Jogger killed by cyclist

[Einion Yrth]

Timmy40 said:

Einion Yrth said:

La Liga said:

It apparently appeared as if the man had minor injuries after the collision and the severity only became apparent when he later went to hospital.

Police Scotland said:

“We’re eager to trace the cyclist, described as a man in his early twenties, and any witnesses.”

They added they were not expected to bring charges against the cyclist as there is “no suggestion of any criminality”.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not riding on the pavement illegal?

It's actually not that straight forward at all.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2...

Fair enough, I was wrong. That article describes a grotesque mess of law that should really be tidied up though.

[Timmy40]

Einion Yrth said:

Timmy40 said:

Einion Yrth said:

La Liga said:

It apparently appeared as if the man had minor injuries after the collision and the severity only became apparent when he later went to hospital.

Police Scotland said:

“We’re eager to trace the cyclist, described as a man in his early twenties, and any witnesses.”

They added they were not expected to bring charges against the cyclist as there is “no suggestion of any criminality”.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not riding on the pavement illegal?

It's actually not that straight forward at all.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2...

Fair enough, I was wrong. That article describes a grotesque mess of law that should really be tidied up though.

Completely agree, it's a total mess, there's no consistency, some city councils have a policy that it's fine to cycle on pavements, some are totally anti it. It's the usual UK approach of encouraging people to do something ( cycle to work ) without first putting in place any proper policies/ infrastructure to assist them in doing so ( a bit like when we were all encouraged to get the train to work without any extra capacity being put in place ).

[Janluke]

Grumfutock said:

La Liga said:

It apparently appeared as if the man had minor injuries after the collision and the severity only became apparent when he later went to hospital.

Police Scotland said:

“We’re eager to trace the cyclist, described as a man in his early twenties, and any witnesses.”

They added they were not expected to bring charges against the cyclist as there is “no suggestion of any criminality”.

It also states that it happened on a footpath. Curious to know why they say no charges. Maybe it is a dual cycle path and foot path?

I cycle around Livi and lots(not all) are foot/cycle paths

[anonymous-user]

i think it is fine to cycle on pavements, the problem is they need to slow down, a max 5mph else get on the road, would stop ambiguity.

The one thing I am finding is more aggressive cycling at speeds that are unsafe for conditions and road layout.

[Timmy40]

The Spruce goose said:

i think it is fine to cycle on pavements, the problem is they need to slow down, a max 5mph else get on the road, would stop ambiguity.

The one thing I am finding is more aggressive cycling at speeds that are unsafe for conditions and road layout.

just common sense and courtesy. It may well be all the papers imaginings, but cyclists as a group do seem to have become aggressive/thuggish and not just to other road users but to each other, the worst road rage I've seen have been between cyclists.

[Mojocvh]

Grumfutock said:

Gargamel said:

Grumfutock said:

Oh crap, here we go again.

Very sad story and I really hope the idiots on here do not try and defend the moron in lycra like they did on other posts.

Indeed we do, starting with your own post. What has his or her clothing got to do with it.

So stupid to speculate about anything yet, We know nothing about the circumstances or aftermath of the accident.

I am not here to defend cyclists, just would prefer we wait for some facts before getting the pitchforks and torches again.

Well we KNOW it was on a footpath and we KNOW the pedestrian is dead!

Actually it reads as

"Peter Craig, 49, sustained a head injury following the incident at about 09:00 on Saturday on the Loan Footpath, at its junction with Fergus Avenue. "

JUNCTION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction

So, there is actually NO information available at the moment to make a call from at all.

Poor bloke, RIP.

[Kermit power]

Einion Yrth said:

Timmy40 said:

Einion Yrth said:

La Liga said:

It apparently appeared as if the man had minor injuries after the collision and the severity only became apparent when he later went to hospital.

Police Scotland said:

“We’re eager to trace the cyclist, described as a man in his early twenties, and any witnesses.”

They added they were not expected to bring charges against the cyclist as there is “no suggestion of any criminality”.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not riding on the pavement illegal?

It's actually not that straight forward at all.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2...

Fair enough, I was wrong. That article describes a grotesque mess of law that should really be tidied up though.

I presume it also describes English law? Scottish law is very different when it comes to access rights. I know from a mountain biking perspective, this means that people can ride more or less anywhere they want in the countryside, whereas in England we're generally restricted to byways, bridleways and specific bike tracks, other than roads, of course. Whether this extends to cycling on pavements in Scotland, I don't know.

