Cyclist jailed for killing pedestrian
Discussion
Where should this thread go so that it receives only sensible and appropriate posts
Cyclist jailed for killing pedestrian
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62153644
12 months jail for wanton and furious driving - it says - should that be cycling?
Cyclist jailed for killing pedestrian
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62153644
12 months jail for wanton and furious driving - it says - should that be cycling?
beeb said:
Speaking outside court, Ryan Randall, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "The way in which McGinn rode his bike around the corner was completely irresponsible.
"His disregard for the safety of others using the pavement proved to be disastrous and is a stark reminder that pedal cycles can be dangerous to other road users when ridden so recklessly.
"Our thoughts are with those who have suffered the tragic loss of Mrs Stone."
Should the updated HC be revised to have some clearance between pedestrians and bikes? ( and cars)"His disregard for the safety of others using the pavement proved to be disastrous and is a stark reminder that pedal cycles can be dangerous to other road users when ridden so recklessly.
"Our thoughts are with those who have suffered the tragic loss of Mrs Stone."
t on the pavement.saaby93 said:
12 months jail for wanton and furious driving - it says - should that be cycling?
The wording of the law is:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/10...
"Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, . . ."
Cctv caught the incident
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11014323/...
He deserves the sentence for his actions after the collision, if nothing else.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11014323/...
He deserves the sentence for his actions after the collision, if nothing else.
Previous said:
Cctv caught the incident
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11014323/...
He deserves the sentence for his actions after the collision, if nothing else.
He should have got the same sentence as a car driver who knocks over and kills someone in a hit and run would have. Oh wait.....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11014323/...
He deserves the sentence for his actions after the collision, if nothing else.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Great tragedy - poor woman.
I would have more sympathy with the offender if he'd stopped to assist.
Yes, me too.I would have more sympathy with the offender if he'd stopped to assist.
Riding at speed on the pavement round a corner is stupid. Most of the time there'd have been no issue, and even then most collisions wouldn't result in fatal consequences.
The callous behaviour afterwards however. I get people have a fight or flight response. But you'd expect most people to at least to check on the person they've just knocked to the floor.
Previous said:
The callous behaviour afterwards however. I get people have a fight or flight response. But you'd expect most people to at least to check on the person they've just knocked to the floor.
It's called being decent, accepting your responsibilities and doing the right thing. saaby93 said:
Should the updated HC be revised to have some clearance between pedestrians and bikes? ( and cars)
It is already illegal to ride a bicycle on the pavement. If he wasn't breaking the law, he likely wouldn't have hit her. Additional laws about keeping cyclists away from pedestrians would likely be totally unworkable. How would you even go about drawing those up?
Cycling on the pavement is already illegal, so taking that into account the next logical step is to insist on cyclists leaving say a 1m gap between the pavement and where they are cycling, and if you do that, why wouldn't you also apply it to cars? As I said, totally unworkable.
As tragic as this incident it, we should remind ourselves that between 0 and 3 people are usually killed by cyclists each year, meaning that statistically this simply isn't an issue that needs addressed.
That aside, I think it was absolutely right he was jailed for his actions. He caused the accident in the first place, and then failed to show any concern for the victim.
Lord Marylebone said:
It is already illegal to ride a bicycle on the pavement. If he wasn't breaking the law, he likely wouldn't have hit her.
Additional laws about keeping cyclists away from pedestrians would likely be totally unworkable. How would you even go about drawing those up?
Cycling on the pavement is already illegal, so taking that into account the next logical step is to insist on cyclists leaving say a 1m gap between the pavement and where they are cycling, and if you do that, why wouldn't you also apply it to cars? As I said, totally unworkable.
As tragic as this incident it, we should remind ourselves that between 0 and 3 people are usually killed by cyclists each year, meaning that statistically this simply isn't an issue that needs addressed.
People keep saying cycling on the pavement is illegal and I keep pointing out in Stoke some pavements are shared between cyclists and pedestrians,the markings are there,the signposts are thereAdditional laws about keeping cyclists away from pedestrians would likely be totally unworkable. How would you even go about drawing those up?
Cycling on the pavement is already illegal, so taking that into account the next logical step is to insist on cyclists leaving say a 1m gap between the pavement and where they are cycling, and if you do that, why wouldn't you also apply it to cars? As I said, totally unworkable.
As tragic as this incident it, we should remind ourselves that between 0 and 3 people are usually killed by cyclists each year, meaning that statistically this simply isn't an issue that needs addressed.
Lord Marylebone said:
Cycling on the pavement is already illegal, so taking that into account the next logical step is to insist on cyclists leaving say a 1m gap between the pavement and where they are cycling, and if you do that, why wouldn't you also apply it to cars? As I said, totally unworkable.
Rule 163give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide:
leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
Hoofy said:
Lord Marylebone said:
Cycling on the pavement is already illegal, so taking that into account the next logical step is to insist on cyclists leaving say a 1m gap between the pavement and where they are cycling, and if you do that, why wouldn't you also apply it to cars? As I said, totally unworkable.
Rule 163give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide:
leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with cyclists avoiding pedestrians though? How do you think any new rules should be worded?
Cyclists cannot ride on standard pavements, and this automatically means they are kept away from pedestrians by default, unless of course the pedestrian is crossing the road, in which case the usual rules apply to cyclists in that they, as traffic, must not crash into the pedestrian... and the pedestrian must look for traffic before crossing.
V8covin said:
People keep saying cycling on the pavement is illegal and I keep pointing out in Stoke some pavements are shared between cyclists and pedestrians,the markings are there,the signposts are there
Yes, or course, in shared pavement/cycle areas. But these are clearly marked and pedestrians should expect cyclists, and cyclists should expect pedestrians. These shared pavements are specifically designated.That is not what we are talking about in this case. We are talking about an ordinary pavement where it is illegal to cycle on it.
ridds said:
He got 12 months, he'll be out in 6.
Exactly how much of a piece of trash do you have to be to get the full term?
It's harsh compared to the normal sentencing for a killer driver.Exactly how much of a piece of trash do you have to be to get the full term?
£180 and 9 points - 4 killed
No charges
Suspended sentence, 5 year ban, 2 killed
13 months, fake license
Now, a prolonged road rage incident did lead to 8 years jail. But that's very much the exception, rather than the rule.
Lord Marylebone said:
Yes, or course, in shared pavement/cycle areas. But these are clearly marked and pedestrians should expect cyclists, and cyclists should expect pedestrians. These shared pavements are specifically designated.
That is not what we are talking about in this case. We are talking about an ordinary pavement where it is illegal to cycle on it.
But as a result of these shared pavements many cyclists have been accustomed to using any pavement,at least around here,they don't look,slow down or stop even when they come to a junction . I'm surprised there aren't more accidentsThat is not what we are talking about in this case. We are talking about an ordinary pavement where it is illegal to cycle on it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff