Dutchman cleared of 'manslaughter by furious or wanton driving' in Manchester .
- Thread starter Cycleops
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
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
Legendary Member
with the windows shut, can you hear what's going on outside? That is to say, better than you could with earphones in?
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
Brandane
Legendary Member
- Location
- Costa Clyde
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.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
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.
Unless the earphones are on transparency mode
cougie uk
Guru
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:
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.
OP
OP
Cycleops
Legendary Member
- Location
- Accra, Ghana
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.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
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?
OP
OP
Cycleops
Legendary Member
- Location
- Accra, Ghana
I didn’t say that. Completely irrelevant.
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.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
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?