[Ari]

Podie said:

I've had some bloke verbally abuse me on a zebra crossing in London because I stopped him getting King of the Hill (or whatever it is)...

Anyone?

[TTwiggy]

Ari said:

Podie said:

I've had some bloke verbally abuse me on a zebra crossing in London because I stopped him getting King of the Hill (or whatever it is)...

Anyone?

'King of the Hills' is a 'race within a race' award on the Tour de France (other Grand Tours have their own versions). It's awarded to the cyclist who performs best over the 'mountain' stages. I think it's the polka-dot jersey in Le Tour.

Edited by TTwiggy on Tuesday 26th May 17:36

[MOTORVATOR]

Kermit power said:

Einion Yrth said:

Timmy40 said:

Einion Yrth said:

La Liga said:

It apparently appeared as if the man had minor injuries after the collision and the severity only became apparent when he later went to hospital.

Police Scotland said:

“We’re eager to trace the cyclist, described as a man in his early twenties, and any witnesses.”

They added they were not expected to bring charges against the cyclist as there is “no suggestion of any criminality”.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not riding on the pavement illegal?

It's actually not that straight forward at all.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2...

Fair enough, I was wrong. That article describes a grotesque mess of law that should really be tidied up though.

I presume it also describes English law? Scottish law is very different when it comes to access rights. I know from a mountain biking perspective, this means that people can ride more or less anywhere they want in the countryside, whereas in England we're generally restricted to byways, bridleways and specific bike tracks, other than roads, of course. Whether this extends to cycling on pavements in Scotland, I don't know.

Whether it is legal or not to ride on a particular pavement is somewhat irrelevant. It would only give rise to an offence of riding somewhere unpermitted.

What is surely important is that regardless of where you are then due care should be taken. I.e. just because the cycle lane says you can ride on it does not mean you have carte blanche to run someone down that is crossing it or happens to be on it.

Same as the road really, I don't get in my car and say well it's a road so I can happily go and mow the kids down outside the local school should some of them happen to be in the middle of it.

Whether that is relevant to this particular case seems to be speculation.

[Cliftonite]

wolves_wanderer said:

That was going to be my suggestion.

We have loads of "mixed use" pathways round here that are nothing more than normal pavements with a sign permitting cycling. I assume it is some cheap bodge to build a certain amount of cycle track to gain some funding or show how "green" they are. Seems daft to me if the pavements aren't widened as surely they are no more appropriate to cycle on than a normal pavement?

It is not daft. It is criminally insane.

[Kermit power]

MOTORVATOR said:

Whether it is legal or not to ride on a particular pavement is somewhat irrelevant. It would only give rise to an offence of riding somewhere unpermitted.

What is surely important is that regardless of where you are then due care should be taken. I.e. just because the cycle lane says you can ride on it does not mean you have carte blanche to run someone down that is crossing it or happens to be on it.

Same as the road really, I don't get in my car and say well it's a road so I can happily go and mow the kids down outside the local school should some of them happen to be in the middle of it.

Whether that is relevant to this particular case seems to be speculation.

Yes, there's duty of care, but the legality or otherwise of someone's presence has a major impact too.

Let's assume you were driving along outside that local school and you happened to mow down and kill a child with no other witnesses to the incident. If that happened on the road, then whatever the actual events, if you said the kid just ran out into the road without looking and you had no chance to take evasive action, you'd probably get away with it, at least as far as the law is concerned, if not from your own conscience.

If, on the other hand, you were driving along the pavement, then witness or no witness, the full force of the law would be thrown at you, and rightly so.

Similarly here, it's perfectly possible from the description of the path that the jogger could've rounded the corner on the cyclist's side, collided with him, picked himself up and thought no more of it until hours later when the effects of an undetected bleed presumably made themselves known.

On the other hand, it's equally possible that the cyclist hit the jogger from behind on a pedestrians only footpath.

The truth of the matter is probably somewhere between these two extremes, but if the police are saying that the cyclist faces no risk of charges, then I would assume the truth lies closer to the first scenario than it does to the second, and the legality of the cyclist being on the path does, I'm sure, have a big part to play in that police decision.

[matchmaker]

Cliftonite said:

wolves_wanderer said:

That was going to be my suggestion.

We have loads of "mixed use" pathways round here that are nothing more than normal pavements with a sign permitting cycling. I assume it is some cheap bodge to build a certain amount of cycle track to gain some funding or show how "green" they are. Seems daft to me if the pavements aren't widened as surely they are no more appropriate to cycle on than a normal pavement?

It is not daft. It is criminally insane.

Like this? The pavement is actually a cycle track at this point.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.142828,-3.926722...

[Smollet]

TTwiggy said:

'King of the Hills' is a 'race within a race' award on the Tour de France (other Grand Tours have their own versions). It's awarded to the cyclist who performs best over the 'mountain' stages. I think it's the polka-dot jersey in Le Tour.

Edited by TTwiggy on Tuesday 26th May 17:36

Glad you cleared that up. I thought it was some naff American cartoon series like the Simpsons.

[Kermit power]

matchmaker said:

Cliftonite said:

wolves_wanderer said:

That was going to be my suggestion.

We have loads of "mixed use" pathways round here that are nothing more than normal pavements with a sign permitting cycling. I assume it is some cheap bodge to build a certain amount of cycle track to gain some funding or show how "green" they are. Seems daft to me if the pavements aren't widened as surely they are no more appropriate to cycle on than a normal pavement?

It is not daft. It is criminally insane.

Like this? The pavement is actually a cycle track at this point.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.142828,-3.926722...

I can't see any reason why someone couldn't cycle along that path at speed. Moving along that section of road in both directions, there's absolutely nothing but fields on that side of the road, and no real reason why there would be any pedestrians there, barring those getting off at the bus stop, for whom I'd obviously slow down, but who are most probably going to cross the road anyway.

The other side of the road is a different matter. There are buildings there which are likely to generate pedestrian traffic, and pedestrian traffic suddenly popping out onto the footpath at that. That's no doubt why that side of the road actually has a cycle lane on the main carriageway?

[Grumfutock]

Mojocvh said:

Actually it reads as

"Peter Craig, 49, sustained a head injury following the incident at about 09:00 on Saturday on the Loan Footpath, at its junction with Fergus Avenue. "

JUNCTION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction

So, there is actually NO information available at the moment to make a call from at all.

Poor bloke, RIP.

I suggest you read some other sources. If you look there is _LOTS_ of information out there.

Google is your friend.

[Mojocvh]

Grumfutock said:

Mojocvh said:

Actually it reads as

"Peter Craig, 49, sustained a head injury following the incident at about 09:00 on Saturday on the Loan Footpath, at its junction with Fergus Avenue. "

JUNCTION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction

So, there is actually NO information available at the moment to make a call from at all.

Poor bloke, RIP.

I suggest you read some other sources. If you look there is _LOTS_ of information out there.

Google is your friend.

Feel free to quote your reliable sources.

I for one refuse to jump on this particular bandwagon.

[anonymous-user]

Grumfutock said:

Mojocvh said:

Actually it reads as

"Peter Craig, 49, sustained a head injury following the incident at about 09:00 on Saturday on the Loan Footpath, at its junction with Fergus Avenue. "

JUNCTION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction

So, there is actually NO information available at the moment to make a call from at all.

Poor bloke, RIP.

I suggest you read some other sources. If you look there is _LOTS_ of information out there.

Google is your friend.

That's the point though. There are mixed sources and ambiguities, so to say we KNOW something like the precise location isn't accurate.

[funkyrobot]

TTwiggy said:

Ari said:

Podie said:

I've had some bloke verbally abuse me on a zebra crossing in London because I stopped him getting King of the Hill (or whatever it is)...

Anyone?

'King of the Hills' is a 'race within a race' award on the Tour de France (other Grand Tours have their own versions). It's awarded to the cyclist who performs best over the 'mountain' stages. I think it's the polka-dot jersey in Le Tour.

Edited by TTwiggy on Tuesday 26th May 17:36

It's called the 'King of the mountains' and is indeed the polka dot jersey at the TDF.

Wasn't 'King of the hill' a cartoon series?

[gazza285]

So we have a man running at anything up to 8mph, and a cyclist riding at anything up to 20mph, colliding at a corner of a shared use path. There is more than likely no priority at these junction, it could have easily have been two runners or two cyclists colliding. The cyclist has come forward, the victim did not die at the scene, nor was he rendered unconscious, and neither of them saw the need to exchange details at the time. No charges will be brought.

Sounds like a tragic accident to me.