Jogger killed by cyclist
Discussion
NoNeed said:
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.
Your post makes no sense.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.
Cyclists have to abide by pretty the much same laws on the road as vehicle drivers. Any vehicle running a red light (whether human or engine propelled) is breaking the law. If an observant police office witnessed anyone running a red light, they would be taken to task. It wouldn't matter if they were on a bicycle or behind the wheel.
The comment about heavy traffic just shows that bicycles can be effectively filtered through lines of vehicles. If a cyclist is doing this correctly and is not causing any problems, what is the issue? You can't say a cyclist is breaking the law just because they have the ability to move through traffic.
It sounds to me like some vehicle drivers feel a little jealous when a cyclist passes them in a queue.
funkyrobot said:
Your post makes no sense.
Cyclists have to abide by pretty the much same laws on the road as vehicle drivers. Any vehicle running a red light (whether human or engine propelled) is breaking the law. If an observant police office witnessed anyone running a red light, they would be taken to task. It wouldn't matter if they were on a bicycle or behind the wheel.
Last time I was working in London I saw police stopping RLJ-cyclists at Monument. No idea what the outcome was - a talking to or a fine perhaps?Cyclists have to abide by pretty the much same laws on the road as vehicle drivers. Any vehicle running a red light (whether human or engine propelled) is breaking the law. If an observant police office witnessed anyone running a red light, they would be taken to task. It wouldn't matter if they were on a bicycle or behind the wheel.
If PHers want more cyclists prosecuted for traffic offences, they need to met their MP know and be prepared for questions along the lines of what should the police stop doing so they can focus on the cyclists. Without the mass bureaucracy of registration and the inevitable reduction that would bring in people cycling (public health nono), automated solutions are not possible.
funkyrobot said:
Your post makes no sense.
Cyclists have to abide by pretty the much same laws on the road as vehicle drivers.
So all those cameras at traffic lights are catching cyclists too? Speed cameras too?Cyclists have to abide by pretty the much same laws on the road as vehicle drivers.
And as for my traffic observation I was actually referring to them being over the speed limit I just wrote it badly, in our local 20 zone cars are being overtaken all the time, it is common to see cyclists weaving in and out of traffic as well.
NoNeed said:
funkyrobot said:
Your post makes no sense.
Cyclists have to abide by pretty the much same laws on the road as vehicle drivers.
So all those cameras at traffic lights are catching cyclists too? Speed cameras too?Cyclists have to abide by pretty the much same laws on the road as vehicle drivers.
And as for my traffic observation I was actually referring to them being over the speed limit I just wrote it badly, in our local 20 zone cars are being overtaken all the time, it is common to see cyclists weaving in and out of traffic as well.
NoNeed said:
So all those cameras at traffic lights are catching cyclists too? Speed cameras too?
And as for my traffic observation I was actually referring to them being over the speed limit I just wrote it badly, in our local 20 zone cars are being overtaken all the time, it is common to see cyclists weaving in and out of traffic as well.
The method of detection does not change the legality of the act. And as for my traffic observation I was actually referring to them being over the speed limit I just wrote it badly, in our local 20 zone cars are being overtaken all the time, it is common to see cyclists weaving in and out of traffic as well.
Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
NoNeed said:
So all those cameras at traffic lights are catching cyclists too? Speed cameras too?
And as for my traffic observation I was actually referring to them being over the speed limit I just wrote it badly, in our local 20 zone cars are being overtaken all the time, it is common to see cyclists weaving in and out of traffic as well.
The method of detection does not change the legality of the act. And as for my traffic observation I was actually referring to them being over the speed limit I just wrote it badly, in our local 20 zone cars are being overtaken all the time, it is common to see cyclists weaving in and out of traffic as well.
Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
NoNeed said:
So all those cameras at traffic lights are catching cyclists too? Speed cameras too?
And as for my traffic observation I was actually referring to them being over the speed limit I just wrote it badly, in our local 20 zone cars are being overtaken all the time, it is common to see cyclists weaving in and out of traffic as well.
So you're advocating registration for cyclists? I don't feel the issue of poor cycling warrants the bureaucratic overhead, the reduction in cycling and increase in traffic that would result from registration, and that's before considering the practicalities. My daughter is learning to cycle - does a 5 year old need registration? Old Doris who pootles to the shop in her village a couple of times a week - does she need registration?And as for my traffic observation I was actually referring to them being over the speed limit I just wrote it badly, in our local 20 zone cars are being overtaken all the time, it is common to see cyclists weaving in and out of traffic as well.
What I would like to see is more targeted operations by police - those happen fairly regularly in Bristol and Bath and as above I've seen them in London too. It frustrates me when I see cyclists breaking traffic laws and riding dangerously. However, the reality for me is that the problem is relatively harmless, and the frustration is that in a car I can't get a way with it too
gazza285 said:
The method of detection does not change the legality of the act.
Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
my point was that all traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles as cyckists are rarely stopped even though to many of them the highway code is an alien magazine.Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
ewenm said:
So you're advocating registration for cyclists? I don't feel the issue of poor cycling warrants the bureaucratic overhead, the reduction in cycling and increase in traffic that would result from registration, and that's before considering the practicalities. My daughter is learning to cycle - does a 5 year old need registration? Old Doris who pootles to the shop in her village a couple of times a week - does she need registration?
What I would like to see is more targeted operations by police - those happen fairly regularly in Bristol and Bath and as above I've seen them in London too. It frustrates me when I see cyclists breaking traffic laws and riding dangerously. However, the reality for me is that the problem is relatively harmless, and the frustration is that in a car I can't get a way with it too
you make a very good point about registratiin and to be honest i cant see that working either and yes a targetted approach by police would be most welcome and would remove the unfairness i opened my original post with.What I would like to see is more targeted operations by police - those happen fairly regularly in Bristol and Bath and as above I've seen them in London too. It frustrates me when I see cyclists breaking traffic laws and riding dangerously. However, the reality for me is that the problem is relatively harmless, and the frustration is that in a car I can't get a way with it too
NoNeed said:
ou make a very good point about registratiin and to be honest i cant see that working either and yes a targetted approach by police would be most welcome and would remove the unfairness i opened my original post with.
You mean the unfairness of cyclists not being prosecuted for causing death by dangerous cycling? Yes.... I can see how it would fix that one! NoNeed said:
gazza285 said:
The method of detection does not change the legality of the act.
Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
my point was that all traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles as cyckists are rarely stopped even though to many of them the highway code is an alien magazine.Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
gazza285 said:
From what I observe daily motorised vehicles are rarely stopped either.
The stats from this spot-check by Bristol police would suggest rough equality on urban road offencesStats from the report in the first 2 weeks of the campaign:
Motorists:
348 drivers stopped and advised for being inside the cycle box (Advanced Stop Line).
17 drivers stopped and advised for being inside the yellow hatch markings.
Total 365
Cyclists:
160 cyclists stopped and advised for going through a red traffic light
74 cyclists stopped and advised for cycling on pavements
90 cyclists stopped and advised for riding in the dark without lights. 50 of these have been given a "conditional" ticket of which 23 have already been in and had their ticket cancelled due to buying correct lights and having them fitted to their bike.
Total 324
So roughly equal numbers stopped and roughly equal treatment.
Edit: It appears you deleted the reply while I was finding the stats from that operation
Edit2: Courtesy edit to remove the now-deleted reply from my quoting.
Edited by ewenm on Wednesday 27th May 14:26
NoNeed said:
gazza285 said:
The method of detection does not change the legality of the act.
Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
my point was that all traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles as cyckists are rarely stopped even though to many of them the highway code is an alien magazine.Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
Pedestrian deaths caused by cycling from 2009-2013 years: 14.
Pedestrian deaths caused by motor vehicles from 2009-2013 years: 1837.
Do you want to take a guess why the traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles? Seems they aren't effective enough. Perhaps when the death rate gets within 1 order of magnitude it'll be time to focus on the carnage cause by the bikes.
blinkythefish said:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_pub...
Pedestrian deaths caused by cycling from 2009-2013 years: 14.
Pedestrian deaths caused by motor vehicles from 2009-2013 years: 1837.
Do you want to take a guess why the traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles? Seems they aren't effective enough. Perhaps when the death rate gets within 1 order of magnitude it'll be time to focus on the carnage cause by the bikes.
Don't bother... He's not going to be happy until he starts seeing cyclists prosecuted for causing death by dangerous cycling, and he's not going to let a little thing like no cyclists actually killing people through dangerous cycling get in his way!! Pedestrian deaths caused by cycling from 2009-2013 years: 14.
