Jogger killed by cyclist

[Grumfutock]

La Liga said:

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

I never said I knew the precise location?

The police said the junction, that it was on a foot path and that the man was dead. THAT is all I have said! And I would suggest that those three things are accurate, wouldn't you?

[Grumfutock]

Mojocvh said:

Feel free to quote your reliable sources.

I for one refuse to jump on this particular bandwagon.

THE POLICE SCOTLAND!

You really are trying to make this harder than it needs to be! All I have said is that we know it was a footpath and that the unfortunate man is dead. Quoted below to make it easier for you.

Grumfutock said:

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

To make it even easier for you, if you care to follow this link:

http://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news...

Para 1: Police in West Lothian can confirm that the pedestrian died yesterday afternoon.

Para 2: The collision happened around 9am on Saturday morning (23rd May) on the Loan Footpath.

The two key words to look out for are died and footpath

Any further questions?

[Vipers]

The Spruce goose said:

i think it is fine to cycle on pavements.

No doubt someone has already said it, but cycling on the pavement is illegal, see the HC, it quotes chapter and verse.

Of course some paths through parks, do have one side for cyclists, but these are not pavements.



64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

Edited by Vipers on Tuesday 26th May 20:37

[WinstonWolf]

Grumfutock said:

Mojocvh said:

Feel free to quote your reliable sources.

I for one refuse to jump on this particular bandwagon.

THE POLICE SCOTLAND!

You really are trying to make this harder than it needs to be! All I have said is that we know it was a footpath and that the unfortunate man is dead. Quoted below to make it easier for you.

Grumfutock said:

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

To make it even easier for you, if you care to follow this link:

http://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news...

Para 1: Police in West Lothian can confirm that the pedestrian died yesterday afternoon.

Para 2: The collision happened around 9am on Saturday morning (23rd May) on the Loan Footpath.

The two key words to look out for are died and footpath

Any further questions?

We can deduce from this that the cyclist wouldn't have been aware of the severity of the injury at the time of the accident.

[Driver101]

Just to point out again, the "path" in question does have a designated cycle lane.

[Grumfutock]

WinstonWolf said:

We can deduce from this that the cyclist wouldn't have been aware of the severity of the injury at the time of the accident.

Sorry but I am not getting drawn in to deductions. FACTS are all that are allowed on PH (apparently).

[WinstonWolf]

Grumfutock said:

WinstonWolf said:

We can deduce from this that the cyclist wouldn't have been aware of the severity of the injury at the time of the accident.

Sorry but I am not getting drawn in to deductions. FACTS are all that are allowed on PH (apparently).

It's a fact unless you know otherwise?

[WinstonWolf]

Fact; police have traced the cyclist and say "there is no trace of any criminality" (sic).
Fact; it was a shared use path.

[Vipers]

That's that then, bye bye.

[Google [bot]]

funkyrobot said:

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?

Old mate would have been going for the Strava KOM which turns every piece of road (unless marked 'hazardous') into its own TDF style race within a race between him and his internet peers. Eg:

[Moonhawk]

Impasse said:

About 100 years ago, when I was but a slip of a boy in short trousers, my primary school held Cycling Proficiency Tests in the playground. It wasn't mandatory, but we all went. It covered the basics and was mainly centred around safety for the cyclist and others using the roads. Without the little enamel badge on my bike I wasn't allowed to cycle to school.

Is it time these were reintroduced as part of the curriculum?

I think cycling proficiency and the highway code in general should be on the national curriculum. Pretty crazy that it isn't.

In 2012 - 593 fatal accidents involving pedestrians indicated that the actions of the pedestrian were a major contributing factor (usually not looking properly). That's around 3 and a half times more than are attributed to speeding drivers and is more than is attributed to both speeding and travelling too fast for the conditions.

What a pity we only invest a fraction of the time, money and effort trying to address pedestrian education and awareness as we do tackling speed. Then again - there is no money to be made educating pedestrians.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 26th May 22:58

[Cliftonite]

Vipers said:

That's that then, bye bye.

Unless it is shared space with pedestrians and cyclists intermingling, when the Local Authority that set up this idiocy should take responsibility for their contribution to this tragedy.

[NoNeed]

WinstonWolf said:

Fact; police have traced the cyclist and say "there is no trace of any criminality" (sic).
Fact; it was a shared use path.

This is why people get annoyed, we know that there are very few laws that can be used against a cyclist and if it was a car that hit something on a shared space thee would be a great big book heading the drivers way. It is about time we started to regulate cycling so the cyclist have a legal responsibility for their actions.

[gazza285]

NoNeed said:

WinstonWolf said:

Fact; police have traced the cyclist and say "there is no trace of any criminality" (sic).
Fact; it was a shared use path.

This is why people get annoyed, we know that there are very few laws that can be used against a cyclist and if it was a car that hit something on a shared space thee would be a great big book heading the drivers way. It is about time we started to regulate cycling so the cyclist have a legal responsibility for their actions.

A great big book of no further action most of the time, or does this shared space not count?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cyc...

Also pedestrians are far more likely to be killed on the pavement by a car than by a bicycle.

Cyclists have legal responsibility for their actions already.

[NoNeed]

gazza285 said:

Cyclists have legal responsibility for their actions already.

That's why they can run red lights, cycle at any speed whether road or pavement.
Remind me when the last cyclist was charged with causing death by dangerous cycling? or even cycling without due care and attention.

There are so many laws that motorist have to follow, yet the often faster cyclist that are seen every single day overtaking cars in heavy traffic have virtually none in comparison.

I would love to see some sort of incorporation of cyclists into the road traffic act where some sort of highway code education is enforced.

[shouldbworking]

NoNeed said:

There are so many laws that motorist have to follow, yet the often faster cyclist that are seen every single day overtaking cars in heavy traffic have virtually none in comparison.

With my google maths, for a bicycle to have the same amount of kinetic energy as a 1.5 tonne car travelling at 20mph they would have to be travelling about 77mph.

That might go some way towards explaining it.

[gazza285]

NoNeed said:

There are so many laws that motorist have to follow, yet the often faster cyclist that are seen every single day overtaking cars in heavy traffic have virtually none in comparison.

Other than speed limits that apply to motorised vehicles, from which other laws of the road are cyclists exempt?

[anonymous-user]

Grumfutock said:

I never said I knew the precise location?

The police said the junction, that it was on a foot path and that the man was dead. THAT is all I have said! And I would suggest that those three things are accurate, wouldn't you?

No, you're quite right. They said junction and footpath, rather than junction instead of footpath. My mistake.

NoNeed said:

I would love to see some sort of incorporation of cyclists into the road traffic act where some sort of highway code education is enforced.

Cycling offences are in the RTA, unless you meant something specific and different with the second part of the sentence.

The main ones are, 'dangerous cycling', 'careless, and inconsiderate, cycling' and 'cycling when under influence of drink or drugs'/

[Kermit power]

NoNeed said:

Remind me when the last cyclist was charged with causing death by dangerous cycling?

That's a very good question.

Given that in the five years from 2009 to 2013, a grand total of 14 pedestrians in the UK died as the result of a collision with a pushbike (and I would suspect the vast majority of those were people stepping off the pavement without looking), and only one of those 14 was on a pavement at the time of the collision, when were you expecting the last cyclist to have been charged with causing death by dangerous cycling?

I must admit, I haven't checked to see how many motorists, bus, train or plane passengers have been killed as a result of cyclists, so that may well alter the outcome somewhat?

[gazza285]

NoNeed said:

Remind me when the last cyclist was charged with causing death by dangerous cycling?

Remind me of the last cyclist that caused a death by dangerous cycling?