wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.
Discussion
JQ said:
Finlandia said:
Finlandia said:
Can't see any mention of if a helmet was used, could a helmet have saved him?
Is that not victim blaming? Randy Winkman said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
Here's another bit you didn't quote.
Do me a a favour .... that's the Daily Mail trying to get you wound up with another mad cyclist story. "Raced through", "as lights changed red". It's utter bo**ocks.the article you posted said:
Cyclist died after running down pedestrian who stepped into his path as he raced through busy junction as lights changed to red
How is that not reckless?This is the bones of the issue though.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Cyclist dies. Must be the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Pedestrian dies. Definitely the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist gets hit by car. Cyclist dies. Almost certainly the cyclist's fault for going either "too fast" or "too slow".
Cyclist gets squashed by a lorry at a junction. Cyclist dies. Well, despite the fact that the cause of death was multiple, catastrophic crushing injuries to the legs and abdomen, it absolutely MUST be the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet.
It doesn't matter what we do either. Ride 'in the gutter' and we invite close passes and are well out of the eyeline of most drivers. Ride in the nearside wheel track and we might be seen, but will still get a 'punishment pass' or two for daring to move away from the gutter. Ride further out in the centre of the lane, or even the offside wheeltrack, and we're seen as "a menace" and "deliberately holding up traffic".
And when cyclists are too scared of vehicle drivers to ride on the carriageway and so take to footways, pedestrians get all frothy-mouthed over that.
All this despite the fact that the vast majority of the "carnage" on our roads daily is caused by vehicle drivers failing to make proper observations, or making massive errors of judgement about the speed and distance of other vehicles. A "single vehicle accident" involving a cyclist usually amounts to a few minutes delay at most, while the rider picks himself and his bike up and limps to the side of the road to check for road rash. Quite often a single motor vehicle accident can close a road while a recovery truck is summoned to extract said car from the scenery. Yet somehow it's cyclists who ALWAYS get blamed for causing delays (because it's easy to do that) when car drivers seem deliriously happy to sit in queues of cars sat one-behind-the-other hundreds of times, often going nowhere because that's just "sheer weight of traffic". Sheer weight of morons, more like. Sitting in traffic queues twice a day, day after day, hoping vainly that tomorrow the traffic will miraculously flow once again. Nope. It ain't 1965 anymore, so the only solution to these traffic queues is for some of the queuing drivers to make other arrangements and leave their cars at home. Except that you'll all stare at one-another determined that the ones to do the leaving at home thing are definitely not going to be you.
Cycling IS a solution to local congestion. Many 'commute time' journeys could EASILY be done by bicycle. Car drivers and other non-cyclists are very fond of telling we cyclists that "racing bikes" and Lycra are wholly unnecessary for a commute. Well in that case, surely all a driver needs to do is to invest £150 in a pig-iron bone shaker from Sports Direct and Hey Presto! You're all kitted out to cycle to work. Why don't more people save time and money by riding to work instead of spending hours of their week queuing in their cars? I suspect it's because they are fully aware of how absolutely shocking the standard of their driving is, so don't want to be cycling among all these other idiots who are equally terrible drivers.
Cycling rates will rocket, I reckon, if/when the government really turns it's attention to the eradication of the ICE car. There will NEVER be enough electric car charging points to go around, especially in large car parks near places where people work. Take-up of government incentives to switch to cycling will spike massively, and drivers will become a minority group on the roads. Maybe THEN you'll all get your dearest wish come true, and bicycles will have to be taxed, insured, and display a registration mark.
Otherwise, everyone could just try to be a little less selfish, and play nice with ALL road user groups, in which case there's probably very little need for any changes to current legislation to prevent the current levels of "carnage" caused by cyclists on the road network. Perhaps if pedestrians weren't so keen to be "flattened, but in the right" and kept to one side of shared use paths there'd be less conflict. Perhaps if pedestrians looked before crossing roads fewer of them would be struck be errant cyclists and drivers? Perhaps if everyone slowed down while riding or driving in towns it would allow them little extra reaction time to avoid pedestrians who were distracted and stepped/stumbled into the road ahead of them? Perhaps if drivers admitted to themselves that they aren't nearly as good at driving as they claim to be they'd give themselves more space to the car ahead on the road? That would avoid the majority of rear-end shunts in slow traffic, the shunts that cause delays far out of proportion to the seriousness of the collision?
