Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[okgo]

Rude-boy said:

To be fair this is possibly the most sensible thing anyone (me included) has said on this thread!

And sadly it would seem the UK has a greater proportion of these than many other countries I've cycled and driven in.

[Sway]

okgo said:

Rude-boy said:

So people need to die before a problem should be addressed do they?

Come on. I know you are a keen cyclist and more power to you but just as there are dicks in cars who think 30cm is a good distance between their car and the bake they are passing there are cyclists who don't consider or accept their responsibilities to less protected road users.

Please ignore the squirrel. We are talking about cyclists running into pedestrians. Not about cars and bikes.

Tiny numbers of incidents are serious, seriously tiny. Its really an irrelevance in the grand scheme of anything, I don't see that anything needs to change, bikes should pay more respect to less vulnerable people, such as peds (though you cannot avoid everything), and cars likewise. You'll never stop everyone being a dick.

The problem for me with inner city bike couriers is they are, by default, incentivised to break the road laws and take massive risks (otherwise there is no benefit over a motorcycle courier).

No cycle courier makes any money by obeying one way restrictions/stopping at red lights/respecting zebra crossings. Let alone throwing the bike down forty steps and tonking through pedestrian underpasses.

Currently, there is little to disincentivise this behaviour. Loss of licence meaning loss of earnings would...

[okgo]

Sway said:

The problem for me with inner city bike couriers is they are, by default, incentivised to break the road laws and take massive risks (otherwise there is no benefit over a motorcycle courier).

No cycle courier makes any money by obeying one way restrictions/stopping at red lights/respecting zebra crossings. Let alone throwing the bike down forty steps and tonking through pedestrian underpasses.

Currently, there is little to disincentivise this behaviour. Loss of licence meaning loss of earnings would...

Does it REALLY matter though? It happens, the same as people breaking the law in cars happens (many of them van drivers on similarly tight delivery schedules), life goes on.

Its very sad when people die, but people die from stuff falling off buildings, falling down stairs, falling in front of trains, all things that happen fairly regularly, its just what happens when 10 million people are all in a small space.

[Lance Catamaran]

okgo said:

Sway said:

The problem for me with inner city bike couriers is they are, by default, incentivised to break the road laws and take massive risks (otherwise there is no benefit over a motorcycle courier).

No cycle courier makes any money by obeying one way restrictions/stopping at red lights/respecting zebra crossings. Let alone throwing the bike down forty steps and tonking through pedestrian underpasses.

Currently, there is little to disincentivise this behaviour. Loss of licence meaning loss of earnings would...

Does it REALLY matter though? It happens, the same as people breaking the law in cars happens (many of them van drivers on similarly tight delivery schedules), life goes on.

Its very sad when people die, but people die from stuff falling off buildings, falling down stairs, falling in front of trains, all things that happen fairly regularly, its just what happens when 10 million people are all in a small space.

By that logic, why should anyone be prosecuted for negligence or manslaughter? They didn't mean it, just one of those things, life goes on (for everyone else at least).

[okgo]

Lance Catamaran said:

By that logic, why should anyone be prosecuted for negligence or manslaughter? They didn't mean it, just one of those things, life goes on (for everyone else at least).

He will be prosecuted, I am fully in support of that. But making huge blanket bans/rules (which are not enforceable anyway as we have no police) are pointless.

It is illegal to use your phone while driving, yet a massive massive amount of people do it. Same as people riding without a front brake I should imagine, same as people running reds. Same as people driving pissed/without insurance, on bald tyres blah blah blah, it all goes on, not possible to police all of these things, which arguably are far more dangerous that a fairly small minority of cyclists (IMO) being dheads, and occasionally injuring someone, and almost certainly themsevles in the process.

[fido]

rxe said:

I'm not going to defend the lack of a front brake. But suggesting this guy was doing some monstrous speed is a bit odd.

Agree, 20mph isn't excessive speed - but even in a car it results in a 10% chance of fatality. Given that cars are designed to be pedestrian-friendly but bikes aren't (the victim died from head injuries die to their heads colliding) then it's not comparable - bikes could be more dangerous in this type of collision. If he had been riding at 10mph then she may have survived (don't know the circumstances but there would have been 75% less kinetic energy in the impact on her skull). The brakes are relevant because either a) he didn't slow down (but had time to do so according to the presented evidence) which would be deemed reckless b) he couldn't slow down because of the lack of brakes.

[neilr]

What needs to change is society's attitudes to each other,. The UK has a particularly unpleasant ' My Me Mine' attitude in general. Everyone is so blinkered in their belief that they are right , or on the road that they have right of way and in no way could they be wrong. Regardless of what mode of transport they are using (legs included, just look at how people walk around a shop ).

The way society views others doing things needs to change, and fast. It won't though. The Daily Mail adherents and their faux outrage will continue (on here and in society at large) whilst continuing to believe only they are correct.

What the faux outrage brigade can't see however is that this is a form of divide and conquer. Keep the peasants squabbling among themselves about st that isnt important. That way they wont realise they aren't reporting the important stuff.

While there is such a huge agenda from the press to demonise only cyclists, then no amount of education will change the situation. Frankly the majority of people are too stupid to look at the situation (or any situation for that matter) objectively.

