wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.

[Retroman]

Sylvaforever said:

HC rules 144/145/146 refer.

It's strange that you refer to that, and not to HC rules 7, for pedestrians.

Section A
First find a safe place to cross and where there is space to reach the pavement on the other side. Where there is a crossing nearby, use it. Otherwise choose a place where you can see clearly in all directions. Try to avoid crossing between parked cars (see Rule 14), on a blind bend, or close to the brow of a hill. Move to a space where drivers and riders can see you clearly

Section C
Look all around for traffic and listen. Traffic could come from any direction. Listen as well, because you can sometimes hear traffic before you see it.

Section E
When it is safe, go straight across the road – do not run. Keep looking and listening for traffic while you cross, in case there is any traffic you did not see, or in case other traffic appears suddenly. Look out for cyclists and motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic.

[TroubledSoul]

Retroman, what do you mean what charges would the pedestrian face? What's a normal accident (where the majority of fault appears to lie with the cyclist and his lack of hazard perception) got to do with a guy who killed somebody because he was riding an illegal bike that he couldn't stop?

I think you need to stop comparing apples and oranges pal.

As for a situation where the pedestrian is 100% to blame then I'd suggest an assault charge might be the correct way forward if there's recklessness involved.

The cyclists here are well within their rights to expect it to work both ways, but you can't apply the same logic to an avoidable accident and an unavoidable one.

Who judges which applies to an accident? Well certainly not us.

[creampuff]

Retroman said:

No comments on this yet, as it's fairly recent but wouldn't be surprised if anyone ignores the pedestrians stepping out into oncoming traffic 10ft away from a crossing and criticises the filtering cyclist instead.

Just as well the cyclist was going slow and not on an illegal bike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7kBnNEtfeU

And another.....even though she stepped out into the path of oncoming traffic, without looking properly and without using a crossing a few seconds from her, she doesn't think it's her fault, which is why it's such a common theme.

https://youtu.be/sSMf-dSGfPc?t=4m27s

Well as a motorcyclist who filters, I'd lump a large part of the blame on the cyclist and motorcyclist in those videos, although the pedestrians aren't blameless either. When filtering you need to anticipate things you cannot see from behind traffic appearing in front of you. Both the cyclist and motorcyclist in those videos were riding too fast for what the could see and were riding too close to the vehicles they were passing, which reduced both their view to the left and their own visibility to people on their left. And a crash then happened.

You can estimate the speed of the cyclist/ motorcyclist by counting the number of cars they pass per second. A queuing car takes about 6 meters of length of road. They were going too fast.

[creampuff]

heebeegeetee said:

Good cycling infrastructure is absolutely fantastic for the disabled to use. In northern Europe the disabled have access to a network of paved paths and shared lanes that give them a level of independence, freedom and opportunity for exercise and fresh air that your friend possibly can't imagine and has never seen.

The last time we were in Germany we were did miles and miles of rural roads that had good quality shared-use path alongside, used by cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled. The disabled over there can independently travel from village to village, using either motability scooters or those hand-cranked wheelchairs. We did a ffair few miles in Germany, and of course as we crossed into Netherlands and Belgium we saw much the same.

So unfortunately we have yet another example of how people lose out thanks to those with an attitude like yours, even when in the case of your friend, they don't even begin to realise how they could benefit and how much they miss out on - and possibly have been doing so for decades.

You really need to get a fking clue and transport somebody who really is disabled before you start going on about the freedom to be enjoyed by disabled people happily cycling along, or using a mobility scooter on, a utopian bike path. People who really are disabled can't walk the 20 meters to the bike path, can't ride a bike and for that matter, can't man handle a mobility scooter from a storage location where it won't get stolen onto any hard flat surface, be it bike path, footpath or road.

I have some disabled relatives who I transport around sometimes. Oh yeah, they can start riding a bike. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Had you actually spent any time walking, riding or driving around Germany or the Netherlands or anywhere in Europe with a lot of cyclists, you would have noticed some major differences compared to British cyclists:
- They wear normal clothes, not Lycra
- They don't ride excessively fast
- They don't swear at pedestrians
- They don't cycle through pedestrian crossings when pedestrians are crossing
- They don't go through red lights
- They don't ride on the pavement where they are not allowed to ride

Generally, unlike is only too common with British cyclists, they aren't selfish dickwads who for good measure are also lacking in any sort of clue in general and any clue about the Highway Code in particular.

Edited by creampuff on Sunday 1st October 16:59

[FazerBoy]

creampuff said:

Well as a motorcyclist who filters, I'd lump a large part of the blame on the cyclist and motorcyclist in those videos, although the pedestrians aren't blameless either. When filtering you need to anticipate things you cannot see from behind traffic appearing in front of you. Both the cyclist and motorcyclist in those videos were riding too fast for what the could see and were riding too close to the vehicles they were passing, which reduced both their view to the left and their own visibility to people on their left. And a crash then happened.

You can estimate the speed of the cyclist/ motorcyclist by counting the number of cars they pass per second. A queuing car takes about 6 meters of length of road. They were going too fast.

I am also a very experienced cyclist and motorcyclist (as well as car driver) and would fully agree with this.

Both bikers were just going too fast and too close. If a pedestrian were to step out - which is a likely event - then they would simply be unable to avoid the pedestrian. The proof of this is that this is exactly what happened!

Yes of course the pedestrians bear some blame but a skilled and experienced biker should be two steps ahead. I filter through heavy London traffic and along bus lanes every working day and if I rode like these two I would have an accident on a weekly basis.

[DJFish]

creampuff said:

Had you actually spent any time walking, riding or driving around Germany or the Netherlands or anywhere in Europe with a lot of cyclists, you would have noticed some major differences compared to British cyclists:
- They wear normal clothes, not Lycra
- They don't ride excessively fast
- They don't swear at pedestrians
- They don't cycle through pedestrian crossings when pedestrians are crossing
- They don't go through red lights
- They don't ride on the pavement where they are not allowed to ride

Generally, unlike is only too common with British cyclists, they aren't selfish dickwads who for good measure are also lacking in any sort of clue in general and any clue about the Highway Code in particular.

Edited by creampuff on Sunday 1st October 16:59

I had a week in holland recently and it was about a 50/50 split of cyclists & people riding bikes.
The cyclists were generally helmeted & lycra'd up, and pushing on.
The people riding bikes were dressed normally and much more laid back & friendly.
All used the excellent cycling infrastructure so no need to jump reds or abuse anyone, though I did get the impression (from a few close passes) that Dutch motorists like their cyclists to know their place & stay off the roads.
Aside from that it was cycling nirvana (if a little flat).

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

You really need to get a fking clue and transport somebody who really is disabled before you start going on about the freedom to be enjoyed by disabled people happily cycling along, or using a mobility scooter on, a utopian bike path. People who really are disabled can't walk the 20 meters to the bike path, can't ride a bike and for that matter, can't man handle a mobility scooter from a storage location where it won't get stolen onto any hard flat surface, be it bike path, footpath or road.

I have some disabled relatives who I transport around sometimes. Oh yeah, they can start riding a bike. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're wasting your time, heebee has all the answers, much of the time to questions that haven't been asked. I chuckled at the notion of my friend making her way from just north of Finsbury Park to Dulwich on her own... luckily so did she!

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 1st October 23:10

[yellowjack]

FazerBoy said:

Retroman said:

No comments on this yet, as it's fairly recent but wouldn't be surprised if anyone ignores the pedestrians stepping out into oncoming traffic 10ft away from a crossing and criticises the filtering cyclist instead.

Just as well the cyclist was going slow and not on an illegal bike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7kBnNEtfeU

Are you kidding?

The cyclist is bombing it inches away from stationary traffic on a busy high street where the likelihood of pedestrians crossing from between the traffic is extremely high...

Oh please and watch that video again.

Cyclist not "bombing it" in any meaningful way.

Those pedestrians are within a few yards of a proper crossing (actually WITHIN the bounds of the zig-zags), and they RUN into the road, not just step out. They have made a decision based on incomplete observation of risk, and committed to it despite the traffic light ahead being GREEN and traffic at the head of the queue beginning to move again.

Although having spoken in defence of this particular cyclist, it is also true to say that he is overtaking within those same zig-zags, when the Highway Code suggests that...

HC said:

Rule 193.

You should take extra care where the view of either side of the crossing is blocked by queuing traffic or incorrectly parked vehicles. Pedestrians may be crossing between stationary vehicles.

