Yet another elderly person killed by a cyclist

[Punkawallah]

That 70 must be worldwide.
BMJ suggest average 4-5 deaths per annum in UK. Majority are farm workers, rest are lone walkers with a dog, and the vast majority involves a cow with calf, i.e the Cow feels its calf is being threatened and defends it.

https://link.springer.com/article/1...he United Kingdom, 74,by domestic cattle [17].

 

[Arjimlad]

Maybe read the reports?

too many crazy cyclists out there! people need to make themselves more known on the roads, be brighter and always have some form of bell, then it would maybe avoid such sad accidents like this

 

[Poacher]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12024-024-00786-8#:~:text=In the United Kingdom, 74,by domestic cattle [17].

If you follow that link, then check the reference (15), the figure of 74 is for the years 2000-2015, so approximately 5 per year in the UK, which matches the number of 4-5 given by the BMJ, mentioned by @T4tomo
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/how-many-people-killed-by-cows/

 

[Time Waster]

Not at all true.

In a criminal case, you are only guilty if proved "beyond reasonable doubt".

In a civil case, liability is determined on "balance of probabilities". A MUCH lower standard of proof.

I think it was my post about preesumed liability that got this train of discussion going. I made the point that if the UK already hade a presumed liability law in place like other european countries have then I wondered whether this guy would end up being found liable in a civil case or if there was enough evidence to prove he had no liability in this case.

BTW I am curious about the 3mph figure. The only person that mentioned that was the accused in the case. You would hardly admit to doing 10mph or whatever could be getting yourself into trouble. So the cycling website to say he was doung 3mph like it had been proven is deliberately being misleading, as much as the anti cyclling media sources. A little naughty of them IMHO and lessens their credibillity IMHO of course.

AIUI the witness said he did not hear a bell, the friend said she did not hear a bell. Unless there is more evidence not reported, including in the cyclling website report, then you can not say he used a bell for certain. Not that it matters as a bell is not very good for identification of risk and vector of the risk in real llife situations IME as a pedestrian and a cyclist on towpaths you don't often register what the bell is and where from until the cyclist is on you and matching your pace. As a cyclist I often get to the pedestrians before they understand and react to my bell. Better to shout out as that tends to get identified as someone behind you.

Does anyone know what wanton cycling or whatever the phrase is means IRL? DO you kmow what wanton and furious cycling looks like? Is is defined precisely or a judgement call? As a lay person would the witness, professor whatnot, know what it looks liike?

Mixed use rights of way is never great if you are the moree vulnerable user. Have you ever been overtaken when in your car by a huge juggernaut travelling cose by? I did once and it was not a great experience. What about a van close pass on a bike? I have, heck i've even been caught under a bogey truck trailer between the front and rear wheel of the trailer as it accelerated to over 30mph after it overtook me then cut in without giving me anywhere close to enough space. In fact it never actually overtook me before pulling in. That was scary. Or the time my son got bowled over when 6 years old by a runner on a narrow canal towpath and nearly fell into the cut during covid. Fortunately he was a faster runner than me and had been long gone before I knew what had happened. Or the time I was close passsed as a pedestrian on the towpath. No bell at all and he never slowed down. I just think that as a cyclist I am more likely to be a vulnerable user on the roads so I know what that feels like. If I go onto towpaths or other mixed use paths I feel like I should remember what being the more vulnerable user feels like and apply to others on the towpath.

This is basically a sad case because it involves a death of a more vulnerable path user, doubly so as it is a vulnerable person on top of that being elderly. IF the witness reporting is correct in that he noted something about the reflex of the elderly woman was not good then she had an additional vulnerability. Then it is sad for the cyclist in that he has gone through a court case that IMHO was needed to decide the case and he has a link with an unnecesary death of another person. Would you want that on your conscious even if you got cleared in a criminal case.

So IMHO I think as cyclists we should learn about this case. As in learn to accept that on mixed use paths especially canal towpaths we need to consider ourselfs as the cars on the route and give a wide berth even walk the bike past. BTW getting off the bike makes you wider passing unit but that is irrelevant because that is not why you are getting off and walking it. The reason because it makes you less of a danger to the pedestrians as you pass by. At slow speed you have less balance on a bike but off the bike you have more control around the pedestrian.

One last point, when I first moved to a house with a canal at the back the body that ran the canals back then did not allow cyclists on the towpath without getting a licence for the cycllist. There was a local office number and postal address to contact tto get one. You had to prove you lived in the area IIRC to get it. Never did but years later the rules changed and you didn't. I know a lot who used it without and some who used it with a licence. I have no idea if that was a universal situation back then everywhere in the UK canal network.

 

[mjr]

As a cyclist I often get to the pedestrians before they understand and react to my bell. Better to shout out as that tends to get identified as someone behind you.

No way! A nice bell (not a pinger) is usually understood, but sneaking up on someone and shouting is likely to get you pushed in a canal!

BTW getting off the bike makes you wider passing unit but that is irrelevant because that is not why you are getting off and walking it. The reason because it makes you less of a danger to the pedestrians as you pass by. At slow speed you have less balance on a bike but off the bike you have more control around the pedestrian.