There ought to be a lot less mud-slinging in response to these sorts of news stories, and far more quiet reflection as to how YOU can play YOUR part in making sure that YOU are not the cause of such an incident, and preferably that you're never involved in one. Yet still, on a daily basis, I see drivers drinking coffee from china mugs, texting, telephoning, failing to give way as directed, running red lights, ignoring pedestrian priority at crossings, etc, etc. Add to that cyclists ignoring the rules, riding without lights, running reds, "pavement hopping" to avoid traffic delays, etc, etc, and it's a perfect storm of stupid meets selfish. No wonder people are killed on the roads.
For the record, I cycle ~6,000 mile per year, drive ~12,000 miles per year, and I used to drive lorries and buses. I have seen it from all angles. The vulnerable position of a pedestrian trying in vain to cross a busy road, a cyclist being brushed aside by selfish drivers rushing headlong from the front of one queue to the back of yet another. I've sat in my car and rolled my eyes at pedestrians walking along a dual carriageway when there's a perfectly good path nearby. I've sworn from my driving seat at moronic cyclists appearing out of the darkness on fast roads with no lights or reflectors fitted. And from the cab of a lorry or coach you can see an awful lot more than from the driving seat of a car, and a lot of it isn't good. Everyone ought to take a little responsibility for everyone else's safety, rather than selfishly working solely for themselves. Then we'd all get along a lot better, arrive at our destinations calmer, and who knows? It might turn out to be a whole lot safer for everyone too?
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Cyclist dies. Must be the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Pedestrian dies. Definitely the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist gets hit by car. Cyclist dies. Almost certainly the cyclist's fault for going either "too fast" or "too slow".
Cyclist gets squashed by a lorry at a junction. Cyclist dies. Well, despite the fact that the cause of death was multiple, catastrophic crushing injuries to the legs and abdomen, it absolutely MUST be the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet.
It doesn't matter what we do either. Ride 'in the gutter' and we invite close passes and are well out of the eyeline of most drivers. Ride in the nearside wheel track and we might be seen, but will still get a 'punishment pass' or two for daring to move away from the gutter. Ride further out in the centre of the lane, or even the offside wheeltrack, and we're seen as "a menace" and "deliberately holding up traffic".
And when cyclists are too scared of vehicle drivers to ride on the carriageway and so take to footways, pedestrians get all frothy-mouthed over that.
All this despite the fact that the vast majority of the "carnage" on our roads daily is caused by vehicle drivers failing to make proper observations, or making massive errors of judgement about the speed and distance of other vehicles. A "single vehicle accident" involving a cyclist usually amounts to a few minutes delay at most, while the rider picks himself and his bike up and limps to the side of the road to check for road rash. Quite often a single motor vehicle accident can close a road while a recovery truck is summoned to extract said car from the scenery. Yet somehow it's cyclists who ALWAYS get blamed for causing delays (because it's easy to do that) when car drivers seem deliriously happy to sit in queues of cars sat one-behind-the-other hundreds of times, often going nowhere because that's just "sheer weight of traffic". Sheer weight of morons, more like. Sitting in traffic queues twice a day, day after day, hoping vainly that tomorrow the traffic will miraculously flow once again. Nope. It ain't 1965 anymore, so the only solution to these traffic queues is for some of the queuing drivers to make other arrangements and leave their cars at home. Except that you'll all stare at one-another determined that the ones to do the leaving at home thing are definitely not going to be you.
Cycling IS a solution to local congestion. Many 'commute time' journeys could EASILY be done by bicycle. Car drivers and other non-cyclists are very fond of telling we cyclists that "racing bikes" and Lycra are wholly unnecessary for a commute. Well in that case, surely all a driver needs to do is to invest £150 in a pig-iron bone shaker from Sports Direct and Hey Presto! You're all kitted out to cycle to work. Why don't more people save time and money by riding to work instead of spending hours of their week queuing in their cars? I suspect it's because they are fully aware of how absolutely shocking the standard of their driving is, so don't want to be cycling among all these other idiots who are equally terrible drivers.