Pedestrian deaths caused by motor vehicles from 2009-2013 years: 1837.
Do you want to take a guess why the traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles? Seems they aren't effective enough. Perhaps when the death rate gets within 1 order of magnitude it'll be time to focus on the carnage cause by the bikes.
Can't see the problem. Maybe the cyclist wasn't riding dangerously at all? Maybe he wasn't cycling erratically, either? Perhaps he just 'failed to see someone who was on the path'. It could, after all, simply be seen as an unfortunate accident...
...I'm not making light of the death of the jogger, but... #ohtheirony
And let's face it, this isn't the sad tale of a coward who hit another person then took off like a scalded cat, leaving that person dying on the floor at the scene. Having scanned through this thread, it seems that the head injury manifested itself some considerable time after the collision, and unfortunately turned out to be far worse than either the cyclist, or indeed the deceased, first thought. If they collided, and both got up, dusted themselves off, and agreed that liability was shared, then went on their respective ways, where, in Gods name, is the "Crime" for which the cyclist needs to be punished?
If it were a minor collision between two cars, and both drivers agreed to share the blame to "avoid 'fessing up to the insurance companies", then drove home, intending to pay for their own repairs, no-one would be calling for either driver's head on a plate. Yet one of those drivers might go home, and have a heart attack brought on by the stress of the incident. Would the other party be to blame in such circumstances?
I've nearly collided with joggers on several occasions at Swinley Forest mountain bike trail centre. It's a proper built trail centre, created by the landowner, with clear signs and maps indicating that sections of it are for the sole use of cyclists, yet there is a hardcore minority of militant joggers/walkers who'll happily run or walk UP a section of the trail where bikes are coming DOWN at >20mph on gravel.
Without serving on an inquest jury, and being party to ALL the evidence, it's difficult to make a judgement in this case. It could be 50/50, it could be the jogger's fault (excessive speed for the conditions
) or it might also be that the cyclist was riding recklessly/dangerously and needs to feel the full power of the law. For all the bleating upthread about cyclists not having to comply with road laws? With respect, b
ks! Being charged with, and tried for, a crime in the UK usually means basing a case on available evidence. If that evidence is there, then charges will be brought, so long as they are "in the public interest". Many drivers, on a daily basis, get away with dangerous or reckless driving, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that the occasional cyclist will get away with the same offences when there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
BBC article said:
A 26-year-old who is being taken to court for knocking down a cyclist and who cannot be named for legal reasons, said it was wrong to penalise those who kill or injure a cyclist in what could be seen as unfortunate accidents.
"I don't think it's fair because I wasn't driving dangerously, I wasn't driving erratically," he said. "I just failed to see someone who was on the road."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cyc..."I don't think it's fair because I wasn't driving dangerously, I wasn't driving erratically," he said. "I just failed to see someone who was on the road."
...I'm not making light of the death of the jogger, but... #ohtheirony
And let's face it, this isn't the sad tale of a coward who hit another person then took off like a scalded cat, leaving that person dying on the floor at the scene. Having scanned through this thread, it seems that the head injury manifested itself some considerable time after the collision, and unfortunately turned out to be far worse than either the cyclist, or indeed the deceased, first thought. If they collided, and both got up, dusted themselves off, and agreed that liability was shared, then went on their respective ways, where, in Gods name, is the "Crime" for which the cyclist needs to be punished?
If it were a minor collision between two cars, and both drivers agreed to share the blame to "avoid 'fessing up to the insurance companies", then drove home, intending to pay for their own repairs, no-one would be calling for either driver's head on a plate. Yet one of those drivers might go home, and have a heart attack brought on by the stress of the incident. Would the other party be to blame in such circumstances?
I've nearly collided with joggers on several occasions at Swinley Forest mountain bike trail centre. It's a proper built trail centre, created by the landowner, with clear signs and maps indicating that sections of it are for the sole use of cyclists, yet there is a hardcore minority of militant joggers/walkers who'll happily run or walk UP a section of the trail where bikes are coming DOWN at >20mph on gravel.
Without serving on an inquest jury, and being party to ALL the evidence, it's difficult to make a judgement in this case. It could be 50/50, it could be the jogger's fault (excessive speed for the conditions
) or it might also be that the cyclist was riding recklessly/dangerously and needs to feel the full power of the law. For all the bleating upthread about cyclists not having to comply with road laws? With respect, bks! Being charged with, and tried for, a crime in the UK usually means basing a case on available evidence. If that evidence is there, then charges will be brought, so long as they are "in the public interest". Many drivers, on a daily basis, get away with dangerous or reckless driving, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that the occasional cyclist will get away with the same offences when there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal prosecution. The Met probably do the most cycling work given the density and volume. Whenever they do motoring or cycling enforcement (often both), the numbers of offences is large for both: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-256189...
The offence doesn't exist, so the answer is 0, regardless of those whose behaviour would amount to it. In terms of dangerous cycling, I believe the chap who hit and dragged the small child from the other thread has been reported for the offence (practically the same as a charge).
The law doesn't really cater for the minority of extreme incidents, as the cycling offences in the Road Traffic Act only carry fines as punishments IIRC. There is the option of assault and manslaughter, but these are rarely suitable, and an old offence from an Act in 1861 which covers, "drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving", is also rarely suitable.
There was talk a few years back of creating a 'death by dangerous cycling offence', but I think the rarity of such incidents fitting the proposed legislation meant it didn't get any traction or justify being created.
gazza285 said:
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? The law doesn't really cater for the minority of extreme incidents, as the cycling offences in the Road Traffic Act only carry fines as punishments IIRC. There is the option of assault and manslaughter, but these are rarely suitable, and an old offence from an Act in 1861 which covers, "drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving", is also rarely suitable.
There was talk a few years back of creating a 'death by dangerous cycling offence', but I think the rarity of such incidents fitting the proposed legislation meant it didn't get any traction or justify being created.
blinkythefish said:
NoNeed said:
gazza285 said:
The method of detection does not change the legality of the act.
Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
my point was that all traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles as cyckists are rarely stopped even though to many of them the highway code is an alien magazine.Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
Pedestrian deaths caused by cycling from 2009-2013 years: 14.
Pedestrian deaths caused by motor vehicles from 2009-2013 years: 1837.
Do you want to take a guess why the traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles? Seems they aren't effective enough. Perhaps when the death rate gets within 1 order of magnitude it'll be time to focus on the carnage cause by the bikes.
That being said, does it really matter? Two wrongs do not make a right. Comments like "Perhaps when the death rate gets within 1 order of magnitude it'll be time to focus on the carnage cause by the bikes." are utterly wrong in my opinion. Wrong is wrong is wrong. A car did not cause this death, a bike did. And those cyclists who insist on tying themselves in ever tighter knots as they try to defend the indefensible are really doing themselves and the reputation of cyclists no good at all.
andymadmak said:
blinkythefish said:
NoNeed said:
gazza285 said:
The method of detection does not change the legality of the act.
Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
my point was that all traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles as cyckists are rarely stopped even though to many of them the highway code is an alien magazine.Speed limits are for motorised vehicles.
I see cars changing lanes in slow traffic as well, so what?
Pedestrian deaths caused by cycling from 2009-2013 years: 14.
Pedestrian deaths caused by motor vehicles from 2009-2013 years: 1837.
Do you want to take a guess why the traffic laws appear to be for motorised vehicles? Seems they aren't effective enough. Perhaps when the death rate gets within 1 order of magnitude it'll be time to focus on the carnage cause by the bikes.
That being said, does it really matter? Two wrongs do not make a right. Comments like "Perhaps when the death rate gets within 1 order of magnitude it'll be time to focus on the carnage cause by the bikes." are utterly wrong in my opinion. Wrong is wrong is wrong. A car did not cause this death, a bike did. And those cyclists who insist on tying themselves in ever tighter knots as they try to defend the indefensible are really doing themselves and the reputation of cyclists no good at all.
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 too remember being part of about a dozen kids, all lined up on our Grifters to have the lesson, thoroughly enjoyed it and I got to know some of the rules of the road and the highway code at 10 or 11 rather than 17.Is it time these were reintroduced as part of the curriculum?
The trouble is a hell of a lot of cyclists on the roads now didn't cycle at school age; didn't go to school in this country or wouldn't attend even if they had.
No matter the subject a lot of people have no interest in training if there's no need / if it's not mandatory.
Sadly, idiots are idiots whatever their mode of transport.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff