Ped gets 3 years for manslaughter of cyclist hit by car…

[JQ]

The Three D Mucketeer said:

I had a cyclist spit on my face through my window !
For balance

To drive a car on the road you need to pass a test , have insurance and pay VED . After a certain age you need to sign you are physically able to drive and at 90 years old I think you need a Doctors certificate .
What do you need to be lawful riding a cycle ? and now with battery assist you don't even need to pedal .

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Thursday 9th May 15:22

That's because motorists kill or seriously injure 85 people every day and cause £12 billion of damage every year. Meanwhile you're more likely to be killed by a bee than a cyclist. Regulation is quite rightly related to risk.

[Derek Smith]

JQ said:

That's because motorists kill or seriously injure 85 people every day and cause £12 billion of damage every year. Meanwhile you're more likely to be killed by a bee than a cyclist. Regulation is quite rightly related to risk.

We must ban bees!

[Ganglandboss]

The Three D Mucketeer said:

I had a cyclist spit on my face through my window !
For balance

To drive a car on the road you need to pass a test , have insurance and pay VED . After a certain age you need to sign you are physically able to drive and at 90 years old I think you need a Doctors certificate .
What do you need to be lawful riding a cycle ? and now with battery assist you don't even need to pedal .

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Thursday 9th May 15:22

You do not have to pay VED. VED is linked to your vehicle's emissions, and the rate for a zero emissions vehicle is nil.

I think most people who are not physically able to drive a car would struggle more with a bike.

With battery assist you do need to pedal. An electrically propelled pedal cycle has to be type approved (and therefore subject to registration and insurance etc) if it can be propelled without pedalling.

[J4CKO]

The Three D Mucketeer said:

J4CKO said:

heebeegeetee said:

The Three D Mucketeer said:

I could make cycling very safe...

Just ban them from the roads.

Yep, in a country that already restricts freedom and choice of travel very much, let's restrict it further.

Just been out on my errand bike at lunchtime, had four errands to run round the town (all for the wife) all done in thirty minutes, no parking spaces used in busy car parks, didnt get in the way seeing as the traffic was stood still in the main, did three miles, burnt 171 calories apparently. But no, you have to take a ton and a bit of motor car apparently ? Even when you dont need more than one seat or the carrying capacity beyond a pannier or two.

Doesn't add up to me, should be encouraging bicycle use, it wasnt me in the way in the town centre, it was queues of cars, would have taken longer in the car, involved finding a parking space, paying for parking, walking in between, queuing up, the moaners should really give it a go.

There speaks a previous Nissan 350Z and Porsche 944 owner , I guess before he was married

Hmm, been married since 1994, pre 350Z if not 944, not sure what using a bicycle has to do with it ?

Its just a case of picking the right tool for the job in hand, which in this case wasn't a car, thus not contributing to, or becoming embroiled in the gridlock in the town centre.

Another one of those things, like EV's where a hill has been chosen to die on, in this case the ridiculous assertion that cycling should not be allowed on roads, I dont think cycling has ever been banned anywhere, so its unlikely, especially when its part of the governments strategy and emissions targets.

I dont cycle for that, I do it as its useful, and can be quite enjoyable, doing 20,30,40 or more miles under your own steam I find quite satisfying.

[Derek Smith]

J4CKO said:

The Three D Mucketeer said:

J4CKO said:

heebeegeetee said:

The Three D Mucketeer said:

I could make cycling very safe...

Just ban them from the roads.

Yep, in a country that already restricts freedom and choice of travel very much, let's restrict it further.

Just been out on my errand bike at lunchtime, had four errands to run round the town (all for the wife) all done in thirty minutes, no parking spaces used in busy car parks, didnt get in the way seeing as the traffic was stood still in the main, did three miles, burnt 171 calories apparently. But no, you have to take a ton and a bit of motor car apparently ? Even when you dont need more than one seat or the carrying capacity beyond a pannier or two.

Doesn't add up to me, should be encouraging bicycle use, it wasnt me in the way in the town centre, it was queues of cars, would have taken longer in the car, involved finding a parking space, paying for parking, walking in between, queuing up, the moaners should really give it a go.

There speaks a previous Nissan 350Z and Porsche 944 owner , I guess before he was married

Hmm, been married since 1994, pre 350Z if not 944, not sure what using a bicycle has to do with it ?

Its just a case of picking the right tool for the job in hand, which in this case wasn't a car, thus not contributing to, or becoming embroiled in the gridlock in the town centre.

Another one of those things, like EV's where a hill has been chosen to die on, in this case the ridiculous assertion that cycling should not be allowed on roads, I dont think cycling has ever been banned anywhere, so its unlikely, especially when its part of the governments strategy and emissions targets.

I dont cycle for that, I do it as its useful, and can be quite enjoyable, doing 20,30,40 or more miles under your own steam I find quite satisfying.