Cycling rates will rocket, I reckon, if/when the government really turns it's attention to the eradication of the ICE car. There will NEVER be enough electric car charging points to go around, especially in large car parks near places where people work. Take-up of government incentives to switch to cycling will spike massively, and drivers will become a minority group on the roads. Maybe THEN you'll all get your dearest wish come true, and bicycles will have to be taxed, insured, and display a registration mark.
Otherwise, everyone could just try to be a little less selfish, and play nice with ALL road user groups, in which case there's probably very little need for any changes to current legislation to prevent the current levels of "carnage" caused by cyclists on the road network. Perhaps if pedestrians weren't so keen to be "flattened, but in the right" and kept to one side of shared use paths there'd be less conflict. Perhaps if pedestrians looked before crossing roads fewer of them would be struck be errant cyclists and drivers? Perhaps if everyone slowed down while riding or driving in towns it would allow them little extra reaction time to avoid pedestrians who were distracted and stepped/stumbled into the road ahead of them? Perhaps if drivers admitted to themselves that they aren't nearly as good at driving as they claim to be they'd give themselves more space to the car ahead on the road? That would avoid the majority of rear-end shunts in slow traffic, the shunts that cause delays far out of proportion to the seriousness of the collision?
There ought to be a lot less mud-slinging in response to these sorts of news stories, and far more quiet reflection as to how YOU can play YOUR part in making sure that YOU are not the cause of such an incident, and preferably that you're never involved in one. Yet still, on a daily basis, I see drivers drinking coffee from china mugs, texting, telephoning, failing to give way as directed, running red lights, ignoring pedestrian priority at crossings, etc, etc. Add to that cyclists ignoring the rules, riding without lights, running reds, "pavement hopping" to avoid traffic delays, etc, etc, and it's a perfect storm of stupid meets selfish. No wonder people are killed on the roads.
For the record, I cycle ~6,000 mile per year, drive ~12,000 miles per year, and I used to drive lorries and buses. I have seen it from all angles. The vulnerable position of a pedestrian trying in vain to cross a busy road, a cyclist being brushed aside by selfish drivers rushing headlong from the front of one queue to the back of yet another. I've sat in my car and rolled my eyes at pedestrians walking along a dual carriageway when there's a perfectly good path nearby. I've sworn from my driving seat at moronic cyclists appearing out of the darkness on fast roads with no lights or reflectors fitted. And from the cab of a lorry or coach you can see an awful lot more than from the driving seat of a car, and a lot of it isn't good. Everyone ought to take a little responsibility for everyone else's safety, rather than selfishly working solely for themselves. Then we'd all get along a lot better, arrive at our destinations calmer, and who knows? It might turn out to be a whole lot safer for everyone too?
yellowjack said:
Everyone ought to take a little responsibility for everyone else's safety, rather than selfishly working solely for themselves. Then we'd all get along a lot better, arrive at our destinations calmer, and who knows? It might turn out to be a whole lot safer for everyone too?
Difficult to get "all" people to stop being selfish, its also difficult to look out for others when people don't stick to the rules be it bike,car,van,lorry. Its the unexpected that catches people out when the other person diverts away from what everyone else expects.Edited by PAULJ5555 on Friday 8th September 15:12
creampuff said:
Retroman said:
"As the lights changed to red"
The wording is ambiguous on purpose.
Could have been amber as well.
You should stop at amber, when it's safe to do so but you should also check the road is clear and safe before stepping onto it
Has been reported in other (more reliable than Daily Mail) newspaper articles that the coroner could not determine if the traffic light was red or green when the cyclist passed through it. The wording is ambiguous on purpose.
Could have been amber as well.
You should stop at amber, when it's safe to do so but you should also check the road is clear and safe before stepping onto it
mygoldfishbowl said:
Randy Winkman said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
Here's another bit you didn't quote.
Do me a a favour .... that's the Daily Mail trying to get you wound up with another mad cyclist story. "Raced through", "as lights changed red". It's utter bo**ocks.the article you posted said:
Cyclist died after running down pedestrian who stepped into his path as he raced through busy junction as lights changed to red
How is that not reckless?IroningMan said:
creampuff said:
Retroman said:
"As the lights changed to red"
The wording is ambiguous on purpose.
Could have been amber as well.
