Yet another elderly person killed by a cyclist

[Time Waster]

Not guilty in a criminal trial but would he be liable in a civil case for damages? If we had the liability laws cycling safety advocates are calling for and that is in many more cycling friendly nations would he be able to prove he was not liable in a civil reparations way?

It is my POV that it would be difficult to be sur that he would get off that presumed liability. The witness did not back up his bell statement, the friend said he did not ring a bell so that can not be proven. The witness gave what could be considered expert evidence as to the deceased increased vulnerability due to age related issues. What would the outcome be under presumed liabiliity in your opinion? I think that as far as is known there is not a clear evidence of preesumed liability being overcome by the evidence. The key evidence (if reported correctly) from the physician is significant to suggest the cyclist is liable under such presumed liability.

 

[icowden]

A witness also stated the same, while as far as I can tell no eye witnesses have said anything to dispute this claim.

The friend of the deceased stated otherwise. She was the primary witness.

 

[icowden]

Not guilty in a criminal trial but would he be liable in a civil case for damages?

In a civil case the prosecution would only have to prove that he caused the death on balance of probability. Liability would still have to be proven, but it would be easier to achieve.

 

[MontyVeda]

I don't know the details of this tragic case, but from experience whether you are quiet or noisy, ring a bell or call out, some pedestrians will simply step in front of you just as you go by, oblivious to the possibility that someone else might be using the trail too. That's why I always video my rides.

At 81 she probably didn't hear the bell and had no idea he was about to pass her. One incautious step in the wrong direction and it's over. I feel almost as sorry for him as I do for her. I'm sure he's devastated.

i go by the general rule of... Pedestrians have the right to meander.

As a cyclist, i treat every ped as I'd like every car driver to treat me; pass only when safe, at an appropriate speed and leaving plenty of distance. I don't feel sorry for the cyclist at all.

 

[Dogtrousers]

It's a reminder to us all that we should be bloody careful when cycling around pedestrians, even if they can be a bit unpredictable and annoying. Just as we should be bloody careful when driving around cyclists and pedestrians, even if they can be ...

 

[icowden]

It's a reminder to us all that we should be bloody careful when cycling around pedestrians, even if they can be a bit unpredictable and annoying. Just as we should be bloody careful when driving around cyclists and pedestrians, even if they can be ...

Indeed. There has been a very passionate discussion on my local NextDoor which now ends with "It's ok folks, you can put the pitchforks and torches away... he was declared not guilty".

Anyone running an anti-cycling bingo card would have got a full house I think.

 

[Slick]

Not guilty in a criminal trial but would he be liable in a civil case for damages? If we had the liability laws cycling safety advocates are calling for and that is in many more cycling friendly nations would he be able to prove he was not liable in a civil reparations way?

It is my POV that it would be difficult to be sur that he would get off that presumed liability. The witness did not back up his bell statement, the friend said he did not ring a bell so that can not be proven. The witness gave what could be considered expert evidence as to the deceased increased vulnerability due to age related issues. What would the outcome be under presumed liabiliity in your opinion? I think that as far as is known there is not a clear evidence of preesumed liability being overcome by the evidence. The key evidence (if reported correctly) from the physician is significant to suggest the cyclist is liable under such presumed liability.

Clearlt not guilty of anything, so any civil claim would be doomed to failure.

 

[icowden]

Clearlt not guilty of anything, so any civil claim would be doomed to failure.

That's not true. The Criminal conviction doesn't magically transfer to a civil suit. It all starts again. Liability has to be proven. The difference is that for a Jury there must be no doubt whatsoever that the actions were criminal. The idea is that it is better that a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be convicted.

For a civil case there are no such concerns. Probably is good enough.

 

[Cycleops]

Presumably the test will be if a ambulance chasing lawyer crawls out of the woodwork and pesters the family to do a 'no win - no fee' and they accept.

 

[Slick]

That's not true. The Criminal conviction doesn't magically transfer to a civil suit. It all starts again. Liability has to be proven. The difference is that for a Jury there must be no doubt whatsoever that the actions were criminal. The idea is that it is better that a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be convicted.

For a civil case there are no such concerns. Probably is good enough.

I get that and understand the difference between precedent and probability.

In this case, there was clearly no doubt. The guy was not guilty and therefore any civil claim would be doomed to fail.

We could argue all night of course, but only time will tell.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Pedestrians just don't realise the stress and problems cyclists have with warning them of our presence.

To shout or ring a bell, or just rely on squeaky brakes?

What to shout...will they understand what "on the right" means (or "on your left" if they are hogging the right of the path). When to shout so that they have time to react without jumping out of their skins but without being out of earshot.

If using a bell, how many rings, how far away, getting a bell that sounds firm but friendly and doesn't scream "get out of my way".

Is it worth shouting or ringing a bell if they have headphones or earbuds?

It causes me so much stress I just shut my eyes and bomb through whatever gap there is as fast as possible to get it over with. Tbf it has not gone wrong very often.

That's a valid solution
I used to live on top of a hill and the road up it was very narrow and steep and went round 2 sharp tight bends

Once I was at the bottom of the hill with my ex and our daughter
I needed to go back for something and my daughter wanted to come with me and get her bike
she had been down the hill many times - but only with me next to her
SHe knew the drill - both brakes hard on and DEAD slow

but as she was older and sensible I let her go back down on her own

she decided that it was a bit of a problem and decided to use your technique and not bother with the brakes!

I looked at the skid marks afterwards and I reckon she cleared about 6 foot over a corner of a metal fence - 4 foot high - and landed on some grass

worked fine - she didn;t die or even break anything!!!!!

 

[steveindenmark]

Ringing the bell is no excuse for running someone over. Sure ring the bell. But be prepared to slow down and stop.

 

[the_mikey]

I really dislike towpaths as cycle routes, and I can imagine the increased interest in gravel bikes have brought a lot of towpaths and bridleways into view as an easy, relatively safe and traffic free alternative to the road, but that doesn't mean it's welcome or safe for the other users.

 

[Bristolian]

Peloton? The incident was on a towpath and involved one cyclist. I hardly think high speed pelotons, calm or otherwise, have any relevance.

And the case is ongoing so we don't know the ins and outs of it.

I think you know what I mean; there are many cyclists out there that think they are in a race and ride at inappropriately high speeds when it is neither safe nor warranted.

I'm aware that the case is ongoing and I wasn't making a judgement, simply expressing my personal view following the death of an elderly vulnerable road user. The fact that it happened on a towpath is irrelevant.

Here's another personal, general observation; we, as a group of vulnerable road users, complain about "close passes" and lack of care by those that should exercise more care towards us, yet elements of our fraternity behave in exactly the same way towards those more vulnerable than ourselves. A bit of a double standard, IMHO (YVMV).

 

[Bristolian]

While you are of course entitled to your opinion, I of course am entitled to discard it.

Absolutely. I have fought for your right to have an opinion so I would never try to prevent you having it