For a few years I cycled over 200 miles per week, much of it commuting across the Downs. The only reason I did it was because I thoroughly enjoyed it. Most of my journey was on bridleways, again because it was more fun, but the safety aspect was a factor. I cycled in rain, snow once, and a couple of hailstone storms that left marks on my arms. I fell off a few times because I cycled at speed, but normally fell on soft ground, only once injuring myself sufficiently to stop me working. I still have some scars from that. However, once off bridleways, I often had to avoid stupid drivers. I was once pushed off my bike by a driver who got upset I passed him at traffic lights. I reported him, with a witness, but he pleaded guilty so didn't get my day in court to face him.

I reckon about 8% of drivers have no road sense. I came to this conclusion over years, and had much evidence to support it. Eight out of a hundred might not sound many, but I'd be passed on the road by a few hundred cars on my way to work.

I've been attacked by a colonel Blimp-type chap upset about the law allowing cycling on bridleways. He tried to hit me with a walking stick. I reckon he drove a car as well.

I was at the peak of fitness, and this at the age of 50. It felt good. I had a number of off-road routes I could use for work, and normally picked one with steep hills.

I enjoyed cycling about as much as I enjoyed driving my TVR.

[J4CKO]

Derek Smith said:

J4CKO said:

The Three D Mucketeer said:

J4CKO said:

heebeegeetee said:

The Three D Mucketeer said:

I could make cycling very safe...

Just ban them from the roads.

Yep, in a country that already restricts freedom and choice of travel very much, let's restrict it further.

Just been out on my errand bike at lunchtime, had four errands to run round the town (all for the wife) all done in thirty minutes, no parking spaces used in busy car parks, didnt get in the way seeing as the traffic was stood still in the main, did three miles, burnt 171 calories apparently. But no, you have to take a ton and a bit of motor car apparently ? Even when you dont need more than one seat or the carrying capacity beyond a pannier or two.

Doesn't add up to me, should be encouraging bicycle use, it wasnt me in the way in the town centre, it was queues of cars, would have taken longer in the car, involved finding a parking space, paying for parking, walking in between, queuing up, the moaners should really give it a go.

There speaks a previous Nissan 350Z and Porsche 944 owner , I guess before he was married

Hmm, been married since 1994, pre 350Z if not 944, not sure what using a bicycle has to do with it ?

Its just a case of picking the right tool for the job in hand, which in this case wasn't a car, thus not contributing to, or becoming embroiled in the gridlock in the town centre.

Another one of those things, like EV's where a hill has been chosen to die on, in this case the ridiculous assertion that cycling should not be allowed on roads, I dont think cycling has ever been banned anywhere, so its unlikely, especially when its part of the governments strategy and emissions targets.

I dont cycle for that, I do it as its useful, and can be quite enjoyable, doing 20,30,40 or more miles under your own steam I find quite satisfying.

For a few years I cycled over 200 miles per week, much of it commuting across the Downs. The only reason I did it was because I thoroughly enjoyed it. Most of my journey was on bridleways, again because it was more fun, but the safety aspect was a factor. I cycled in rain, snow once, and a couple of hailstone storms that left marks on my arms. I fell off a few times because I cycled at speed, but normally fell on soft ground, only once injuring myself sufficiently to stop me working. I still have some scars from that. However, once off bridleways, I often had to avoid stupid drivers. I was once pushed off my bike by a driver who got upset I passed him at traffic lights. I reported him, with a witness, but he pleaded guilty so didn't get my day in court to face him.

I reckon about 8% of drivers have no road sense. I came to this conclusion over years, and had much evidence to support it. Eight out of a hundred might not sound many, but I'd be passed on the road by a few hundred cars on my way to work.

I've been attacked by a colonel Blimp-type chap upset about the law allowing cycling on bridleways. He tried to hit me with a walking stick. I reckon he drove a car as well.

I was at the peak of fitness, and this at the age of 50. It felt good. I had a number of off-road routes I could use for work, and normally picked one with steep hills.

I enjoyed cycling about as much as I enjoyed driving my TVR.

Good to hear Derek, my dad is 76 and sent me a Whatsapp of his gears mangled in his rear wheel, still gets out 2 or 3 times a week, does 10 to 20 miles. It is enjoyable most of the time.

Been out twice today, just for shopping duties.

You are more vulnerable, and I think people tend to behave the same whatever they are doing or are in control of.

[andyA700]

The Three D Mucketeer said:

I had a cyclist spit on my face through my window !
For balance

To drive a car on the road you need to pass a test , have insurance and pay VED . After a certain age you need to sign you are physically able to drive and at 90 years old I think you need a Doctors certificate .
What do you need to be lawful riding a cycle ? and now with battery assist you don't even need to pedal .

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Thursday 9th May 15:22

If I were you, I would just stop now, before you really say something stupid - Oh, hang on, that happened a few posts ago.

[heebeegeetee]

Vanden Saab said:

She did not touch her, therefore no case to answer. It is very clear if you have read the judges decision. As the judges say waving your arms is not a criminal offence or everybody who goes to a football match would be charged with assault.

Have just seen the comments by Martin Porter KC on X;

https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/178827340...

"This case involving the death of Celia Ward is disturbing. Apparently if a pedestrian lashes out aggressively at me when I am on my bicycle that is not assault"

[BikeBikeBIke]

heebeegeetee said:

Vanden Saab said:

She did not touch her, therefore no case to answer. It is very clear if you have read the judges decision. As the judges say waving your arms is not a criminal offence or everybody who goes to a football match would be charged with assault.