I'm far more of a danger dismounted. As well as being wider, I'm much more likely to hit someone with the bike when not on it because it's much harder to balance a pushed bike than a ridden one, even riding slowly and wobbling a bit, and I can't see where the bits sticking out on the far side are as easily.

BTW I agree it's a sad case no matter the verdict.

 

[Slick]

What on earth makes you think there was "clearly no doubt"?

If it were that clear, it would never have got to court. The CPS have a general policy of only taking it to court if they believe they have a good chance of winning.

During the trial, a defence witness called Nicholas Proudfoot, a professor in molecular biology at the University of Oxford, suggested the incident was less of a collision and more a case of Mrs Friedhoff having "lost her balance".

There was quite a bit more, but it seemed to me this guys evidence was accepted as fact, despite the prosecution trying to paint him as bias.

 

[Bristolian]

@ExBrit Back at you

The fact that he was found not guilty does not change my views on the case one iota. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian they are either a) riding too fast for the scenario in front of them, b) incredibly stupid or c) totally entitled. There can be no excuse for it.

 

[Slick]

Its like nobody actually reads the details of the case.

 

[Poacher]

Its like nobody actually reads the details of the case.

Or just reads the headlines in the Daily Mail or Telegraph, and takes them as the gospel truth.

 

[Fastpedaller]

@ExBrit Back at you

The fact that he was found not guilty does not change my views on the case one iota. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian they are either a) riding too fast for the scenario in front of them, b) incredibly stupid or c) totally entitled. There can be no excuse for it.

Hmm - Maybe look at available evidence?
Many years ago a friend had a collision with a pedestrian. My friend was stationary at traffic lights and a coach pulled up beside him. A severely obese woman stepped off the pavement into my friend, knocking him into the coach. He ended up with bad bruising. i don't know what happened to the pedestrian, but if she'd struck her head on the ground, would my friend have been guilty of anything in your opinion?

 

[Vantage]

@Bristolian is correct here. It is physically impossible to hit a pedestrian, dog etc whilst cycling unless you've done something wrong.
A pedestrian walking into a cyclist is a different thing.
If I'm about to pass someone I ring the bell, give them time to move out of the way and acknowledge that I'm passing them. Unless there's ample room to pass either side of them I wait until they have steadied themselves before doing so.
Getting off the bike and pushing it is stupid advice as if there isn't room to cycle past, there sure as hell isn't room to walk with the bike past. Doing that takes up at least twice the space.

 

[Fastpedaller]

@Bristolian is correct here. It is physically impossible to hit a pedestrian, dog etc whilst cycling unless you've done something wrong.
A pedestrian walking into a cyclist is a different thing.

It may be a different thing, but some "witnesses" nearby could come forward with a 'different set of facts' which on the face of it could support Bristolian's prejudice?

 

[All uphill]

Getting off the bike and pushing it is stupid advice as if there isn't room to cycle past, there sure as hell isn't room to walk with the bike past. Doing that takes up at least twice the space.

I'm not sure about this.

I do get off the bike occasionally on narrow stretches or when encountering pedestrians.

I do this for a couple of reasons:

To get on the verge of a towpath, for example, and let a group of oncoming pedestrians past.

To reduce the perceived threat i present to possibly nervous or vulnerable people. A static object is less scary than a moving object.

When I want to let the other person make the decision and, by implication, take the responsibility for any bad outcome.

As an example I was on a Riverside path this morning when a group of parents, dogs and toddlers approached from the opposite direction. It made sense to me to stop, dismount and let the various hazards pass.

 

[Vantage]

Yebbut standing is different to walking. When walking, you have to leave enough room between you and the bike so the pedals don't rip your shins to ribbons.

 

[wafter]

I'm not sure about this.

I do get off the bike occasionally on narrow stretches or when encountering pedestrians.

I do this for a couple of reasons:

To get on the verge of a towpath, for example, and let a group of oncoming pedestrians past.

To reduce the perceived threat i present to possibly nervous or vulnerable people. A static object is less scary than a moving object.

When I want to let the other person make the decision and, by implication, take the responsibility for any bad outcome.

As an example I was on a Riverside path this morning when a group of parents, dogs and toddlers approached from the opposite direction. It made sense to me to stop, dismount and let the various hazards pass.

A good point... personally in areas where it's driven home hard that cyclists must dismount (such as the big signs on the convoluted temp walkway by the station in Oxford currently) I'll do as requested and sometimes push the bike infront of me by the saddle to minimise my width.

In more ambiguous areas I'll sometimes remain on the bike but put one foot down to gently push myself along at walking pace as a halfway house between getting off completely while still showing some complicity.

As you suggest, sometimes if there appears to be a real hazard such as a really tight spot or very unstable ped, it's best just to stop and let them pass.

I think generally most of us have the common sense and courtesy to manage these situations in an appropriate way; after all consider how many journeys are made on mixed-use paths versus the amount of incidents there are. For example I've spent probably in excess of 200hrs on the tow paths of Oxford in the past year and don't recall any incidents of contact between pedestrians and cyclists - certainly none that were serious enough to stick in my mind.