Cyclist kills pedestrian

[skwerl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Perspective.

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

 

[magnatom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

Dave.

 

[marinyork]

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.