[turbobloke]

fido said:

rxe said:

I'm not going to defend the lack of a front brake. But suggesting this guy was doing some monstrous speed is a bit odd.

Agree, 20mph isn't excessive speed - but even in a car it results in a 10% chance of fatality. Given that cars are designed to be pedestrian-friendly but bikes aren't (the victim died from head injuries die to their heads colliding) then it's not comparable - bikes could be more dangerous in this type of collision. If he had been riding at 10mph then she may have survived (don't know the circumstances but there would have been 75% less kinetic energy in the impact on her skull). The brakes are relevant because either a) he didn't slow down (but had time to do so according to the presented evidence) which would be deemed reckless b) he couldn't slow down because of the lack of brakes.

Less KE in the bike and the biker before impact, but as both bike and biker were still moving after the impact, KE transfer would be 'very partial'. KE is most interesting in a head-on which brings e.g. two vehicles to a halt without deformation where people are unrestrained inside (i.e. unrealistic). Change of momentum is worth looking at with collisions involving moving objects including people that deform and move on after colliding: Ft (impulse) = mv-mu.

[Mandalore]

Is there a firm verdict yet?

[Dindoit]

fido said:

bikes could be more dangerous (than cars) in this type of collision.

Hahaha

No

[roachcoach]

Sylvaforever said:

Pedestrians have right of way.

Mortuaries are full of people who had right of way, I drum this into my kids on at least a weekly basis. Just because you have right of way, doesn't mean you don't look.

"I was feckin' right" is a piss poor obituary.

[anonymous-user]

Dindoit said:

fido said:

bikes could be more dangerous (than cars) in this type of collision.

Hahaha

No

Quite possible actually, as this case shows.

Well over 90% of people hit by a car at 20mph would survive. Being hit by a bike and rider at the same speed can't be that much better if at all.

[Lance Catamaran]

To be fair, some pedestrians don't help themselves. Just look at this complete clown that walked out in front of me today

[poo at Paul's]

Zigster said:

The bike had a rear braking mechanism activated by exerting backward resistance on the pedals. All fixies do and it's pretty effective (although I'd argue not as effective as having a front rim or disk brake as well).

If this case does make other "brakeless" fixie riders think again about their choice, that's a good thing. But I'm struggling to see the relevance to the overwhelming majority of cyclists out there which have a functional brake on their front wheel.

So no actual brakes at all then.

What a fking retard riding like that in London.

[XCP]

roachcoach said:

Mortuaries are full of people who had right of way, I drum this into my kids on at least a weekly basis. Just because you have right of way, doesn't mean you don't look.

"I was feckin' right" is a piss poor obituary.

Ironically I was driving a limo in a funeral cortege this afternoon. Turning right at a set of traffic lights almost got T Boned by a cyclist ignoring a red light into my offside. Utter tt.

[simonpieman]

Lance Catamaran said:

To be fair, some pedestrians don't help themselves. Just look at this complete clown that walked out in front of me today

Hahaha.

[Vipers]

Very sad, but I see it daily, especially women, head down texting walking, crossing the road etc.

FFS put that bloody phone away, and follow basic rules, when crossing the road even if the light is green, look both ways before you cross.

Especially when there is a stationary bus in the inside lane, many just walk past the front of it without a thought of looking down the outside for cyclist or other vehicles coming.

Having said that, the cyclist in this situation deserves all he gets.

[XCP]

James_B said:

I'm "assertive" on the motorbike. You have to be, really (alsthough also willing to stop, hard, if your assertiveness is ignored", but fairly frequently it drives cyclists to go absolutely bananas.

The fact that you don't slow when they come off the pavement ahead of them, for example, has lead to some proper finger-jabbing rants.

The thing is, I'm a cyclist too, but I save most of mine for the mountains in France, and when I do drive in London, I am one of the ones that obeys the rules, including signalling.

Some of them seem to have a deathwish. I saw some idiot yesterday going straight through a red traffic light, no hands on the handlebars, shouting into his mobile phone.

[Zigster]

poo at Paul's said:

Zigster said:

The bike had a rear braking mechanism activated by exerting backward resistance on the pedals. All fixies do and it's pretty effective (although I'd argue not as effective as having a front rim or disk brake as well).

If this case does make other "brakeless" fixie riders think again about their choice, that's a good thing. But I'm struggling to see the relevance to the overwhelming majority of cyclists out there which have a functional brake on their front wheel.

So no actual brakes at all then.

What a fking retard riding like that in London.

Retard, yes.

But what part of brake are you struggling with? A brake is a device for slowing or stopping a moving vehicle. On a fixie, applying backward pressure on the pedals will slow or stop the bike. UK law considers this a brake which is more relevant than your own special definition.

[Moominho]

Vipers said:

Very sad, but I see it daily, especially women, head down texting walking, crossing the road etc.

FFS put that bloody phone away, and follow basic rules, when crossing the road even if the light is green, look both ways before you cross.

Especially when there is a stationary bus in the inside lane, many just walk past the front of it without a thought of looking down the outside for cyclist or other vehicles coming.

Having said that, the cyclist in this situation deserves all he gets.

I agree with this - however in this instance, the only indication that the woman was on the phone was the defendant saying so, and he would say that as he wants to be found not guilty. I know bike riders have a hard time riding in London with all the traffic, but I find his actions hard to justify, even though other riders are saying that it isn't his fault.