wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.

[Pica-Pica]

The court has decided the rider was guilt of 'wanton or furious driving'. How many fixies are on our street.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

[Pica-Pica]

REALIST123 said:

AndrewEH1 said:

Bad ruling, she shouldn't have stepped out on the road on her phone without looking.

Maybe not, I guess she didn't expect a moron to be shooting down the road out of control.

Some tougher legislation for cyclists seems well overdue.

Although an ancient law the "wanton and furious" definition is interesting. Furious would have no effect if there was no-one else about, but the wanton aspect implies disregard for others or the state of the bicycle.

[Pica-Pica]

GetCarter said:

Considering his astonishing comments about her, and his lack of remorse - I hope he gets the full sentence he seems to be due.

If we dive without front brakes, imagine what we (drivers) would get, killing a pedestrian.

2 years is maximum, I believe, others have received 6 and 12 moths imprisonment.
He claimed he could not have stopped, even with a front brake, experts reviewing CCTV disagreed.

[Pica-Pica]

[quote=Your Dad]Established thread over in Pedal Powered:

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
That thread title is incorrect he was not convicted of manslaughter. He was charged with both manslaughter and wanton and furious driving, and found guilty of the latter, but not convicted of the first.

[Pica-Pica]

MDUBZ said:

here we go... get comfortable.

Your point?

[Pica-Pica]

99dndd said:

How will this work from an insurance/compensation aspect?

Obviously, the family will need significant compensation for their loss and I don't think there is such a hing as "cycling insurance."

I believe there is still the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The family could now sue him personally for damages as well.

[Pica-Pica]

kiethton said:

SantaBarbara said:

Cycle Licences needed now

That is just about the most ridiculous thing i've heard!

L plates for kids?
A BC2 licence category means you can only ride with stabilisers, a BCR allows you to ride a recumbent, a BCF allows you to ride a fixie and a BCB means you can only ride a borris bike (no gears...)?

Beyond that how would you police it given cyclists are completely anonymous? Also wouldn't it completely disregard a prime policy to try and get more people active & cycling to reduce pollution/congestion?

How would you police it? 'Bobbies on bicycles, two-by-two' (credits to Roger Miller)

[Pica-Pica]

Is Bikeability still going? Back in the days I did my cycling proficiency, and later assisted teaching kids at a primary school, lead by a Met Police motorcyclist (off m/bike of course). I am sure that taught a bit about cycle maintenance and brakes also.

[Pica-Pica]

mgv8 said:

Zigster said:

I wouldn't call it a "craze" as such, but I'm pretty sure its fairly common that Dutch bikes have a rear coaster brake (which you activate by pushing back on the pedals) and no front brake.

https://singlespeedparts.nl/

There are plenty of single speed bikes around and yes like the UK some do not have brakes.

In the UK they still need to company with

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1176/pdfs/...

[Pica-Pica]

Retroman said:

mygoldfishbowl said:

No, I've never even implied that the lights were red. I have only insisted on the fact that they may have been after others have stated the fact that they may have been as "bks" or " click bate" etc. The only fact we know is, the coroner could not prove they were red, so the cyclist MAY have gone through them while they were.

Indeed. They may have been red. They may have been green as well.

..and green means go if the way is clear.

[Pica-Pica]

sospan said:

I am guessing that this case will trigger a revue of some of the laws re cycling. Mainly lack of specific law,suitability of the bike, bell or horn, even insurance?
It has become high profile with much comment re the bike legality as well as the rider's attitude.
The main concern seems to be a lack of a law to apply. Having to use a historic oddball law for prosecution looks like the trigger for update.
Maybe there will be a similar review of pedestrian requirements?

Agree in part, but some 'historic oddball' laws are still valid.

[Pica-Pica]

FazerBoy said:

Retroman said:

No comments on this yet, as it's fairly recent but wouldn't be surprised if anyone ignores the pedestrians stepping out into oncoming traffic 10ft away from a crossing and criticises the filtering cyclist instead.

Just as well the cyclist was going slow and not on an illegal bike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7kBnNEtfeU

Are you kidding?

The cyclist is bombing it inches away from stationary traffic on a busy high street where the likelihood of pedestrians crossing from between the traffic is extremely high...

Cyclist overtaking on approach to crossing (zig zags). Pedestrian not crossing at crossing. Shall we say 50/50?