Have just seen the comments by Martin Porter KC on X;

https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/178827340...

"This case involving the death of Celia Ward is disturbing. Apparently if a pedestrian lashes out aggressively at me when I am on my bicycle that is not assault"

He clearly knows more about this than me and one paragraph from the document above suggests that (amd even mentions contact which is irrelevant) *but* a) It is assault according to the text of the law. b) Elsewhere the document its says the assault simply wasn't considered by the jury, not that it wasn't an assault.

It seems self evident to me that the reason the base charge wasn't even considered was that it was so obvious the assault *had* taken place nobody thought to mention it.

Again, he knows about this and I'm just a punter.

[heebeegeetee]

Full judgement here

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-auriol-grey...

[trickywoo]

I'm a bit taken aback that justice has actually been done.

Its not complete because the incompetence won't be punished but its something at least.

[Gareth79]

Ganglandboss said:

The Three D Mucketeer said:

I had a cyclist spit on my face through my window !
For balance

To drive a car on the road you need to pass a test , have insurance and pay VED . After a certain age you need to sign you are physically able to drive and at 90 years old I think you need a Doctors certificate .
What do you need to be lawful riding a cycle ? and now with battery assist you don't even need to pedal .

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Thursday 9th May 15:22

You do not have to pay VED. VED is linked to your vehicle's emissions, and the rate for a zero emissions vehicle is nil.

Also any vehicle over 40 years old pays £0, and doesn't even need an MOT.

[heebeegeetee]

Gareth79 said:

Ganglandboss said:

The Three D Mucketeer said:

I had a cyclist spit on my face through my window !
For balance

To drive a car on the road you need to pass a test , have insurance and pay VED . After a certain age you need to sign you are physically able to drive and at 90 years old I think you need a Doctors certificate .
What do you need to be lawful riding a cycle ? and now with battery assist you don't even need to pedal .

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Thursday 9th May 15:22

You do not have to pay VED. VED is linked to your vehicle's emissions, and the rate for a zero emissions vehicle is nil.

Also any vehicle over 40 years old pays £0, and doesn't even need an MOT.

Not zero emissions either, our ICE smart car is £0. A friend's much cleaner BMW i3 is £175.

[bmwmike]

The Three D Mucketeer said:

I had a cyclist spit on my face through my window !
For balance

To drive a car on the road you need to pass a test , have insurance and pay VED . After a certain age you need to sign you are physically able to drive and at 90 years old I think you need a Doctors certificate .
What do you need to be lawful riding a cycle ? and now with battery assist you don't even need to pedal .

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Thursday 9th May 15:22

Bold - assist. Assist! Assisted. Literally means you have to pedal.

Edited by bmwmike on Saturday 11th May 10:40

[BikeBikeBIke]

Black Belt Barrister covers it:

https://youtu.be/ALgXy5vq6DM?si=AqqFnDQdZqJNUCr8

I think we pretty much understood the appeal correctly.

[The Three D Mucketeer]

heebeegeetee said:

Full judgement here

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-auriol-grey...

Finally some common sense .... No doubt this stupid decision will now cost the Tax Payer a fortune in compensation.

From the judgement

Mrs Celia Ward was riding on her bicycle on
the same pavement but in the opposite direction. She was an experienced cyclist who
generally cycled on pavements or cycle paths owing to difficulties she had with her
hearing.

The law from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules...

Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

Rule 65

QED In my Stupid opinion ... You are entitled to your own opinion .
What is unlawful ? Robbery , Riding on a pavement ? The law is an Ass

Just makes me wonder how many Councils have been imprisoned for causing death to cyclists by the number of potholes in the road ??

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Saturday 11th May 15:04

[Zigster]

You missed the prior sentence in the judgment that stated there was uncertainty over whether it was a (pedestrian only) footway or a shared use path.

[The Three D Mucketeer]

Excuse my ignorance but when exactly is a pavement defined as a "Shared Use Footway" and shouldn't it be clearly marked as such ?
"generally cycled on pavements is a bit of a giveaway"

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Saturday 11th May 18:25

[heebeegeetee]

The Three D Mucketeer said:

Excuse my ignorance but when exactly is a pavement defined as a "Shared Use Footway" and shouldn't it be clearly marked as such ?
"generally cycled on pavements is a bit of a giveaway"

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Saturday 11th May 18:25

What relevance does the cyclist on the pavement have?

Do you have a problem with a 77 Yr old cycling on a pavement?

I don't. She was doing no harm, she did no harm, it's not like us driving on pavements in order to park, on surfaces not built to take the weight, restricting the width of the pavement the entire time car is there, etc etc.

[The Three D Mucketeer]

Yes .. It's against the law.
and if you don't know it's illegal to drive a motorised vehicle on a pavement ( I do question the use of mobility scooters especially those that exceed 20mph) which have resulted in deaths to pedestrians !!!
Well she did do harm , to herself and to the accussed.

Edited by The Three D Mucketeer on Saturday 11th May 18:56