Death by dangerous cycling
Discussion
[edit] can someone move to SP&L?
Last night I was unfortunately first on scene to what initially appeared to be a nasty bike interface with a pedestrian but all seemed ok.
Young lad riding along pavement took down an OAP after she had just got off a bus. I stopped and got out, she had hit the pavement hard with her head and was clearly in a state of shock.
Called an ambulance and whilst waiting her condition was deteriorating. Phoned 101 to ask if I should report the accident to the police only to be told it isn't a reportable incident (seems odd) but whilst on the phone flagged down a passing patrol as was concerned that we needed more assistance (and perhaps they should have a word with the lad).
I had been told to call the ambulance service again should her condition deteriorate and was disappointed at the computer says no routine of not looking at the previous call details but having to go through the entire 10 minute script of asking the same questions - even got so laughably poor that when asked if she was bleeding and I said no, they still had to give me the script on how to stop the bleeding. Refused to give ETA on ambulance. Police was frustrated by this so they called through and got the exact same response. By the time the paramedic turned up the girl had deteriorated further and was now wrapped in layers of thermal blankets (just so pleased we got the police to stop) - this ambulance saga could perhaps spawn another thread.
The police had taken my details and had asked the lad to remain as I guess they thought the situation could change.
By now it was way over an hour and a half since the initial call, I went on my way to grab some food. Driving back I passed the scene which was now roped off with two traffic cars in attendance. Still really concerned about the old lady, she has been taken to another city for specialist care due to nature of head injury. Police turned up to drop off my coat which was used to keep her warm and he said can't say anything but its not looking good.
Now my focus turns to the young lad who hit her. He was just a kid, really nice lad that did the decent thing and stuck around when others could have fled. Thats not what makes him decent, it was just through chatting to him and making sure he was ok too that you could tell he was a genuinely nice lad thats done something silly. What could possibly happen to him if this lady dies? She was old and as we know at older age shock and age can have an impact. Potentially 2 lives could change for the worse. If she does die will I be called as a witness to any inquiry?
Last night I was unfortunately first on scene to what initially appeared to be a nasty bike interface with a pedestrian but all seemed ok.
Young lad riding along pavement took down an OAP after she had just got off a bus. I stopped and got out, she had hit the pavement hard with her head and was clearly in a state of shock.
Called an ambulance and whilst waiting her condition was deteriorating. Phoned 101 to ask if I should report the accident to the police only to be told it isn't a reportable incident (seems odd) but whilst on the phone flagged down a passing patrol as was concerned that we needed more assistance (and perhaps they should have a word with the lad).
I had been told to call the ambulance service again should her condition deteriorate and was disappointed at the computer says no routine of not looking at the previous call details but having to go through the entire 10 minute script of asking the same questions - even got so laughably poor that when asked if she was bleeding and I said no, they still had to give me the script on how to stop the bleeding. Refused to give ETA on ambulance. Police was frustrated by this so they called through and got the exact same response. By the time the paramedic turned up the girl had deteriorated further and was now wrapped in layers of thermal blankets (just so pleased we got the police to stop) - this ambulance saga could perhaps spawn another thread.
The police had taken my details and had asked the lad to remain as I guess they thought the situation could change.
By now it was way over an hour and a half since the initial call, I went on my way to grab some food. Driving back I passed the scene which was now roped off with two traffic cars in attendance. Still really concerned about the old lady, she has been taken to another city for specialist care due to nature of head injury. Police turned up to drop off my coat which was used to keep her warm and he said can't say anything but its not looking good.
Now my focus turns to the young lad who hit her. He was just a kid, really nice lad that did the decent thing and stuck around when others could have fled. Thats not what makes him decent, it was just through chatting to him and making sure he was ok too that you could tell he was a genuinely nice lad thats done something silly. What could possibly happen to him if this lady dies? She was old and as we know at older age shock and age can have an impact. Potentially 2 lives could change for the worse. If she does die will I be called as a witness to any inquiry?
The attached link may be of interest as it's a growing problem,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/04/de...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/04/de...
GT03ROB said:
The attached link may be of interest as it's a growing problem,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/04/de...
They need a careless charge as well I suppose. Clearly concerned about the old lady but equally for this poor lad too, of course would be the same reaction if he was in a car but on a bike its not something you really consider. I was amazed when the 101 operators supervisor told her to advise me that there was no need to report this to the police. If she had the same injuries from a car knocking her over = instant call the police.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/04/de...
Glad I didn't listen to her and flagged down the passing patrols. We were, I guess, fortunate to be minutes from the HQ.
George Smiley said:
As for the outrage by the cycling activists in that article - yes there a more deaths by car/ped than bike/ped but it is not a knee jerk reaction to ensure the law is able to punish cyclists that cause death when they hit someone.
I think the issue was there is nothing specific that allows prosecution for causing death whilst riding a push pike. Personally I think the bar should be the same be it for car or bike or skateboard or whatever, the numbers involved should not be a factor. If you ride a bike & through a lack of care cause a death, then the sentence should be the same as if you cause a death through the same lack of care driving a car.
We all make mistakes & that in itself should not be sufficient to result in a prosecution.
George Smiley said:
GT03ROB said:
We all make mistakes & that in itself should not be sufficient to result in a prosecution.
Do you mean that causing death by a mistake should not result in prosecution?If the current laws are insufficient then maybe we do need new ones but what has changed that makes what was fine for the last 100+ years no longer viable? Clearly we need more people cycling and maybe cyclists have to take the rough with the smooth. Or could it be that the anti cycling side of things is getting stronger this adds fuel to the fire, for example, far more peds are hurt each year by cars jumping red lights than cyclists but that's all you ever hear about.
Type R Tom said:
If the current laws are insufficient then maybe we do need new ones but what has changed that makes what was fine for the last 100+ years no longer viable? Clearly we need more people cycling and maybe cyclists have to take the rough with the smooth. Or could it be that the anti cycling side of things is getting stronger this adds fuel to the fire, for example, far more peds are hurt each year by cars jumping red lights than cyclists but that's all you ever hear about.
What has changed is this idea of self-entitlement... The idea that because you can do something it makes it ok regardless of the effect on anyone else..... not in any way limited to cyclists BTW...Vanden Saab said:
What has changed is this idea of self-entitlement... The idea that because you can do something it makes it ok regardless of the effect on anyone else..... not in any way limited to cyclists BTW...
Can't argue with that, there are idiots across all modes of transport!It was very kind of the OP to have given the care he did to this unfortunate woman - I hope she's OK.
Riding down a pavement is an offence isn't it? If so, he's injured someone whilst committing an offence. I would imagine the injured woman's friends and family would want something done.
Riding down a pavement is an offence isn't it? If so, he's injured someone whilst committing an offence. I would imagine the injured woman's friends and family would want something done.
I'm a cyclist and I'm not totally against the introduction of this new "death by dangerous cycling" law.
But what I am against is the carousel of clearly dangerous drivers who kill, and are convicted of causing death by dangerous/careless driving, who then stroll out of court with a 12 month suspended sentence, or some similar slap on the wrist.
The government is said to be "committed to increasing the maximum sentence to life imprisonment" for the dangerous driving offence. But the current maximum sentence of 14 years inside is seldom, if ever handed down for the offence, so why would anyone believe that an increase to life behind bars will change anything.
While I agree in principle that the law should require the same standard of road use from a cyclist as a driver, this definitely IS a knee-jerk reaction, and an emotion driven one based on a handful of cases. Yet car drivers cause large numbers of deaths year-in year-out. One on the news just now in the car, several vehicles involved, at least one death, kids seriously injured, roads closed. Will whoever caused that face a properly stiff sentence, such that it acts as a deterrent to other idiots? A sentence so hard to ignore that it actually prompts some of the mouth breathing "I won my license in a raffle" type w
kers to go out and get some more training?
Nope. Some Muppet sentenced the other day got a slapped wrist, yet he hit another car in which a woman was killed, and was found to have been driving for forty years having failed his driving test. Yet because the fact that he had no license "didn't make the collision any worse" he didn't even face prison immediately. Cue a "WTF?" moment from every 'reasonable person' who saw that, because if he hadn't been driving, then he couldn't have caused that woman's death. Simple cause/effect.
So yes. By all means create a new law to deal with dangerous cyclists as a specific offence. And yes. By all means, have the tariffs and sentencing guidelines mirror those for the driving offence that already exists. But no. Don't expect that "dangerous cycling" will evaporate overnight, because those offences and sentences already exist for motorists, and it doesn't prevent thousands of drivers acting dangerously in their cars every single day.
No-one wants to see old Doris from number 16 knocked down getting off a bus onto a footway. That clearly IS dangerous cycling. But while dangerous drivers are continually ignored and allowed to drive timid cyclists off the carriageway and onto footways out of fear, then the problem will continue to exist, no matter the offence or the possible penalties. Just this morning I stopped at a red traffic light at the end of a 40 mph dual carriageway. The car to my right also stopped, and a few seconds later the lady who'd pressed the crossing button got her 'green man' and stepped off the footway to cross. Fortunately for her, she was paying attention and looked at each of the three lanes before she crossed in front of it, because as she was front and centre of my car, she stopped sharply. You guessed right if you guessed that the reason she had to stop mid-crossing was a white Transit van that came barreling down the dual carriageway in the left-only lane, failed to stop at the signal, and then swerved into the lane ahead of me to continue straight ahead. I won't claim to have never seen a cyclist ignore a red traffic signal, but by Christ, when they do it's not nearly as dangerous as seeing a Transit at 40 mph + come within three feet of a pedestrian. Cyclists running lights tend to ride around the pedestrians, often behind them. Yes, it's scary if you didn't see it coming, but it's two objects moving away from each other. I'm not defending those cyclists who fail to stop, just saying that the likelihood of a collision is less (based in no small part on a cyclist's sense of self-preservation). Faced with a 40 mph van and nowhere to go, I'd happily swap it for a 20 mph bicycle and a small jump being enough to avoid getting hit.
But what I am against is the carousel of clearly dangerous drivers who kill, and are convicted of causing death by dangerous/careless driving, who then stroll out of court with a 12 month suspended sentence, or some similar slap on the wrist.
The government is said to be "committed to increasing the maximum sentence to life imprisonment" for the dangerous driving offence. But the current maximum sentence of 14 years inside is seldom, if ever handed down for the offence, so why would anyone believe that an increase to life behind bars will change anything.
While I agree in principle that the law should require the same standard of road use from a cyclist as a driver, this definitely IS a knee-jerk reaction, and an emotion driven one based on a handful of cases. Yet car drivers cause large numbers of deaths year-in year-out. One on the news just now in the car, several vehicles involved, at least one death, kids seriously injured, roads closed. Will whoever caused that face a properly stiff sentence, such that it acts as a deterrent to other idiots? A sentence so hard to ignore that it actually prompts some of the mouth breathing "I won my license in a raffle" type w
kers to go out and get some more training?Nope. Some Muppet sentenced the other day got a slapped wrist, yet he hit another car in which a woman was killed, and was found to have been driving for forty years having failed his driving test. Yet because the fact that he had no license "didn't make the collision any worse" he didn't even face prison immediately. Cue a "WTF?" moment from every 'reasonable person' who saw that, because if he hadn't been driving, then he couldn't have caused that woman's death. Simple cause/effect.
So yes. By all means create a new law to deal with dangerous cyclists as a specific offence. And yes. By all means, have the tariffs and sentencing guidelines mirror those for the driving offence that already exists. But no. Don't expect that "dangerous cycling" will evaporate overnight, because those offences and sentences already exist for motorists, and it doesn't prevent thousands of drivers acting dangerously in their cars every single day.
No-one wants to see old Doris from number 16 knocked down getting off a bus onto a footway. That clearly IS dangerous cycling. But while dangerous drivers are continually ignored and allowed to drive timid cyclists off the carriageway and onto footways out of fear, then the problem will continue to exist, no matter the offence or the possible penalties. Just this morning I stopped at a red traffic light at the end of a 40 mph dual carriageway. The car to my right also stopped, and a few seconds later the lady who'd pressed the crossing button got her 'green man' and stepped off the footway to cross. Fortunately for her, she was paying attention and looked at each of the three lanes before she crossed in front of it, because as she was front and centre of my car, she stopped sharply. You guessed right if you guessed that the reason she had to stop mid-crossing was a white Transit van that came barreling down the dual carriageway in the left-only lane, failed to stop at the signal, and then swerved into the lane ahead of me to continue straight ahead. I won't claim to have never seen a cyclist ignore a red traffic signal, but by Christ, when they do it's not nearly as dangerous as seeing a Transit at 40 mph + come within three feet of a pedestrian. Cyclists running lights tend to ride around the pedestrians, often behind them. Yes, it's scary if you didn't see it coming, but it's two objects moving away from each other. I'm not defending those cyclists who fail to stop, just saying that the likelihood of a collision is less (based in no small part on a cyclist's sense of self-preservation). Faced with a 40 mph van and nowhere to go, I'd happily swap it for a 20 mph bicycle and a small jump being enough to avoid getting hit.
GT03ROB said:
George Smiley said:
GT03ROB said:
We all make mistakes & that in itself should not be sufficient to result in a prosecution.
Do you mean that causing death by a mistake should not result in prosecution?It was a bright day, fairly busy traffic - all slowly accelerating and trying to merge to get up the SR.
She was in the shadow of the elevated m32 and tried to run across the road, the van in front of me swerved and missed her, I saw him swerve before I saw her then tried to do the same but unfortunately with different results.
The pedestrian was, as with the OP, an elderly lady. After braking, the impact speed may have been 20-30mph: enough to break the windscreen.
Initially she appeared relatively okay, and even tried to leave the scene. Eventually the Emergency Services turned up and took her to hospital.
A few weeks later I arrived to my then girlfriends house to find the police taking a statement. It turned out that whilst in hospital the lady had developed a blood clot and passed away.
After taking various witness statements at the scene the police decided i had no case ti answer. Her family thought differently and had made various threats to both me and my family ( as the police had kindly given them my parents address even though I wasnt living there at the time - thats a different thread. As a result I didn't attend the coroner hearing).
Was it a 'mistake' - absolutely. As a driver i could have done any one of a hundred things differently; less braking may have allowed the car to change direction sooner; more anticipation... Etc etc.
In regards to any prosecution Im fortunate in that the witnesses stuck around and suppoted my version of events.
Sometimes (withoyt any comment on op case) accidents do happen that result in death that do not necessarily need to result in prosecution.
Well done for your assistance OP. I hope the lady recovers.
Being at the age that I might be considered an 'old boy' myself, I have to say what a menace cycling on the pavement is getting to be. I have had facial reconstructive surgery, and my new jaw is a web of bone and tissue grafts and titanium. A blow to this could do untold damage to the work of some clever surgeons. In addition, as the donor material came from my own leg, I am not so quick on my feet any more and totter around on a walking stick.
I live in Chelmsford, and cycling along pavements is the local favourite sport, and not just with kids. Adult males, mothers with baby seats, are all doing it. Through pedestrian subways as well. Along with about ten percent of the population I don't hear very well either, and if cyclists approach from the rear I don't tend to be aware of them until they flash past me. Which is disconcerting to say the least.
Two summers ago the police had a crackdown on people cycling through the pedestrianised city centre. They were coming up in court and getting, on average, a £200 fine and about £100 costs. As far as I could tell, this made no discernible difference to the problem, despite the cases being reported in the local press. Last summer, the police announced they would no longer be paying attention to the matter, in other words, announcing an open house. Apparently, it was not a priority any more.
I doubt if many, if any, of these pavement cyclists even realise they are committing a criminal offence, let alone consider its dangers in regard to pedestrians, especially the more vulnerable. I wouldn't be surprised if some could not give a toss even if they did. I just don't see why I should be abandoned by the police to have to put up with this antisocial and criminal behaviour on the pavements of my own home town.
Being at the age that I might be considered an 'old boy' myself, I have to say what a menace cycling on the pavement is getting to be. I have had facial reconstructive surgery, and my new jaw is a web of bone and tissue grafts and titanium. A blow to this could do untold damage to the work of some clever surgeons. In addition, as the donor material came from my own leg, I am not so quick on my feet any more and totter around on a walking stick.
I live in Chelmsford, and cycling along pavements is the local favourite sport, and not just with kids. Adult males, mothers with baby seats, are all doing it. Through pedestrian subways as well. Along with about ten percent of the population I don't hear very well either, and if cyclists approach from the rear I don't tend to be aware of them until they flash past me. Which is disconcerting to say the least.
Two summers ago the police had a crackdown on people cycling through the pedestrianised city centre. They were coming up in court and getting, on average, a £200 fine and about £100 costs. As far as I could tell, this made no discernible difference to the problem, despite the cases being reported in the local press. Last summer, the police announced they would no longer be paying attention to the matter, in other words, announcing an open house. Apparently, it was not a priority any more.
I doubt if many, if any, of these pavement cyclists even realise they are committing a criminal offence, let alone consider its dangers in regard to pedestrians, especially the more vulnerable. I wouldn't be surprised if some could not give a toss even if they did. I just don't see why I should be abandoned by the police to have to put up with this antisocial and criminal behaviour on the pavements of my own home town.
yellowjack said:
I'm a cyclist and I'm not totally against the introduction of this new "death by dangerous cycling" law.
But what I am against is the carousel of clearly dangerous drivers who kill, and are convicted of causing death by dangerous/careless driving, who then stroll out of court with a 12 month suspended sentence, or some similar slap on the wrist.
The government is said to be "committed to increasing the maximum sentence to life imprisonment" for the dangerous driving offence. But the current maximum sentence of 14 years inside is seldom, if ever handed down for the offence, so why would anyone believe that an increase to life behind bars will change anything.
While I agree in principle that the law should require the same standard of road use from a cyclist as a driver, this definitely IS a knee-jerk reaction, and an emotion driven one based on a handful of cases. Yet car drivers cause large numbers of deaths year-in year-out. One on the news just now in the car, several vehicles involved, at least one death, kids seriously injured, roads closed. Will whoever caused that face a properly stiff sentence, such that it acts as a deterrent to other idiots? A sentence so hard to ignore that it actually prompts some of the mouth breathing "I won my license in a raffle" type wkers to go out and get some more training?
Nope. Some Muppet sentenced the other day got a slapped wrist, yet he hit another car in which a woman was killed, and was found to have been driving for forty years having failed his driving test. Yet because the fact that he had no license "didn't make the collision any worse" he didn't even face prison immediately. Cue a "WTF?" moment from every 'reasonable person' who saw that, because if he hadn't been driving, then he couldn't have caused that woman's death. Simple cause/effect.
So yes. By all means create a new law to deal with dangerous cyclists as a specific offence. And yes. By all means, have the tariffs and sentencing guidelines mirror those for the driving offence that already exists. But no. Don't expect that "dangerous cycling" will evaporate overnight, because those offences and sentences already exist for motorists, and it doesn't prevent thousands of drivers acting dangerously in their cars every single day.
No-one wants to see old Doris from number 16 knocked down getting off a bus onto a footway. That clearly IS dangerous cycling. But while dangerous drivers are continually ignored and allowed to drive timid cyclists off the carriageway and onto footways out of fear, then the problem will continue to exist, no matter the offence or the possible penalties. Just this morning I stopped at a red traffic light at the end of a 40 mph dual carriageway. The car to my right also stopped, and a few seconds later the lady who'd pressed the crossing button got her 'green man' and stepped off the footway to cross. Fortunately for her, she was paying attention and looked at each of the three lanes before she crossed in front of it, because as she was front and centre of my car, she stopped sharply. You guessed right if you guessed that the reason she had to stop mid-crossing was a white Transit van that came barreling down the dual carriageway in the left-only lane, failed to stop at the signal, and then swerved into the lane ahead of me to continue straight ahead. I won't claim to have never seen a cyclist ignore a red traffic signal, but by Christ, when they do it's not nearly as dangerous as seeing a Transit at 40 mph + come within three feet of a pedestrian. Cyclists running lights tend to ride around the pedestrians, often behind them. Yes, it's scary if you didn't see it coming, but it's two objects moving away from each other. I'm not defending those cyclists who fail to stop, just saying that the likelihood of a collision is less (based in no small part on a cyclist's sense of self-preservation). Faced with a 40 mph van and nowhere to go, I'd happily swap it for a 20 mph bicycle and a small jump being enough to avoid getting hit.
So, just because our ridiculous legal system doesn't adequately punish careless and dangerous car drivers you think it is any less worthwhile pursuing cyclists? Quite the reverse logic there.But what I am against is the carousel of clearly dangerous drivers who kill, and are convicted of causing death by dangerous/careless driving, who then stroll out of court with a 12 month suspended sentence, or some similar slap on the wrist.
The government is said to be "committed to increasing the maximum sentence to life imprisonment" for the dangerous driving offence. But the current maximum sentence of 14 years inside is seldom, if ever handed down for the offence, so why would anyone believe that an increase to life behind bars will change anything.
While I agree in principle that the law should require the same standard of road use from a cyclist as a driver, this definitely IS a knee-jerk reaction, and an emotion driven one based on a handful of cases. Yet car drivers cause large numbers of deaths year-in year-out. One on the news just now in the car, several vehicles involved, at least one death, kids seriously injured, roads closed. Will whoever caused that face a properly stiff sentence, such that it acts as a deterrent to other idiots? A sentence so hard to ignore that it actually prompts some of the mouth breathing "I won my license in a raffle" type w
kers to go out and get some more training?Nope. Some Muppet sentenced the other day got a slapped wrist, yet he hit another car in which a woman was killed, and was found to have been driving for forty years having failed his driving test. Yet because the fact that he had no license "didn't make the collision any worse" he didn't even face prison immediately. Cue a "WTF?" moment from every 'reasonable person' who saw that, because if he hadn't been driving, then he couldn't have caused that woman's death. Simple cause/effect.
So yes. By all means create a new law to deal with dangerous cyclists as a specific offence. And yes. By all means, have the tariffs and sentencing guidelines mirror those for the driving offence that already exists. But no. Don't expect that "dangerous cycling" will evaporate overnight, because those offences and sentences already exist for motorists, and it doesn't prevent thousands of drivers acting dangerously in their cars every single day.
No-one wants to see old Doris from number 16 knocked down getting off a bus onto a footway. That clearly IS dangerous cycling. But while dangerous drivers are continually ignored and allowed to drive timid cyclists off the carriageway and onto footways out of fear, then the problem will continue to exist, no matter the offence or the possible penalties. Just this morning I stopped at a red traffic light at the end of a 40 mph dual carriageway. The car to my right also stopped, and a few seconds later the lady who'd pressed the crossing button got her 'green man' and stepped off the footway to cross. Fortunately for her, she was paying attention and looked at each of the three lanes before she crossed in front of it, because as she was front and centre of my car, she stopped sharply. You guessed right if you guessed that the reason she had to stop mid-crossing was a white Transit van that came barreling down the dual carriageway in the left-only lane, failed to stop at the signal, and then swerved into the lane ahead of me to continue straight ahead. I won't claim to have never seen a cyclist ignore a red traffic signal, but by Christ, when they do it's not nearly as dangerous as seeing a Transit at 40 mph + come within three feet of a pedestrian. Cyclists running lights tend to ride around the pedestrians, often behind them. Yes, it's scary if you didn't see it coming, but it's two objects moving away from each other. I'm not defending those cyclists who fail to stop, just saying that the likelihood of a collision is less (based in no small part on a cyclist's sense of self-preservation). Faced with a 40 mph van and nowhere to go, I'd happily swap it for a 20 mph bicycle and a small jump being enough to avoid getting hit.
With cyclists I frequently see completely reckless riding, at least once a day. Yesterday I had some cyclist try and overtake me on the inside as I was about to take a left turn that I was indicating for..... so I had to go straight on. Then I stopped at a red light. He came round the outside of me, through a red light, just missed a pedestrian who was crossing the road, and caused a car turning out of another junction to have to slam his brakes on to not hit him. I passed him again a bit further up the road, and then I got stuck in a queue. Muppet cyclist then passed all of the waiting traffic on the opposite side of the road causing the oncoming traffic coming over a hump back bridge, which made him invisible, to have to hit the brakes to not hit him. He then jumped onto the pavement and narrowly missed a lady with a pram. That guy is a textbook example of why we need better laws for cyclists. And let's not pretend he's an isolated case.... sure most cyclists aren't as bad as that, but they aren't exactly a rare breed.
Vanden Saab said:
Type R Tom said:
If the current laws are insufficient then maybe we do need new ones but what has changed that makes what was fine for the last 100+ years no longer viable? Clearly we need more people cycling and maybe cyclists have to take the rough with the smooth. Or could it be that the anti cycling side of things is getting stronger this adds fuel to the fire, for example, far more peds are hurt each year by cars jumping red lights than cyclists but that's all you ever hear about.
What has changed is this idea of self-entitlement... The idea that because you can do something it makes it ok regardless of the effect on anyone else..... not in any way limited to cyclists BTW...I think what GT03ROB is getting at are those who choose to ride through pedestrian only areas/areas that are highly likely to have pedestrians in decent numbers rather than get off their bikes and push/slow down and take their time then subsequently have a collision with a pedestrian are the sort that should be charged with careless riding as they've gone 'f
k it I'm not losing momentum'. Something which I view quite differently from those horrible moments when someone goes around a corner with not necessarily the best of sight lines and, despite being careful, it just so happens that a pedestrian sets out across the road at just the wrong moment and is looking in the wrong direction (not taking into account that pedestrians can be thoughtless when it comes to choosing just where they decide to cross a road as well).
Being at the age that I might be considered an 'old boy' myself, I have to say what a menace parking on the pavement is getting to be.
I live in Farnborough, and driving along pavements to park on them is the local favourite sport. Adult males, mothers with baby seats, they are all doing it. Obstructing access to footpaths and bridleways as well. I'm registered disabled, and if cars park such that they obstruct the full width of the footway, I'm forced to take my chances with cars at 30 mph on the carriageway, which is disconcerting to say the least.
To my knowledge the police have never had a crackdown on people driving and parking on that part of the road set aside solely for use by pedestrians. They obstruct the highway, and deny other road users their right of way, yet they never come up in court and never get a £200 fine or any costs. As far as I can tell, this isn't even considered to be a problem, despite cases being reported in the local press. Last summer, the police didn't need to announce that they would no longer be paying attention to the matter, because they never had, and it was already open house. Apparently, it's never been a priority.
I doubt if many, if any, of these pavement parkers even realise they are committing a criminal offence, let alone consider its dangers in regard to pedestrians, especially the more vulnerable. I wouldn't be surprised if some could not give a toss even if they did. I just don't see why I should be abandoned by the police to have to put up with this antisocial and criminal behaviour on the pavements of my own home town...
heads, not "cyclists" or "drivers" as homogeneous groups.
Anyone here entirely without sin then? Perhaps instead of pointing the finger at "perps" in/on other modes of transport, we ought to be pointing the finger at our own family, friends, and neighbours, and apply pressure to them to stop cycling, driving and parking like a bunch of dheads.
My neighbour is a dhead. He hasn't spoken to me for weeks because of something I said about his new extension. Yesterday, the bin lorry driver had a whinge to me because they couldn't get the lorry up the street to empty the bins. Inconsiderate parking by my neighbour's building contractors was to blame. I shrugged my shoulders and said I didn't want the vans parked there either, but then again nor did I want a bland, ugly box built on the back of my neighbour's house. Later in the day I saw the van driver and told him that the bin men hadn't been able to get past. His reply was a completely disinterested "I know" before he scuttled back into the house. So although he's not contravening any specific parking restriction, he parks like that (opposite another vehicle) knowing full well that he obstructs the highway. Probably lucky that the bin lorry wasn't a fire appliance, eh!
I live in Farnborough, and driving along pavements to park on them is the local favourite sport. Adult males, mothers with baby seats, they are all doing it. Obstructing access to footpaths and bridleways as well. I'm registered disabled, and if cars park such that they obstruct the full width of the footway, I'm forced to take my chances with cars at 30 mph on the carriageway, which is disconcerting to say the least.
To my knowledge the police have never had a crackdown on people driving and parking on that part of the road set aside solely for use by pedestrians. They obstruct the highway, and deny other road users their right of way, yet they never come up in court and never get a £200 fine or any costs. As far as I can tell, this isn't even considered to be a problem, despite cases being reported in the local press. Last summer, the police didn't need to announce that they would no longer be paying attention to the matter, because they never had, and it was already open house. Apparently, it's never been a priority.
I doubt if many, if any, of these pavement parkers even realise they are committing a criminal offence, let alone consider its dangers in regard to pedestrians, especially the more vulnerable. I wouldn't be surprised if some could not give a toss even if they did. I just don't see why I should be abandoned by the police to have to put up with this antisocial and criminal behaviour on the pavements of my own home town...
Roofless Toothless said:
I doubt if many, if any, of these pavement cyclists even realise they are committing a criminal offence, let alone consider its dangers in regard to pedestrians, especially the more vulnerable. I wouldn't be surprised if some could not give a toss even if they did. I just don't see why I should be abandoned by the police to have to put up with this antisocial and criminal behaviour on the pavements of my own home town.
Sounds like a familiar problem to me. And the problem is selfish dheads, not "cyclists" or "drivers" as homogeneous groups.Anyone here entirely without sin then? Perhaps instead of pointing the finger at "perps" in/on other modes of transport, we ought to be pointing the finger at our own family, friends, and neighbours, and apply pressure to them to stop cycling, driving and parking like a bunch of d
heads.My neighbour is a d
head. He hasn't spoken to me for weeks because of something I said about his new extension. Yesterday, the bin lorry driver had a whinge to me because they couldn't get the lorry up the street to empty the bins. Inconsiderate parking by my neighbour's building contractors was to blame. I shrugged my shoulders and said I didn't want the vans parked there either, but then again nor did I want a bland, ugly box built on the back of my neighbour's house. Later in the day I saw the van driver and told him that the bin men hadn't been able to get past. His reply was a completely disinterested "I know" before he scuttled back into the house. So although he's not contravening any specific parking restriction, he parks like that (opposite another vehicle) knowing full well that he obstructs the highway. Probably lucky that the bin lorry wasn't a fire appliance, eh!spookly said:
So, just because our ridiculous legal system doesn't adequately punish careless and dangerous car drivers you think it is any less worthwhile pursuing cyclists? Quite the reverse logic there.
With cyclists I frequently see completely reckless riding, at least once a day. Yesterday I had some cyclist try and overtake me on the inside as I was about to take a left turn that I was indicating for..... so I had to go straight on. Then I stopped at a red light. He came round the outside of me, through a red light, just missed a pedestrian who was crossing the road, and caused a car turning out of another junction to have to slam his brakes on to not hit him. I passed him again a bit further up the road, and then I got stuck in a queue. Muppet cyclist then passed all of the waiting traffic on the opposite side of the road causing the oncoming traffic coming over a hump back bridge, which made him invisible, to have to hit the brakes to not hit him. He then jumped onto the pavement and narrowly missed a lady with a pram. That guy is a textbook example of why we need better laws for cyclists. And let's not pretend he's an isolated case.... sure most cyclists aren't as bad as that, but they aren't exactly a rare breed.
Your reverse logic. Not mine. Read my post again. Nowhere did I suggest that we should not apply the same laws and penalties to cyclists as we do drivers. Nowhere did I suggest we should not pursue cases against dangerous or careless cyclists. What I suggested was that it would be insane to expect a new law, allied with stiffer available sentences, to actually make any difference to the general standard of cycling in the country. I suggested that if that was likely to work, then the already stiff sentences, and existing laws against careless and dangerous driving would already have all but eliminated reckless, dangerous driving from our roads. But it hasn't, because every other trip I take in my car I see at least one instance of some Muppet behaving like the laws of physics,and the laws of the land don't apply to them. In heavy traffic, where such Muppetry is particularly bad, I often fear being hit by some idiot trying to prove that an 8ft wide car WILL fit through a 6ft wide gap. Curiously enough, being terrified by the prospect of being hit by a Muppet cyclist isn't something that ever crosses my mind, on account of how cyclists rarely take such risks that car drivers do, because they lack a protective metal cage around their relatively frail, squishy bodies...With cyclists I frequently see completely reckless riding, at least once a day. Yesterday I had some cyclist try and overtake me on the inside as I was about to take a left turn that I was indicating for..... so I had to go straight on. Then I stopped at a red light. He came round the outside of me, through a red light, just missed a pedestrian who was crossing the road, and caused a car turning out of another junction to have to slam his brakes on to not hit him. I passed him again a bit further up the road, and then I got stuck in a queue. Muppet cyclist then passed all of the waiting traffic on the opposite side of the road causing the oncoming traffic coming over a hump back bridge, which made him invisible, to have to hit the brakes to not hit him. He then jumped onto the pavement and narrowly missed a lady with a pram. That guy is a textbook example of why we need better laws for cyclists. And let's not pretend he's an isolated case.... sure most cyclists aren't as bad as that, but they aren't exactly a rare breed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff