedly obstructing the highway, and doing so in a way that endangers other highway users can get you an ASBO.

Perhaps they could issue ASBOs to pavement parkers, speeders, drink drivers, the uninsured, those with illegally loud exhausts, amber gamblers, red light jumpers, those who sail through pedestrian crossings when the lights are agin them, those who overtake on the zig zags, and the nobbers that don't allow pedestrians to cross side roads. To name but a few of the anti-social behaviours to be seen every day in our public shared spaces.

But it is ok because operating a motor vehicle entitles you to behave like an anti-social nobber, doesn't it..
.

I could not have said it better myself.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I could not have said it better myself.

Can you imagine the furore, the absolute uproar. that would result if motorists were given ASBO's for their anti-social behaviour. Which they regard as perfectly normal. One of our neighbours households now parks five motor vehicles in the street. If I needed more room to store my property...

 

[mjr]

Yes, a load of balls .

I cycled along a small suburban road today which had full-size basketball hoops set up on either side (at an angle across it, plus it's a wide bit of road anyway, as I think it used to be a turning head before the road was continued). It's nice that some places still have children playing ball games in the street like when I grew up, rather than bullied off by motorists as they seem to be in most places now. I'll try to remember to take a picture next time I'm there, if the hoops are still up.

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

I wonder if John was being tongue in cheek here?

http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal

Him, & Brant, were always the shop jokers, when they worked in Two Wheels Good, in the early 90's

 

[rliu]

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-...edestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest

Relevant story today on road.cc to this continuing debate about if a pedestrian is indeed a more vulnerable road user than a cyclist.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-...edestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest

Relevant story today on road.cc to this continuing debate about if a pedestrian is indeed a more vulnerable road user than a cyclist.

Which, generally, carries the greater kinetic energy and thus represents the greater risk to the other?

 

[srw]

thus

Are you sure?

I'm no physicist, but I'd have thought it's rapid changes in kinetic energy which bring the risk. The statistics would suggest that neither is a meaningful risk to the other.

 

[Profpointy]

In reply to srw and grumpy, and thinking about the physics / ethics...

It is the cyclist who brings the most kinetic energy into things and thus the source of essentially all the danger.

However, I'd suggest the cyclist would still be the one most likely to be hurt as a glancing blow would only be a shove to the pedestrian yet cause the cyclist to fall off at speed.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Are you sure?

I'm no physicist, but I'd have thought it's rapid changes in kinetic energy which bring the risk. The statistics would suggest that neither is a meaningful risk to the other.

Yes, rapid transfer of kinetic energy from one to other is what does the damage. aka a collision. Sloppy wording in my part. In the presence of one who deals with risk.

 

[rliu]

I got a pretty nervous brush with a fox that ran across my path on a slight uphill once when I was going 15mph. Sure the fox would've come off worse if I hadn't swerved but I still didn't fancy getting brought down.

The case now has provoked calls for new legislation for cyclists. You could say fair enough law breakers in any form of transport should be punished, but it just runs counter to common sense for any cyclists to try and mow down any object more hefty than a plastic cup. It's really a mis direction of parliamentary time.