...so the speed of the cyclist is a red herring in this case. His failure to heed advice in the HC puts him at as much fault as the two pedestrians in this particular case as far as I'm concerned.

Look again at the slowed down footage at the end of the video too. The two peds are fixated on getting across before traffic moves, and their gaze appears to be directed at where they will be putting their feet. Neither one looks left, nor right, despite the fact that they are about to "appear from nowhere" (actually "appear from behind a Transit van") to a driver in the opposite lane who is likely to be accelerating away from a standstill.

Both parties in this video ought to accept that they bear a share of the blame, dust themselves off and move on. If it were a car 'accident', with video like that, I'd expect that to either go 50/50, or "knock for knock" on the claims, with both drivers losing their NCD.

Edited by mogs.mod on Monday 2nd October 15:43

[FazerBoy]

yellowjack said:

Retroman said:

No comments on this yet, as it's fairly recent but wouldn't be surprised if anyone ignores the pedestrians stepping out into oncoming traffic 10ft away from a crossing and criticises the filtering cyclist instead.

Just as well the cyclist was going slow and not on an illegal bike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7kBnNEtfeU

Oh please do fk off and watch that video again.

Cyclist not "bombing it" in any meaningful way.

Those pedestrians are within a few yards of a proper crossing (actually WITHIN the bounds of the zig-zags), and they RUN into the road, not just step out. They have made a decision based on incomplete observation of risk, and committed to it despite the traffic light ahead being GREEN and traffic at the head of the queue beginning to move again.

Although having spoken in defence of this particular cyclist, it is also true to say that he is overtaking within those same zig-zags, when the Highway Code suggests that...

HC said:

Rule 193.

You should take extra care where the view of either side of the crossing is blocked by queuing traffic or incorrectly parked vehicles. Pedestrians may be crossing between stationary vehicles.

...so the speed of the cyclist is a red herring in this case. His failure to heed advice in the HC puts him at as much fault as the two pedestrians in this particular case as far as I'm concerned.

Look again at the slowed down footage at the end of the video too. The two peds are fixated on getting across before traffic moves, and their gaze appears to be directed at where they will be putting their feet. Neither one looks left, nor right, despite the fact that they are about to "appear from nowhere" (actually "appear from behind a Transit van") to a driver in the opposite lane who is likely to be accelerating away from a standstill.

Both parties in this video ought to accept that they bear a share of the blame, dust themselves off and move on. If it were a car 'accident', with video like that, I'd expect that to either go 50/50, or "knock for knock" on the claims, with both drivers losing their NCD.

F*uck off yourself! I have watched the video several times. Why did you feel it was necessary to insult me to make your point?

The cyclist is travelling too fast to be able to stop if a pedestrian pops out from between the cars. That is clear and if he had been cycling more cautiously the collision would have been avoided.

Of course the pedestrians also bear some blame and I said so previously.

[yellowjack]

Retroman said:

And another.....even though she stepped out into the path of oncoming traffic, without looking properly and without using a crossing a few seconds from her, she doesn't think it's her fault, which is why it's such a common theme.

https://youtu.be/sSMf-dSGfPc?t=4m27s

It's lucky for us that we can see how badly that motorcyclist is riding all through his uncut footage.

40 mph near side turnings in a residential area of the village, approaching a slick, wet junction with a major road at 30 mph, 35 mph to pass the coach straight toward a blind right hand bend with a Transit van approaching, accelerating hard while riding ON a wet white line, acceleratin hard well before the change to NSL across the entryway of a farm which you can clearly see is very muddy. Hand off the bars at 68 mph on a narrow single carriageway road, then he speeds the footage up so we can't tell how far over the speed limit he rides. 3m45s we're into a 40 mph limit, and he's off again. Over a SOLID WHITE LINE bounding a hatched area, well over 50 mph too. 'Filtering' alongside a HGV when the gap really is too narrow, and his speed too high. Sitting at the red traffic light in the blind spot of the HGV driver to his left. Accelerating to over 50mph from that light, still in a 40 mph limit DC, and toward the back of a queue. He then, in a display of arrogance and hypocrisy, comments on "two red light runners and an illegal U-turn" despite moving off himself the very instant the red+amber light phase shows. He then takes his attention away from the road ahead to remonstrate with the U-turning driver, whilst almost simultaneously accelerating to 72 mph. This, remember, is a 40 mph limit DC, as confirmed by the big red circles painted on the floor (4m7s)! Frequent swapping of lanes, continually 'filtering' at upwards of 30 mph, yet again "away before the green light" after making his way to the front of the queue (4m16, where, incidentally, we see yet another motorist, in the dark car from the right, who clearly has run their red light), more filtering at inappropriate speeds, past the Ferrari 360 Modena with the badly spaced number plate while riding on that nasty wet white line that's so "treacherous" for motorcyclists (but not so treacherous that you don't choose to ride on it when it suits you). Onto the A6 now, and he ignores the arrows instructing him to merge with lane 1, preferring instead to make "one last car length" and "win" the "race" against that Mini driver. Overtaking in the lane set aside for right turning traffic? No problem for our highly skilled, responsible motorcycle driver. And then we arrive at 4m 27s, where our advanced motorcyclist is now "filtering" fully in the opposite carriageway, forcing oncoming traffic to take avoiding action, and at the point where the pedestrian he hits comes into view, he is going head-to-head with the XK8 while in the carriageway set aside for oncoming traffic, alongside a lorry, and overtaking on approach to a junction. The woman is looking (correctly, in my view) to her left, where moving traffic is likely to come from, as traffic from her right is currently stationary.

His argument that eh was "only doing 15 mph" was a) flawed - it was actually 20 mph; and b) even if it was 15 mph, it's too fast. The court in the Charlie Alliston case deemed his speed to be "too fast to be appropriate for the conditions" and so it is with this motorcyclist. His hypocrisy in pointing out the SHE should be looking where sh'es going is staggering, and his assertion that "that's where you filter" is a) complete bks - he was "overtaking" not "filtering"; and b) pretty meaningless to someone who may not have any form of driving licence at all. His condescending explanation of filtering marks him out as just as much of a tt as Charlie Alliston too. "You're lucky that I've got a camera on"??? WTF? How doea that change the outcome in any way? Does he mean that he'd have been riding even more atrociously, at even higher speeds, if it weren't for the potentially self-incriminating camera on his lid? He uses the word "apologise" at one point, but he doesn't seem to mean it at all. He outright dismisses her potential injuries (shock is a funny thing. Two people in a plane crash recently ran a kilometre to a house to get help, but later died of their injuries... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warw... ) as a "scratch on her knee" while ranting about how much his poxy PowerRanger-mobile cost him.

"Look, I've got a camera on, and you can see everything"? Well yes mate, we can see what an utter ttwaffle you are. You've broken laws, and ignored the fundamentals of good riding for your entire journey up to this point, and now you're having a tantrum because YOU broke your bike by riding it badly, while showing absolutely no sympathy or empathy with a pedestrian you've run over. And no-one else is seeing shades of the Charlie Alliston case here?

I sincerely hope that @chilla-94 wasn't insured fully comp, and that repairing that bike costs him a small fortune, 'coz i rekon 'es a twunt, innit bruvv!'

As for the comments below the video? A vast army of equally delusional Power Rangers closing ranks in a show of solidarity with one of their own. The "Lycra Louts" have got nothing on this bunch of spunk-bubbles.

Remember though! "Think Bike! Think Biker!" (but I don't ever recall seeing a "Bikers! Think!" bumper sticker, although if bikers,as a species, thought about their own standard of riding, and the staggering levels of illegality and contempt for the rules of the road they display on a daily basis, that'd have a far greater impact on road safety and result in fewer of them getting scraped into big rubber bags...)

[creampuff]

> Cyclist not "bombing it" in any meaningful way.

As I said before, you can estimate the cyclists speed by the number of vehicles he passes in a period of time and estimating that a vehicle plus the space around it is about 6 meters.

I think he was doing about 24mph.

You can also see from camera movement he is pedalling, not coasting. What would have happened if there were pedestrians on the crossing ahead?

That's an excessive speed to be filtering/overtaking in a narrow street, without an adequate view to the left. And it seems it was on zig zags.

If I were to be filtering in that situation, I doubt I'd go faster than 15mph, I'd slow further passing high sided vehicles and I'd position to the right so I could improve me view to the left.

The more I watch this, the more it seems the cyclist is to blame. True, the pedestrians were going at jogging speed, but even if walking, the cyclist was still riding far too fast to stop. It would not have mattered if they were walking.

[yellowjack]

Retroman said:

Pedestrian knocks off cyclist by stepping onto cycle lane without looking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ84NESofKU&li...

If that pedestrian were a motorist, they could face a charge of failing to stop at a regulatory traffic signal. The light (for the cyclist) is clearly green, and the 'red man' is lit against the pedestrian.

The fault here lies 50% with the pedestrian for ignoring the CLEARLY MARKED PRIORITY, and 50% with whatever idiot decided that this bike lane was a good idea.

I neither ride much, nor drive in London very often. But I frequently walk that bank of the Thames and walking gives you ample time and opportunity to witness muppetry of colossal proportions from both pedestrians AND cyclists. Cyclists who clearly have no clue how to use this facility, going head-to-head with each other, and ignoring red lights which are meant to allow pedestrians to cross the cycle lane safely. Often they appear to be tourists on 'Boris' Bikes, but some of them have the look of regular cyclists, on their own bikes too. You'd think they'd have more respect for the rules after carriageway space has been taken away from motorised traffic to give them a 'safe' space in which to ride. But then there are the pedestrians being monumentally stupid. Tourists standing IN the cycle lane taking selfies. Walking backwards into the cycle lane trying to frame a photo of the London Eye, impatient commuters aggressively stepping into the cycle lane because they refuse to wait for the 'green man'. And more than once I've seen mopeds and 'proper' motorcycles take to the bicycle lane to avoid a traffic queue. And while in theory this cycle lane seems like a good idea, the authorities who installed it still allow buses/coaches to park along the carriageway and now they disembark their passengers onto a narrow footway marooned between the side of a coach and a busy cycle lane. It's a mad idea, in practice. And this on one of those rare wider London streets where there is at least space to try segregation. Yet it doesn't seem to work very well, so what hope is there where roads are narrower and there's less space into which to fit an "ideal solution" (whatever that may be...).

I love cycling, but I think the gloss would wear off quickly for me if I had to do it in a busy city on a daily basis...

[yellowjack]

creampuff said:

> Cyclist not "bombing it" in any meaningful way.

As I said before, you can estimate the cyclists speed by the number of vehicles he passes in a period of time and estimating that a vehicle plus the space around it is about 6 meters.

I think he was doing about 24mph.

You can also see from camera movement he is pedalling, not coasting. What would have happened if there were pedestrians on the crossing ahead?

That's an excessive speed to be filtering/overtaking in a narrow street, without an adequate view to the left. And it seems it was on zig zags.

If I were to be filtering in that situation, I doubt I'd go faster than 15mph, I'd slow further passing high sided vehicles and I'd position to the right so I could improve me view to the left.

The more I watch this, the more it seems the cyclist is to blame. True, the pedestrians were going at jogging speed, but even if walking, the cyclist was still riding far too fast to stop. It would not have mattered if they were walking.

Well, I estimate he was travelling far more slowly, but the "not bombing it" comment was probably a poor way of phrasing my response.

15 mph? 10 mph? 5 mph? All may be regarded as "excessive speed for the conditions" if visibility is compromised by high sided vehicles. I think you are inferring that he may not have intended to stop at the crossing? You may be right there too. And your point about "filtering" too fast given the inadequate view to the left, near a crossing, on a narrow street means I think, broadly, we are in agreement.

If I were "overtaking" in that situation (for clarity, I consider that to be overtaking, not "filtering", because that reminds me that it is my responsibility to do it right, not my right to do it) I would probably not have exceeded 10 mph. Often I overtake down the offside of a queue like that at little more than walking pace, and never if I can't identify a "refuge" space within the queue where I can pull into the queue if oncoming traffic appears. I wouldn't pass an LGV/HGV in the queue unless I could see to guarantee it won't move off while I'm alongside, like you I'd pass fully into the opposite lane, and only if it were clear (for the same reason - to see more easily, and to be seen better by others). My other personal "golden rule" is "never overtake the first vehicle in the queue". I don't know why, but it seems like a stupid idea to pass the first waiting vehicle, because no matter what the direction of the ( =ir ) front wheels, or what turn signal they are (or aren't) showing, where they will go upon the queue moving off again is anyone's guess. The last place I want to be is slightly overlapping a car, whether nearside or offside, if there's even the slightest chance that it may move off and turn left/right into me...

(edit to correct gobbledygook)

Edited by yellowjack on Monday 2nd October 13:49