Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[Winky151]

fido said:

z4RRSchris said:

i have the same bike as this chap, no fking way can you stop quickly on it.

Everyone with a 3 or above in Physics GSCE can grasp that .. but it won't stop some hipster-fixie-twa@t telling everyone you can stop 'almost as well' with a back-pedal brake.

Edited by fido on Tuesday 29th August 10:01

[quote]The Met Police released a video showing an officer taking four times the distance to stop on a fixed wheel bike compared to a normal cycle.

But fixie courier riders insisted the bikes were safe.

One, who did not wish to be named, said: “Of course it takes a cop 12ft to stop on a bike he’s not ridden before.

“A courier who knows his bike can stop in one foot. We ride these bikes because you have so much more control. Your whole body is the brake.”

What he means is his whole body is the projectile flying through the air to hit someone/something.

Edited by Winky151 on Tuesday 29th August 13:24

Edited by Winky151 on Tuesday 29th August 13:24

[frisbee]

I wonder if he would be up for a test to prove the 1 foot distance? What sort of things can we put 1 foot away from the line?

[heebeegeetee]

Shakermaker said:

I've read a lot of this thread, and some of the news.

I haven't yet worked out how the cyclist was so precisely able to give his "before and after" speeds when the pedestrian stepped in front of him? If he had a speedo fitted, maybe, but would he be looking at that down on his handlebars if he was doing what he could not to hit the woman who had just stepped in front of him?

I presumed the police worked out those figures, as they did when deciding that she stepped out onto the road 6.53 metres in front of him.

It's all on cctv apparently.

[Shakermaker]

heebeegeetee said:

I presumed the police worked out those figures, as they did when deciding that she stepped out onto the road 6.53 metres in front of him.

It's all on cctv apparently.

In the BBC article quoting the court case it says

"He told the court he shouted to warn her and slowed down to between 10 and 14 miles an hour."

This was the bit that I wasn't so certain about, how he knew so precisely what his speed was at the time to make such a claim? Also, why such an odd number as "10-14 mph" when surely, most people say "10-15 mph" as in English we generally group together in increments of 5?

[oyster]

Mandalore said:

irocfan said:

hopefully someone can help me out here... everywhere in Europe where I've seen cyclists they are getting from A - B with no issues.

This is a small island, with small roads and a high population count per square KM, unlike (a lot of) everywhere in Europe.

I bet the 'Tour de France' would have been a lot harder to organise if it was only allowed in areas with a population count of GB average,

This comment would apply if the Netherlands, widely credited as being a much more cycle-friendly country than the UK, wasn't more densely populated than the UK.

[ralphrj]

Shakermaker said:

heebeegeetee said:

I presumed the police worked out those figures, as they did when deciding that she stepped out onto the road 6.53 metres in front of him.

It's all on cctv apparently.

In the BBC article quoting the court case it says

"He told the court he shouted to warn her and slowed down to between 10 and 14 miles an hour."

Is there any source (other than the cycling silk blog) that can confirm the claim that the cyclist was only 6.53m from the victim when she stepped into the road? I don't recall seeing it reported elsewhere.

That distance doesn't seem to match the other evidence presented in the trial including:

1. the CCTV footage that showed that 3.8s elapsed from the victim stepping into the road and the collision,
2. the estimates of the speed, made using the CCTV footage, that the cyclist was travelling at up to 19mph,
3. the cyclists own estimate of his speed,
4. the claim by the cyclist that he gave 2 warnings to the victim, the initial to warning to "get out of the fking way" which he repeated when the victim did not appear to have heard him.

[Shakermaker]

ralphrj said:

Is there any source (other than the cycling silk blog) that can confirm the claim that the cyclist was only 6.53m from the victim when she stepped into the road? I don't recall seeing it reported elsewhere.