You should stop at amber, when it's safe to do so but you should also check the road is clear and safe before stepping onto it
Has been reported in other (more reliable than Daily Mail) newspaper articles that the coroner could not determine if the traffic light was red or green when the cyclist passed through it. The wording is ambiguous on purpose.
Could have been amber as well.
You should stop at amber, when it's safe to do so but you should also check the road is clear and safe before stepping onto it
Talk about double standards.
yellowjack said:
This is the bones of the issue though.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Cyclist dies. Must be the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Pedestrian dies. Definitely the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist gets hit by car. Cyclist dies. Almost certainly the cyclist's fault for going either "too fast" or "too slow".
Cyclist gets squashed by a lorry at a junction. Cyclist dies. Well, despite the fact that the cause of death was multiple, catastrophic crushing injuries to the legs and abdomen, it absolutely MUST be the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet.
It doesn't matter what we do either. Ride 'in the gutter' and we invite close passes and are well out of the eyeline of most drivers. Ride in the nearside wheel track and we might be seen, but will still get a 'punishment pass' or two for daring to move away from the gutter. Ride further out in the centre of the lane, or even the offside wheeltrack, and we're seen as "a menace" and "deliberately holding up traffic".
And when cyclists are too scared of vehicle drivers to ride on the carriageway and so take to footways, pedestrians get all frothy-mouthed over that.
All this despite the fact that the vast majority of the "carnage" on our roads daily is caused by vehicle drivers failing to make proper observations, or making massive errors of judgement about the speed and distance of other vehicles. A "single vehicle accident" involving a cyclist usually amounts to a few minutes delay at most, while the rider picks himself and his bike up and limps to the side of the road to check for road rash. Quite often a single motor vehicle accident can close a road while a recovery truck is summoned to extract said car from the scenery. Yet somehow it's cyclists who ALWAYS get blamed for causing delays (because it's easy to do that) when car drivers seem deliriously happy to sit in queues of cars sat one-behind-the-other hundreds of times, often going nowhere because that's just "sheer weight of traffic". Sheer weight of morons, more like. Sitting in traffic queues twice a day, day after day, hoping vainly that tomorrow the traffic will miraculously flow once again. Nope. It ain't 1965 anymore, so the only solution to these traffic queues is for some of the queuing drivers to make other arrangements and leave their cars at home. Except that you'll all stare at one-another determined that the ones to do the leaving at home thing are definitely not going to be you.
Cycling IS a solution to local congestion. Many 'commute time' journeys could EASILY be done by bicycle. Car drivers and other non-cyclists are very fond of telling we cyclists that "racing bikes" and Lycra are wholly unnecessary for a commute. Well in that case, surely all a driver needs to do is to invest £150 in a pig-iron bone shaker from Sports Direct and Hey Presto! You're all kitted out to cycle to work. Why don't more people save time and money by riding to work instead of spending hours of their week queuing in their cars? I suspect it's because they are fully aware of how absolutely shocking the standard of their driving is, so don't want to be cycling among all these other idiots who are equally terrible drivers.
Cycling rates will rocket, I reckon, if/when the government really turns it's attention to the eradication of the ICE car. There will NEVER be enough electric car charging points to go around, especially in large car parks near places where people work. Take-up of government incentives to switch to cycling will spike massively, and drivers will become a minority group on the roads. Maybe THEN you'll all get your dearest wish come true, and bicycles will have to be taxed, insured, and display a registration mark.
Otherwise, everyone could just try to be a little less selfish, and play nice with ALL road user groups, in which case there's probably very little need for any changes to current legislation to prevent the current levels of "carnage" caused by cyclists on the road network. Perhaps if pedestrians weren't so keen to be "flattened, but in the right" and kept to one side of shared use paths there'd be less conflict. Perhaps if pedestrians looked before crossing roads fewer of them would be struck be errant cyclists and drivers? Perhaps if everyone slowed down while riding or driving in towns it would allow them little extra reaction time to avoid pedestrians who were distracted and stepped/stumbled into the road ahead of them? Perhaps if drivers admitted to themselves that they aren't nearly as good at driving as they claim to be they'd give themselves more space to the car ahead on the road? That would avoid the majority of rear-end shunts in slow traffic, the shunts that cause delays far out of proportion to the seriousness of the collision?
