Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[yellowjack]

irocfan 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.

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.

You say this, but his speed was no greater than one might reasonably expect a car to be travelling at in the same situation, and it's not definitively proven that he actually did jump a red light...

the Mail Online article said:

A cyclist who died after running down a pedestrian near a busy junction may have jumped a red light moments before the collision, an inquest has heard.

Ben Pedley, 26, was involved in a collision with a pedestrian while he was riding his bike on his way to St Peter's Church in Reading.
He had just dashed across a busy junction at 24mph as the lights were changing when a pedestrian stepped into the road.

To put it into context, a Coroner's Court failed to find sufficient evidence to state that he HAD 'jumped a red light'. Otherwise the verdict would have recorded this as a fact.

The underlined bit? This isn't uncommon at all. Thousands of vehicle drivers and hundreds of cyclists do this every day. You do it, I do it. The law on this matter is the same for cyclists as it is for drivers. An Amber light means "Stop". Unless all of your vehicle (or bike) is across all of the line, in which case you are permitted to proceed if it is safe to do so, as the light applies only to traffic on the other side of the stop line.

Almost every single time I drive my car I have cause to comment that "that car just went through on red" as I start off from behind a stop line when I get a green light. If that car were to be involved in a collision, I would make a statement to the effect that it went through a red light. But because I cannot see that red light, only 'my' green light, it won't be regarded as a matter of fact unless corroborated by another witness. Yet any reasonable person will know that disregarding a traffic light malfunction, it's not possible that a car, at speed, can pass through a green light from either perpendicular side of that junction. They MUST have run the red.

The coroner also mentioned that "I do not believe the junction is a factor that contributed to Ben's death. Four out of six accidents [that took place on Church Road] in the past five years involved vehicles failing to stop at a road light. I have made a recommendation to the higher authorities that they do make a pedestrian crossing on Church Road."

So it's a traffic light controlled junction with no pedestrian lights. 66% of recorded accidents in the last five years were "vehicles running red lights". I'm not going to say that it's the pedestrian's sole fault, but the comment by the cyclist's family said that if he'd survived, he may have faced prosecution, yet there was no criminal offence for which a pedestrian could be prosecuted, no matter how reckless his actions .

There has been plenty said by the frothy-mouthed cycle-hating element on PH about cyclists "having to take some responsibility for their own safety". Well I'm afraid if that's the case, then pedestrians (including that unfortunate woman killed by the 'fixie hipster dhead' in London) need to start taking some responsibility for their own safety. Such as getting some insurance (that'll protect them from having accidents surely? It's often touted as a panacea for cyclist's bad behaviour), passing a test, wearing helmets and high visibility jackets, and "obeying the basic laws of the road".

Obviously a lot of that last paragraph is more than a little silly. But it's no more daft than arguing the same for cyclists simply because you hope, in vain, that it will reduce the number of cyclists out there, and even more ridiculously, because you believe that lower numbers of cyclists will mean less congestion. Off topic? Not really - perception of cyclists as "part of the problem" of congested roads is what drives a lot of the hatred of cyclists as a group.

Lots of people seem to be rolling their shoulders and saying "so what" over this. It is, after all, just one cyclist killed by a collision with a pedestrian. It's terrible misfortune, for both of those involved, but not a priority subject for a parliamentary debate with a view to changing the law. But the same can be applied to the London case. There is barely a handful of cases where cyclists cause death to pedestrians on our roads, yet that poor woman's family blether on about changing the law 'to prevent further carnage' or some such emotionally charged poohsticks. Drivers are the group of road users who are responsible for the overwhelming proportion of the "carnage" on our road network. Statistically they break the law more frequently, and take bigger risks with their own safety, and consequently the safety of others. Yet they are subject to more laws, and have to pass tests before legally being permitted to use the roads. None of which has put an and to the actual carnage caused by motor vehicle drivers, and none of which would put an end to the handful of incidents involving pedestrians and cyclists every year.

My pet hate in terms of road safety is halfwits reversing OUT of driveways onto busy roads. Yet I can't ever recall seeing a cyclist, or a pedestrian do such a thing. Drivers therefore ARE stupider than cyclists or pedestrians. It must be true, because I've seen it with my own eyes...

[will_]

Zoobeef said:

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.

Where does the article say that? I think you ought to read it a bit more carefully.

Do you think 24mph in a 30 limit is "high speed"?

[will_]

irocfan said:

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.

Not found - see above.

No doubt both parties are at least partially responsible for most accidents. However, when a pedestrian is killed in a collision with a cyclist, the cyclist gets charged. When a cyclist is killed in a collision with a pedestrian, it appears that no action is taken against the pedestrian.

[Byker28i]

Oh come on - really?

Dave Hoare, who conducted the vehicle and road examination at the time of the collision, said he believed Mr Pedley's high speed across the junction did contribute to the collision and as a consequence, his death.

I'd suggest that there would be a case for prosecution of the pedestrian if he was found to be negligent, but who's to say the rest of the traffic didn't stop and the cyclist suddenly appeared as he started to cross? There certainly appears to be no claim attached currently to the pedestrian.

So 24mph, gambled on a red light, wasn't wearing a helmet, almost certainly contributed to his death

[will_]

Byker28i said:

Oh come on - really?

Dave Hoare, who conducted the vehicle and road examination at the time of the collision, said he believed Mr Pedley's high speed across the junction did contribute to the collision and as a consequence, his death.

I'd suggest that there would be a case for prosecution of the pedestrian if he was found to be negligent, but who's to say the rest of the traffic didn't stop and the cyclist suddenly appeared as he started to cross? There certainly appears to be no claim attached currently to the pedestrian.

So 24mph, gambled on a red light, wasn't wearing a helmet, almost certainly contributed to his death

Speed of any sort will always contribute to a collision. 24mph is not fast.

If a pedestrian steps into a cyclist's path, how is that not negligent?

Why is the lack of a helmet relevant - there is no obligation to do so? Is it relevant that the pedestrian killed in the collision which started this whole thread also wasn't wearing a helmet?

[Byker28i]

will_ said:

Byker28i said:

Oh come on - really?

Dave Hoare, who conducted the vehicle and road examination at the time of the collision, said he believed Mr Pedley's high speed across the junction did contribute to the collision and as a consequence, his death.

I'd suggest that there would be a case for prosecution of the pedestrian if he was found to be negligent, but who's to say the rest of the traffic didn't stop and the cyclist suddenly appeared as he started to cross? There certainly appears to be no claim attached currently to the pedestrian.

So 24mph, gambled on a red light, wasn't wearing a helmet, almost certainly contributed to his death

Speed of any sort will always contribute to a collision. 24mph is not fast.

If a pedestrian steps into a cyclist's path, how is that not negligent?

Why is the lack of a helmet relevant - there is no obligation to do so? Is it relevant that the pedestrian killed in the collision which started this whole thread also wasn't wearing a helmet?

I haven't said the pedestrian wasn't negligent only that there is currently no suggestion that he was in any of the articles on the matter. (note the daily mail article is a straight repeat of the Reading Chronicle who have covered this a lot).

He died of head injuries having had a collision at 24mph. I'd say a helmet is very relevant to the death.

[Byker28i]

There's a cycle box on those lights fro the cyclists to stop at, so was was jumping quite a lot at his pace
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4425402,-0.93042...

24mph on a bike - what's the stopping distance? Significant probably, so no helmet, speeding through lights, sounds like they changed to red as he approached or went through, so would have been on amber for some time to allow him to stop, but he carried on at pace.

Busy road that - did he come down the side of traffic so the pedestrian was unsighted?

[heebeegeetee]

About 750,000 people go to A&E every year with a head injury.

More drivers than cyclists suffer head injury, indeed if a road user is taken to hospital (or the mortuary) that person is most likely to be a vehicle occupant, by a very big margin.

Pedestrians and cyclists suffer very similar rates of fatality.

Yet despite all of this, helmets, which might help protect everybody, only gets mentioned in respect of cyclists, which makes no sense whatsoever. Even in this case of a pedestrian dying of a head injury, nobody wants to mention that a helmet may have saved her life , but they do when a cyclist dies.

[fido]

will_ said:

Do you think 24mph in a 30 limit is "high speed"?

In a car 'no', on a bike yes. Or 'maybe' for both - it depends on what risks you want to take. Without a helmet on a bike - well it's your head good luck. If you're approaching a junction you should be making observations about who might do what. Yes, you might well chance it in a car - doesn't mean it's sensible to do it, but I don't understand this logic that cyclists seem to apply to road safety along the lines of "well a car would do it .. "! If I could run at 24mph would I act the same way?

Edited by fido on Thursday 7th September 12:16

[anonymous-user]

Cyclist may have gone through red. Pedestrian may have walked across without looking.

Equal blame possibly?

[yellowjack]

will_ said:

Speed of any sort will always contribute to a collision. 24mph is not fast.

If a pedestrian steps into a cyclist's path, how is that not negligent?

Why is the lack of a helmet relevant - there is no obligation to do so? Is it relevant that the pedestrian killed in the collision which started this whole thread also wasn't wearing a helmet?

This, for me, is a massively important question in the context of both cases being discussed. Both the deceased parties were without helmets. Both struck their heads during the collisions. Both died of brain injuries. If the "no helmet" issue is relevant to the death of the cyclist, then it MUST also be relevant in the case of the death of the lady killed by the cyclist. Because, as will_ has said, there is no legal obligation for a cyclist to wear a helmet outside of organised races and events. There is also no compelling evidence one way or the other that I've found that proves the effectiveness of cycle helmets. I wear one on the road probably 95% of the time, out of habit and because I also race MTBs a couple of times per year. But riding to the library, or to church, wearing 'normal' clothes to run errands? No, I would probably ride without a helmet.

Again, clinging to this "it must be the cyclist's own fault they died because they didn't wear a helmet" is as insane as saying that a driver who wraps his Corsa around a tree and takes a trip through the windscreen is only dead because he didn't wear an MSA approved driving helmet and neck brace.

The questions here surely have to be...

"Did the sudden appearance of a pedestrian in the carriageway contribute significantly to the collision occurring?" Clearly yes.

"Could the cyclist have mitigated the effect of the appearance of the cyclist in the road by amending their own behaviour in the lead-up to the collision?" Again, almost certainly yes.

"Would any reasonable person in the same situation have had reasonable cause to believe that the road, which at that point WAS clear, would suddenly be obstructed by the presence of a pedestrian?" Judging by the way the majority of drivers seem to behave in areas busy with pedestrian activity, no.

The standards of hazard perception and risk management displayed by a lot of trained and tested drivers falls well below the standard which would need to be demonstrated to gain a pass in the driving examination, on a daily basis. Why is it then a surprise that some (perhaps many, perhaps even a majority of) cyclists demonstrate equally poor standards of hazard perception and risk management?

Cyclists seem to be getting squeezed from both directions. Drivers want to drive cyclists off the carriageways of our road network, and onto dedicated cycle lanes and shared use paths. Yet when cyclists ride on shared use paths pedestrians want absolute priority, and for cyclists to almost literally have to bow down, doff their caps, and apologise for their very existence before being permitted to ride on to repeat the ceremony of ceding priority with the next pedestrian.

I get why pedestrians are so worked up when a cyclist whispers quietly past their elbow. They say it's "too close, too fast". Yet when cyclists say the same thing to/about drivers they are dismissed with such nonsense as "dunno what you're on about mate, I didn't hit you, so it must have been safe". Cyclist have a place in society just the same as drivers and pedestrians. In the eyes of the law, that place is firmly ON THE CARRIAGEWAY. The road is divided into separate areas, the other being THE FOOTWAY, that portion of the road set aside solely for the passing and re-passing of pedestrian traffic. It is why it is then incumbent upon pedestrians to ensure that it is SAFE for all involved BEFORE they step off the footway and into the carriageway to cross a road. Therefore a pedestrian who steps out without taking reasonable steps to ensure that their actions are safe should be held at least partly responsible when their actions have consequences for other road users.

[turbomoped]

He's taking a long time to get punished. No doubt not foreign and sinister looking enough to get a mighty sentence.

[CaptainSlow]

24mph on a flat road is pretty impressive. I'd suggest the majority of us couldn't keep that pace up for long. Doing so on a bike, through a junction, with no helmet on is pretty risky.

[Byker28i]

garyhun said:

Cyclist may have gone through red. Pedestrian may have walked across without looking.

Equal blame possibly?

The pedestrian may have been crossing when all other traffic had stopped and the cyclist appeared suddenly at speed, perhaps riding down the outside of the traffic. Or the pedestrian could have been one of the idiots who didn't look properly as the lights had changed/were changing. We don't know - the details aren't recorded.

However, the pedestrian in this hasn't been blamed/charged by anyone in authority, after reviewing CCTV footage of the incident, which does tell a tale. The only blame being attached is understandably by the family.


So in comparison to the original case of the cyclist killing a pedestrian, yes there are similarities, excessive speed on a cycle causing death

[boyse7en]

fido said:

In a car 'no', on a bike yes. Or 'maybe' for both - it depends on what risks you want to take. Without a helmet on a bike - well it's your head good luck. If you're approaching a junction you should be making observations about who might do what. Yes, you might well chance it in a car - doesn't mean it's sensible to do it, but I don't understand this logic that cyclists seem to apply to road safety along the lines of "well a car would do it .. "! If I could run at 24mph would I act the same way?

Edited by fido on Thursday 7th September 12:16

How can 24mph be high speed on a bike but not in a car? If I drove everywhere at 24mph I'd be accused of driving too slowly!

[arfursleep]

fido said:

In a car 'no', on a bike yes. Or 'maybe' for both - it depends on what risks you want to take.

24mph is quicker than the average cyclist i'd say and from my own experience it feels fast on a bike, certainly aware you are moving at speed. Obviously more to a more proficient cyclist it may not be anything.

maybe the ped looked, saw bike and thought I've got loads of time to cross as cycles don't usually move that quickly or maybe they just didn't look at all.

[Fastpedeller]

I note the way this is reported. To me it looks like the usual anti-cyclist bias.......
"cyclist died after RUNNING DOWN pedestrian"
"RACING PAST at what was estimated to be 24mph"

The pedestrian was indeed VERY LUCKY not to have been killed by a car, which would probably have been going at least as slow.

I know this ones been done to eternity but I feel I must comment.........
I can't believe the comment re lack of helmet.

If someone says to me "that cyclist should be wearing a helmet" I then ask "how do you think that will help" Then then ALWAYS say "well a helmet will mean he won't get hurt" so I then say "do you realise what you are saying is "Drivers will take less care when or how they overtake him if he's wearing a helmet"
They then (sometimes) accept the stupidity of their belief. RISK COMPENSATION and the statistics for it are well documented.

[Zoobeef]

Fastpedeller said:

I note the way this is reported. To me it looks like the usual anti-cyclist bias.......
"cyclist died after RUNNING DOWN pedestrian"
"RACING PAST at what was estimated to be 24mph"

The pedestrian was indeed VERY LUCKY not to have been killed by a car, which would probably have been going at least as slow.

I know this ones been done to eternity but I feel I must comment.........
I can't believe the comment re lack of helmet.

If someone says to me "that cyclist should be wearing a helmet" I then ask "how do you think that will help" Then then ALWAYS say "well a helmet will mean he won't get hurt" so I then say "do you realise what you are saying is "Drivers will take less care when or how they overtake him if he's wearing a helmet"
They then (sometimes) accept the stupidity of their belief. RISK COMPENSATION and the statistics for it are well documented.

So your reasoning for someone not wearing a helmet is that they shouldn't have to if drivers took more care? What if they just fell off? You take that "I am right" attitude to the afterlife. It'll help you there.

[will_]

Byker28i said:

I haven't said the pedestrian wasn't negligent only that there is currently no suggestion that he was in any of the articles on the matter. (note the daily mail article is a straight repeat of the Reading Chronicle who have covered this a lot).

And that, to a degree, is my point - when a pedestrian is involved in a collision which kills a cyclist no-one seems to care much (not least the press), but when a pedestrian is killed after a collision involving a cyclist it hits the front pages and has questions asked in Parliament. The two cases are not so factually distinct that they are deserving of such different treatment.

Byker28i said:

He died of head injuries having had a collision at 24mph. I'd say a helmet is very relevant to the death.

In which case helmets are relevant to every death involving a head injury, including the one that started this thread. So why haven't you raised the question as to why the pedestrian who was killed wasn't wearing a helmet?

[Fastpedeller]

Zoobeef said:

Fastpedeller said:

I note the way this is reported. To me it looks like the usual anti-cyclist bias.......
"cyclist died after RUNNING DOWN pedestrian"
"RACING PAST at what was estimated to be 24mph"

The pedestrian was indeed VERY LUCKY not to have been killed by a car, which would probably have been going at least as slow.

I know this ones been done to eternity but I feel I must comment.........
I can't believe the comment re lack of helmet.

If someone says to me "that cyclist should be wearing a helmet" I then ask "how do you think that will help" Then then ALWAYS say "well a helmet will mean he won't get hurt" so I then say "do you realise what you are saying is "Drivers will take less care when or how they overtake him if he's wearing a helmet"
They then (sometimes) accept the stupidity of their belief. RISK COMPENSATION and the statistics for it are well documented.

So your reasoning for someone not wearing a helmet is that they shouldn't have to if drivers took more care? What if they just fell off? You take that "I am right" attitude to the afterlife. It'll help you there.

Think you've twisted that around to some extent. "I am right" attitude is exactly what people are saying when they expect riders to wear a helmet.
I'll leave it there, as there's no point in arguing the point, and as said before it's been done to eternity.