That distance doesn't seem to match the other evidence presented in the trial including:

1. the CCTV footage that showed that 3.8s elapsed from the victim stepping into the road and the collision,
2. the estimates of the speed, made using the CCTV footage, that the cyclist was travelling at up to 19mph,
3. the cyclists own estimate of his speed,
4. the claim by the cyclist that he gave 2 warnings to the victim, the initial to warning to "get out of the fking way" which he repeated when the victim did not appear to have heard him.

No idea.

I also recognise that my question is perhaps not answered and might well have formed some part of the basis of his conviction

[Randy Winkman]

will_ said:

turbobloke said:

Stickyfinger said:

heebeegeetee said:

Randy Winkman said:

eccles said:

will_ said:

I would imagine than the vast majority of cyclists have driving licences, so have some form of training already.

Then that makes most of their actions even more inexcusable.

Perhaps they break the law in cars too. Most of us do.

+1.

Perhaps they do not (as much) because there are penalties if they do ?

With a far greater chance of detection / identification, certainly.

And yet despite all that, drivers still break the law all the time.

There are penalties for cyclists too, of course.

In the 35 years I've been driving a car I'd estimate I've broken the law 1000s of times and never been done for anything. Though to be honest, I've never been done for anything while cycling either.

[Randy Winkman]

Shakermaker said:

heebeegeetee said:

I presumed the police worked out those figures, as they did when deciding that she stepped out onto the road 6.53 metres in front of him.

It's all on cctv apparently.

In the BBC article quoting the court case it says

"He told the court he shouted to warn her and slowed down to between 10 and 14 miles an hour."

This was the bit that I wasn't so certain about, how he knew so precisely what his speed was at the time to make such a claim? Also, why such an odd number as "10-14 mph" when surely, most people say "10-15 mph" as in English we generally group together in increments of 5?

The 14mph thing is a bit odd. Though as a keen amateur triathlete who spent years training with a speedo in front of me I reckon I'm a heck of good judge of my speed without actually looking at the speedo for most of the time. Though 14mph is still odd.

[speedking31]

I imagine that with a fixed wheel you have a lot better idea of your speed if previously calibrated to a speedo than you would if freewheeling.

[heebeegeetee]

Randy Winkman said:

In the 35 years I've been driving a car I'd estimate I've broken the law 1000s of times and never been done for anything. Though to be honest, I've never been done for anything while cycling either.

Same here. I've done nigh on 40 years of near constant and permanent law breaking, and yet I've only ever had a few points for speeding. Given the amount of speeding I have done (and I doubt I've ever done a journey in my life without breaking speed limits), what I have been allowed to get away with is ridiculous.

What I don't do, is then come on forums like PH and complain about others doing the same, especially when those others are doing it on a few kilos of bike, whereas I do it in tonnes of car.

I don't buy sporty cars and then complain about the law breaking of others; I don't buy sporty cars and then pretend/lie about never breaking speed limits; I don't disregard the laws and then come on here making statements like "trouble with cyclists is that they believe the laws only apply to others", because to do so would make me a massive, massive hypocrite.

And I don't contribute to grinding, crushing, eye-wateringly expensive congestion and then complain about others who do the same.

Yet this is all essentially what is at the heart of these countless anti-cyclist threads: hypocrisy that's simply off the scale (not to mention a shocking ignorance of HC rules and laws by supposedly motoring enthusiasts).

[richie99]

oyster said:

This comment would apply if the Netherlands, widely credited as being a much more cycle-friendly country than the UK, wasn't more densely populated than the UK.

But less densely populated than England, even more so than the SE of England. Overall population density tells you very little of practical use.

Hardly anyone lives in large parts of Scotland. Cretins like this tosser could ride his ridiculous cycle around the highlands to his heart's content and bother no one......but he doesn't.

[heebeegeetee]

richie99 said:

But less densely populated than England, even more so than the SE of England. Overall population density tells you very little of practical use.

Hardly anyone lives in large parts of Scotland. Cretins like this tosser could ride his ridiculous cycle around the highlands to his heart's content and bother no one......but he doesn't.

It's barely less populated than England, there's not much in it at all (according to Wikipedia) but they still haven't struggled to make space more equal. England's figure is probably skewed by London and the south-east, which would be dis-proportionate to the rest of the country.

We'll never have cycling numbers abd infra of Netherlands, of ourse not, but why can't we be closer to, Germany say?

[yellowjack]

Shakermaker said:

I've read a lot of this thread, and some of the news.

I haven't yet worked out how the cyclist was so precisely able to give his "before and after" speeds when the pedestrian stepped in front of him? If he had a speedo fitted, maybe, but would he be looking at that down on his handlebars if he was doing what he could not to hit the woman who had just stepped in front of him?

Have a look at this one from when I was hit by a van... https://www.strava.com/activities/112138619/analys...

Happily trundling along at 13.2 mph when all of a sudden I'm flying between 10ft and 20ft (witness estimates, not my figures) through the air at 12.0 mph. Not only was I close to being killed, but a busy 'A' road was closed for 40+ minutes while the air ambulance doctor attended to me where I lay on the roundabout, and then a bed in A&E was tied up for 18 hours while I was subject to all sorts of expensive scans and suchlike.

As far as I know, the "SMIDSY" driver was convicted of the sum total of fk all. I'm not sure he was even charged. The police officers who attended the scene seemed keen to bring charges, but their regular contact just stopped. No call to appear as a witness in any case.

Yet, by the very fact that he called "SMIDSY", he has admitted to driving "without due care and attention" or whatever it's now called. And it's not like I just appeared in front of him out of thin air - nor did I cycle irresponsibly off a footway into his van. I was perfectly well positioned on approach to the roundabout to take my required exit, and 13 mph is no speed at all compared with cars driving the same route.

I'm not going to defend the dhead fixie rider in this case, but drivers do this st to other drivers, cyclists,and pedestrians time and time again every single day of every single year. And mostly they get no punishment whatsoever. People need to ditch the blinkers and quit with the double standards. If torches and pitchforks (and manslaughter charges) are good for an irresponsible cyclist causing death or injury in a collision, then so should they be for poor drivers who kill and injure.

Sadly, though, juries are often stacked with cyclist-hating drivers, so it's fine for a fellow driver to say "sorry I killed that chap,but the sun was in my eyes" and be found 'not guilty' of all charges (there but for the Grace of God go I, etc...). It's pathetic, frankly, the frothy mouthed knicker-twisting that's come out of this case.

[irocfan]

yellowjack said:

Have a look at this one from when I was hit by a van... https://www.strava.com/activities/112138619/analys...

Happily trundling along at 13.2 mph when all of a sudden I'm flying between 10ft and 20ft (witness estimates, not my figures) through the air at 12.0 mph. Not only was I close to being killed, but a busy 'A' road was closed for 40+ minutes while the air ambulance doctor attended to me where I lay on the roundabout, and then a bed in A&E was tied up for 18 hours while I was subject to all sorts of expensive scans and suchlike.

As far as I know, the "SMIDSY" driver was convicted of the sum total of fk all. I'm not sure he was even charged. The police officers who attended the scene seemed keen to bring charges, but their regular contact just stopped. No call to appear as a witness in any case.

Yet, by the very fact that he called "SMIDSY", he has admitted to driving "without due care and attention" or whatever it's now called. And it's not like I just appeared in front of him out of thin air - nor did I cycle irresponsibly off a footway into his van. I was perfectly well positioned on approach to the roundabout to take my required exit, and 13 mph is no speed at all compared with cars driving the same route.

I'm not going to defend the dhead fixie rider in this case, but drivers do this st to other drivers, cyclists,and pedestrians time and time again every single day of every single year. And mostly they get no punishment whatsoever. People need to ditch the blinkers and quit with the double standards. If torches and pitchforks (and manslaughter charges) are good for an irresponsible cyclist causing death or injury in a collision, then so should they be for poor drivers who kill and injure.