There ought to be a lot less mud-slinging in response to these sorts of news stories, and far more quiet reflection as to how YOU can play YOUR part in making sure that YOU are not the cause of such an incident, and preferably that you're never involved in one. Yet still, on a daily basis, I see drivers drinking coffee from china mugs, texting, telephoning, failing to give way as directed, running red lights, ignoring pedestrian priority at crossings, etc, etc. Add to that cyclists ignoring the rules, riding without lights, running reds, "pavement hopping" to avoid traffic delays, etc, etc, and it's a perfect storm of stupid meets selfish. No wonder people are killed on the roads.
For the record, I cycle ~6,000 mile per year, drive ~12,000 miles per year, and I used to drive lorries and buses. I have seen it from all angles. The vulnerable position of a pedestrian trying in vain to cross a busy road, a cyclist being brushed aside by selfish drivers rushing headlong from the front of one queue to the back of yet another. I've sat in my car and rolled my eyes at pedestrians walking along a dual carriageway when there's a perfectly good path nearby. I've sworn from my driving seat at moronic cyclists appearing out of the darkness on fast roads with no lights or reflectors fitted. And from the cab of a lorry or coach you can see an awful lot more than from the driving seat of a car, and a lot of it isn't good. Everyone ought to take a little responsibility for everyone else's safety, rather than selfishly working solely for themselves. Then we'd all get along a lot better, arrive at our destinations calmer, and who knows? It might turn out to be a whole lot safer for everyone too?
If only there was a way to stop every one of those terrible, disgraceful injustices happening to cyclists daily, if only Cyclist hits pedestrian. Cyclist dies. Must be the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Pedestrian dies. Definitely the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist gets hit by car. Cyclist dies. Almost certainly the cyclist's fault for going either "too fast" or "too slow".
Cyclist gets squashed by a lorry at a junction. Cyclist dies. Well, despite the fact that the cause of death was multiple, catastrophic crushing injuries to the legs and abdomen, it absolutely MUST be the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet.
It doesn't matter what we do either. Ride 'in the gutter' and we invite close passes and are well out of the eyeline of most drivers. Ride in the nearside wheel track and we might be seen, but will still get a 'punishment pass' or two for daring to move away from the gutter. Ride further out in the centre of the lane, or even the offside wheeltrack, and we're seen as "a menace" and "deliberately holding up traffic".
And when cyclists are too scared of vehicle drivers to ride on the carriageway and so take to footways, pedestrians get all frothy-mouthed over that.
All this despite the fact that the vast majority of the "carnage" on our roads daily is caused by vehicle drivers failing to make proper observations, or making massive errors of judgement about the speed and distance of other vehicles. A "single vehicle accident" involving a cyclist usually amounts to a few minutes delay at most, while the rider picks himself and his bike up and limps to the side of the road to check for road rash. Quite often a single motor vehicle accident can close a road while a recovery truck is summoned to extract said car from the scenery. Yet somehow it's cyclists who ALWAYS get blamed for causing delays (because it's easy to do that) when car drivers seem deliriously happy to sit in queues of cars sat one-behind-the-other hundreds of times, often going nowhere because that's just "sheer weight of traffic". Sheer weight of morons, more like. Sitting in traffic queues twice a day, day after day, hoping vainly that tomorrow the traffic will miraculously flow once again. Nope. It ain't 1965 anymore, so the only solution to these traffic queues is for some of the queuing drivers to make other arrangements and leave their cars at home. Except that you'll all stare at one-another determined that the ones to do the leaving at home thing are definitely not going to be you.
Cycling IS a solution to local congestion. Many 'commute time' journeys could EASILY be done by bicycle. Car drivers and other non-cyclists are very fond of telling we cyclists that "racing bikes" and Lycra are wholly unnecessary for a commute. Well in that case, surely all a driver needs to do is to invest £150 in a pig-iron bone shaker from Sports Direct and Hey Presto! You're all kitted out to cycle to work. Why don't more people save time and money by riding to work instead of spending hours of their week queuing in their cars? I suspect it's because they are fully aware of how absolutely shocking the standard of their driving is, so don't want to be cycling among all these other idiots who are equally terrible drivers.