Sadly, though, juries are often stacked with cyclist-hating drivers, so it's fine for a fellow driver to say "sorry I killed that chap,but the sun was in my eyes" and be found 'not guilty' of all charges (there but for the Grace of God go I, etc...). It's pathetic, frankly, the frothy mouthed knicker-twisting that's come out of this case.

To be fair I don't disagree with anything you've said there. Now I'll be the first to admit that I am not a fan of cyclists (though I'll also temper this by saying that having spent many years in and around London for work I may just have seen the worst of the breed) HOWEVER if as a road user you injure another road-user you should be taken to task. If that means a lot of people lose their jobs because they're prosecuted then so be it

[will_]

Pedestrian likely to be convicted of manslaughter after stepping into the path of a cyclist who later died? No. I doubt the police have even thought about charging him - but why not?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cy...

Presumably the frothing rabid masses on PH will be calling for pedestrians to have training, insurance and registration plates? If not, why not? Presumably there will be calls in Parliament for a new offence of being a reckless or dangerous pedestrian? If not, why not?

Ignore the click-baitey headline. The coroner's verict was that '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.'

Strange how this accident has gained so little attention.

[jeebus]

will_ said:

Pedestrian likely to be convicted of manslaughter after stepping into the path of a cyclist who later died? No. I doubt the police have even thought about charging him - but why not?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cy...

Presumably the frothing rabid masses on PH will be calling for pedestrians to have training, insurance and registration plates? If not, why not? Presumably there will be calls in Parliament for a new offence of being a reckless or dangerous pedestrian? If not, why not?

Ignore the click-baitey headline. The coroner's verict was that '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.'

Strange how this accident has gained so little attention.

Another case of a cyclist thinking the highway code is not applicable to him, looks like he jumped a red light and paid the price.

[will_]

jeebus said:

will_ said:

Pedestrian likely to be convicted of manslaughter after stepping into the path of a cyclist who later died? No. I doubt the police have even thought about charging him - but why not?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cy...

Presumably the frothing rabid masses on PH will be calling for pedestrians to have training, insurance and registration plates? If not, why not? Presumably there will be calls in Parliament for a new offence of being a reckless or dangerous pedestrian? If not, why not?

Ignore the click-baitey headline. The coroner's verict was that '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.'

Strange how this accident has gained so little attention.

Another case of a cyclist thinking the highway code is not applicable to him, looks like he jumped a red light and paid the price.

You didn't read the article, did you?

[Zoobeef]

will_ said:

jeebus said:

will_ said:

Pedestrian likely to be convicted of manslaughter after stepping into the path of a cyclist who later died? No. I doubt the police have even thought about charging him - but why not?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cy...

Presumably the frothing rabid masses on PH will be calling for pedestrians to have training, insurance and registration plates? If not, why not? Presumably there will be calls in Parliament for a new offence of being a reckless or dangerous pedestrian? If not, why not?

Ignore the click-baitey headline. The coroner's verict was that '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.'

Strange how this accident has gained so little attention.

Another case of a cyclist thinking the highway code is not applicable to him, looks like he jumped a red light and paid the price.

You didn't read the article, did you?

He jumped a red light at high speed and his family think the sun shines out his arse. That's what I got from the article.

[irocfan]

will_ said:

Pedestrian likely to be convicted of manslaughter after stepping into the path of a cyclist who later died? No. I doubt the police have even thought about charging him - but why not?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cy...

Presumably the frothing rabid masses on PH will be calling for pedestrians to have training, insurance and registration plates? If not, why not? Presumably there will be calls in Parliament for a new offence of being a reckless or dangerous pedestrian? If not, why not?

Ignore the click-baitey headline. The coroner's verict was that '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.'

Strange how this accident has gained so little attention.

not really - cyclist jumped a red light and was travelling at quite a speed, one might say he was at the very least partially responsible for his own demise.