Cycling rates will rocket, I reckon, if/when the government really turns it's attention to the eradication of the ICE car. There will NEVER be enough electric car charging points to go around, especially in large car parks near places where people work. Take-up of government incentives to switch to cycling will spike massively, and drivers will become a minority group on the roads. Maybe THEN you'll all get your dearest wish come true, and bicycles will have to be taxed, insured, and display a registration mark.
Otherwise, everyone could just try to be a little less selfish, and play nice with ALL road user groups, in which case there's probably very little need for any changes to current legislation to prevent the current levels of "carnage" caused by cyclists on the road network. Perhaps if pedestrians weren't so keen to be "flattened, but in the right" and kept to one side of shared use paths there'd be less conflict. Perhaps if pedestrians looked before crossing roads fewer of them would be struck be errant cyclists and drivers? Perhaps if everyone slowed down while riding or driving in towns it would allow them little extra reaction time to avoid pedestrians who were distracted and stepped/stumbled into the road ahead of them? Perhaps if drivers admitted to themselves that they aren't nearly as good at driving as they claim to be they'd give themselves more space to the car ahead on the road? That would avoid the majority of rear-end shunts in slow traffic, the shunts that cause delays far out of proportion to the seriousness of the collision?
There ought to be a lot less mud-slinging in response to these sorts of news stories, and far more quiet reflection as to how YOU can play YOUR part in making sure that YOU are not the cause of such an incident, and preferably that you're never involved in one. Yet still, on a daily basis, I see drivers drinking coffee from china mugs, texting, telephoning, failing to give way as directed, running red lights, ignoring pedestrian priority at crossings, etc, etc. Add to that cyclists ignoring the rules, riding without lights, running reds, "pavement hopping" to avoid traffic delays, etc, etc, and it's a perfect storm of stupid meets selfish. No wonder people are killed on the roads.
For the record, I cycle ~6,000 mile per year, drive ~12,000 miles per year, and I used to drive lorries and buses. I have seen it from all angles. The vulnerable position of a pedestrian trying in vain to cross a busy road, a cyclist being brushed aside by selfish drivers rushing headlong from the front of one queue to the back of yet another. I've sat in my car and rolled my eyes at pedestrians walking along a dual carriageway when there's a perfectly good path nearby. I've sworn from my driving seat at moronic cyclists appearing out of the darkness on fast roads with no lights or reflectors fitted. And from the cab of a lorry or coach you can see an awful lot more than from the driving seat of a car, and a lot of it isn't good. Everyone ought to take a little responsibility for everyone else's safety, rather than selfishly working solely for themselves. Then we'd all get along a lot better, arrive at our destinations calmer, and who knows? It might turn out to be a whole lot safer for everyone too?
will_ said:
IroningMan said:
creampuff said:
Retroman said:
"As the lights changed to red"
The wording is ambiguous on purpose.
Could have been amber as well.
You should stop at amber, when it's safe to do so but you should also check the road is clear and safe before stepping onto it
Has been reported in other (more reliable than Daily Mail) newspaper articles that the coroner could not determine if the traffic light was red or green when the cyclist passed through it. The wording is ambiguous on purpose.
Could have been amber as well.
You should stop at amber, when it's safe to do so but you should also check the road is clear and safe before stepping onto it
Talk about double standards.
The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
mygoldfishbowl said:
I didn't see any blatant anti cyclist reporting, I am seeing lots of blatant anti pedestrian, driver, anyone that isn't a cyclist posting going on though.
The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
What was the coroner's conclusion?The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
yellowjack said:
This is the bones of the issue though.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Cyclist dies. Must be the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Pedestrian dies. Definitely the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist gets hit by car. Cyclist dies. Almost certainly the cyclist's fault for going either "too fast" or "too slow".
Cyclist gets squashed by a lorry at a junction. Cyclist dies. Well, despite the fact that the cause of death was multiple, catastrophic crushing injuries to the legs and abdomen, it absolutely MUST be the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Cyclist dies. Must be the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist hits pedestrian. Pedestrian dies. Definitely the cyclist's fault.
Cyclist gets hit by car. Cyclist dies. Almost certainly the cyclist's fault for going either "too fast" or "too slow".
Cyclist gets squashed by a lorry at a junction. Cyclist dies. Well, despite the fact that the cause of death was multiple, catastrophic crushing injuries to the legs and abdomen, it absolutely MUST be the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet.
You need to have a word with yourself, a pathetic victim mentality isn't going to help either you or any other cyclist.Mr2Mike said:
You need to have a word with yourself, a pathetic victim mentality isn't going to help either you or any other cyclist.IroningMan said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
I didn't see any blatant anti cyclist reporting, I am seeing lots of blatant anti pedestrian, driver, anyone that isn't a cyclist posting going on though.
The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
What was the coroner's conclusion?The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
mygoldfishbowl said:
The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
Or he may not, so there's no point in discussing them. I have to say, in my 40 years of taking an interest in such matters, I've never known courts go beyond the facts and into speculation so much as in these two cases.
I thought courts were only interested in facts, but clearly not any more. We have speculation about traffic lights, which is irrelevant in the light of somebody stepping into the road immediately in front of someone or something. We have a type of language, using terms such as "racing" applied to someone doing 24 mph, a term I don't think ever seen applied to a car driver, not even when they're exceeding the speed limit unless to a much larger degree.
In Alliston's case the court concerned itself with comments he made on social media, which as regrettable as they were, had nothing to do with the case in front of them, ie the road traffic accident resulting in the death of Mrs Briggs.
The judge even stated that Alliston had showed not an iota of remorse, which is factually untrue, even as inadequate Allistons comments were.
I'm glad I'm not a cyclist (or black I guess, given the article on yesterday's front page of the Guardian).
I can do the white, middle class motorist thing really quite well, it's helped me out a good few times.
mygoldfishbowl said:
IroningMan said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
I didn't see any blatant anti cyclist reporting, I am seeing lots of blatant anti pedestrian, driver, anyone that isn't a cyclist posting going on though.
The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
What was the coroner's conclusion?The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
The coroner's conclusion was: 'Ben Pedley died on March 22 this year, on Church Road in Reading, Berks. I will record that he died as a result of a road traffic collision as a result of a pedestrian stepping into the path of the cyclist who was travelling at a high speed.'
IroningMan said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
IroningMan said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
I didn't see any blatant anti cyclist reporting, I am seeing lots of blatant anti pedestrian, driver, anyone that isn't a cyclist posting going on though.
The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
What was the coroner's conclusion?The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
The coroner's conclusion was: 'Ben Pedley died on March 22 this year, on Church Road in Reading, Berks. I will record that he died as a result of a road traffic collision as a result of a pedestrian stepping into the path of the cyclist who was travelling at a high speed.'
ks" or " click bate" etc. The only fact we know is, the coroner could not prove they were red, so the cyclist MAY have gone through them while they were.The fact that cyclists don't like that possibility is not my concern, and it's the cyclists who are doing exactly what you accuse me of in your first paragraph.
heebeegeetee said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
Or he may not, so there's no point in discussing them. I have to say, in my 40 years of taking an interest in such matters, I've never known courts go beyond the facts and into speculation so much as in these two cases.
I thought courts were only interested in facts, but clearly not any more. We have speculation about traffic lights, which is irrelevant in the light of somebody stepping into the road immediately in front of someone or something. We have a type of language, using terms such as "racing" applied to someone doing 24 mph, a term I don't think ever seen applied to a car driver, not even when they're exceeding the speed limit unless to a much larger degree.
In Alliston's case the court concerned itself with comments he made on social media, which as regrettable as they were, had nothing to do with the case in front of them, ie the road traffic accident resulting in the death of Mrs Briggs.
The judge even stated that Alliston had showed not an iota of remorse, which is factually untrue, even as inadequate Allistons comments were.
I'm glad I'm not a cyclist (or black I guess, given the article on yesterday's front page of the Guardian).
I can do the white, middle class motorist thing really quite well, it's helped me out a good few times.
mygoldfishbowl said:
No, I've never even implied that the lights were red. I have only insisted on the fact that they may have been after others have stated the fact that they may have been as "bks" or " click bate" etc. The only fact we know is, the coroner could not prove they were red, so the cyclist MAY have gone through them while they were.
Indeed. They may have been red. They may have been green as well. ks" or " click bate" etc. The only fact we know is, the coroner could not prove they were red, so the cyclist MAY have gone through them while they were.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff