This sort of thing seems to be gettting more common.

2

Comments

  • don_don
    don_don Posts: 1,007
    It would be interesting to compare with some of the fines given to drivers convicted of careless or dangerous driving which resulted in someone's death. This seems to be a parallel situation where dangerous cycling has caused a death.

    As we know, there is a specific offence of causing death by dangerous driving, but there isn't an equivalent cycling offence. So, it would seem that the court has done all it can, namely issue a fine which reflects the 'dangerousness' of the cycling (not the death, that is a totally seperate matter in law). Since the fine is near the maximum, I would guess that the court has viewed the cyclist as mostly, or almost wholly, at fault.

    On s.ammo's point above - it can be incredibly difficult to prove intent to harm someone in these circumstances. If there was enough evidence to do that, then I suspect that he would have been charged with manslaughter, not dangerous cycling.

    I totally agree with everyone who has commented that this is a sad waste of a life and unnecessary. The cyclist will have to live with this for the rest of his life.

    Incidentally, it occurs to me when I have been driving, the number of occasions that pedestrians seem to deliberately take their time crossing the road. I'll freely admit to doing this myself on occasion, when I think a driver has seen me but 'wants me out of the way'. Call it a bit of pedestrian rage if you like. I realise it is stupid and I'm only putting myself at risk, so I'm not going to do it again after this.

    ps. I'm not a lawyer, this is all just my opinion
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    The verdict will be public domain at some stage won't it?

    Yes, the reporting is biased "could have been travelling at up to 17mph" for example is consistent with someone travelling at 1mph, having applied the brakes in an emergency.

    Indeed, in principle, the cyclist could have, in a short spell, shouted, hit his brakes hard and swerved towards what appeared to be a gap but unfortunately collided with someone.

    However, to believe this, you must believe that based on the balance of evidence, a judge incorrectly assessed this to the extent of making statements as pointed as have been made.

    We can see some indication that, despite all witnesses being non-cycling friends of the victim, aspects of their stories have necessarily been discounted. The policeman indicates that there were contradictory statements regarding the presence of the bike on a pavement. The judge appears to have indicated that the cyclist should have steered to avoid the collision on the road. I think this suggests that the judge has (correctly) disregarded any statements of friends of the victim that the cyclist, on top of everything else, was also on the pavement, as lacking any support. Instead, the judge appears to have ruled on the basis of someone cycling through a crowd of people who, irrespective of their behaviour in being there, the cyclist saw amply in advance.

    Now, we would be able to get a better feel for this with an understanding of the location of the collision. I fear that we may learn that it was open, relatively straight and that, at any cycling speed, there would have been plenty of warning.

    I know that the law is reputed to be an ass, but that's usually when its systematic implementation results in an absurd result. In this case it seems that the evidence points to an avoidable collision, not withstanding the fact that the teenagers (their age being irrelevant, along with the fitting of reflectors on, or the price of, the bike) were jaywalking (if there is such a thing in the UK).

    All this nonsense about being threatened by feral youths is unhelpful.

    Aside from the rarity of youths attacking cyclists (which is probably rarer than cyclists killing pedestrians) the best way to avoid encounters is not to be noticed. Agressively shouting that they have to move is not the best way to go about this. Instead, slowing a little and unobtrusively avoiding them is the way to go.

    I just cannot find any circumstance in which, when approaching a crowd of people, there is any options but to slow down. By all means have a rant when all is said and done, but this guy has simply done the same on a bike to pedestrians that we all fear and frequently have to avoid from cars.
  • sc999cs
    sc999cs Posts: 596
    This is very tragic but what I think is important from a cyclist point of view, is how the Daily Mail is using this story to demonise cyclists as a group.

    On today's Daily Mail web site
    Howard, 36, sped towards Rhiannon at more than 23mph, shouting at her to get out of the way.
    Every one else has the speed as up to 17mph.

    At the same time there is another story 'That's my career gone,' says PC accused of killing mother on his untaxed motorbike. Read the way the story is presented and the language used. Contrast Killer Cyclist with accussed of killing. The motorcyclist in the second story did kill a woman so why not use the description Killer Motorcyclist?

    Steve C
    Steve C
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    The possibility that the teenagers had already seen the cyclist and were deliberately blocking the road cannot be totally discounted, although if it was raised in court as part of the defence the papers haven't picked up on it. More likely than this is that the cyclists believed that this is what they were up to, and honestly felt that he would be in danger if he stopped.
    It is also possible that the kids were unaware of him until he shouted, and one of them wasn't able to get out of the way in time as he maintained both his course and speed.
    The point is that the papers are only giving one view, and that view is not that the Judge got it right, but that the sentence was not severe enough. They are trying to make the cyclist look as bad as possible by implying that he was riding on the pavement and rammed the girl deliberately at a phenominal 17+ mph. On a bike built to his specifications that didn't even have reflectors.
    The threats posed by "feral youths" and "alcohol fueled violence" are exaggerated by exactly these same papers. If, indeed, he failed to slow down because he feared for his own safety then the media know who to blame for that.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • number9
    number9 Posts: 440
    Aside from the rarity of youths attacking cyclists (which is probably rarer than cyclists killing pedestrians)

    Sadly not true.

    Cyclists kill one pedestrian a year on average.

    Attacks and assaults on cyclists are extremely common- wire strung across cycle paths, the woman raoped near the Lea, the cyclist killed in Newcastle, the cyclist crippled in essex etc etc
  • karl j
    karl j Posts: 517
    firstly, lets just remember that a 17 year old girl lost her life here. Now, how on earth her family ever comes to terms with that i just can't imagine.

    Ok, moving on, i don't like the headline of the thread either, chiefly because i don't agree with it. As far as i'm concerned a cyclist causing the death of a pedestrian is, and probably will be for a while yet, pretty darned rare. Unless the OP was referring to the standard of reporting (??), then yes i would agree.

    however, the story itself has just been on the mid-day news, where it started being put across in a slightly more level-headed manner until they wheeled out the AA bloke to say that of course cyclists aren't insured or taxed. Yeah good ole BBC. I don't think i've seen any mention of whether it was on the road or the pavement, just that he just shouted at her. Surely that means he saw her, so does this not mean he had time to slow down too ? (i'd have thought so) - so i can't help but agree with the family who called for this sort of offence to be dealt with as manslaughter.

    One line worthy of mention i think is this "Despite its [the bike] cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back" - something i do see as becoming more common.
    Morning route (when i don't get the train)

    Evening route ,
  • chuckcork
    chuckcork Posts: 1,471
    Its hard really

    Teenagers and young women especially seem to cross roads with a view that they are invincible, at least enough to survive anything coming at them, which they don't/won't look for before crossing, and somehow with a view that anything coming at them will stop. Legally of course they are correct (I understand), they do have a right of way, and drivers should.

    Motorists on the other hand will drive at high speed along narrow streets, confident that if they run into anything they will either be able to stop or at worst will be protected in the event of a collision.

    Cyclists are stuck in the middle. We have to share road space with petrol heads who want us out of their way because we're too slow, and who frequently treat us as if we have no right to exist, are in practice as unprotected as any pedestrian from being rammed by 1000kg of metal, and yet we have no automatic right of way that a pedestrian does to wander anywhere they choose.

    Witness that a cyclist has to establish liability on the part of a motorist, for pedestrians its reversed.
    'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    What I see as becoming more common (title of thread) are reports in the press of cyclists on the pavement causing serious injury or death to pedestrians.
    The reports may or may not be accurate; in this case it clearly wasn't as the cyclist was almost certainly riding on the road.
    An increase in the number of reports does not mean an increase in the actual number of incidents/accidents. Has anyone noticed the number of reported cases of motorists killing pedestrians dropping from 684 a year to 676?
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • sc999cs
    sc999cs Posts: 596
    One line worthy of mention i think is this "Despite its [the bike] cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back" - something i do see as becoming more common.

    Why? A rear reflector and pedal reflectors are only required during the hours of darkness. The highway code is not the law, but a set of recommendations. To quote from another post, section 4 of the RVLR.
    Exemptions—General
    4.
    <snip>

    (3) Nothing in these Regulations shall require any lamp or reflector to be fitted between sunrise and sunset to-

    <snip>


    (c) a pedal cycle,

    Steve C
    Steve C
  • don_don
    don_don Posts: 1,007
    This is very tragic but what I think is important from a cyclist point of view, is how the Daily Mail is using this story to demonise cyclists as a group.

    On today's Daily Mail web site
    Quote:
    Howard, 36, sped towards Rhiannon at more than 23mph, shouting at her to get out of the way.

    Every one else has the speed as up to 17mph.

    At the same time there is another story 'That's my career gone,' says PC accused of killing mother on his untaxed motorbike. Read the way the story is presented and the language used. Contrast Killer Cyclist with accussed of killing. The motorcyclist in the second story did kill a woman so why not use the description Killer Motorcyclist?

    I'm not completely convinced that this is the case. Reading the Mail article above, it strikes me that they would make exactly the same comments about a motorist. For example, for 'the bike had no reflectors on the back', read 'the car had faulty brake lights' etc. It is interesting that they go on to say that he had a 'previous conviction' - for what we don't know - and that he was known as a 'thrill seeker'. IMO the Mail are reporting on the cyclist's general character rather than just the fact that he was a cyclist.

    The difference in descriptions in the second story is easily explained. The cyclist has been convicted, the motor-cyclist has not; he is merely accused at this stage.
  • JoeSoap76
    JoeSoap76 Posts: 109
    dondare wrote:
    The point is that the papers are only giving one view, and that view is not that the Judge got it right, but that the sentence was not severe enough.
    Don't kick me out of the club house or anything, but....

    The court was told that Jason Howard could have swerved to avoid the group but chose to carry on, straight, thinking he could get through a gap in the group

    That gap was, according to police, a few inches to a foot from the pavement.

    He shouted either a warning (he says) or that he wasn't going to stop (witnesses told the court).

    Rhiannon stepped into the gap and was hit at, again according to police, about 17mph. She died.

    There's no conjecture there, no maybes or what-ifs. This is what we know from the court proceedings. Based on this I can't see any other verdict to the charge of 'dangerous cycling' than the guilty one given.

    Put yourself in his shoes. You see a group of people standing on or close enough to the road that you feel the need to shout (whether a warning or a threat). You see a gap between them that is no more than a foot from the kerb. Do you (a) aim for that gap at 17mph or (b) slow down and go around them. Who in their right mind chooses option (a)??!!?

    As a result of this foolhardy/dangerous choice a girl was killed. The 'sentence' is that the person responsible has to pay a £2200 fine. Rhiannnon's family have a valid point (and so does the press in reporting it). £2200 for a person's life? Pah! The guy's bike was worth double that!

    I'm not suggesting that Jason Howard should have been tried for manslaughter - the CPS clearly didn't think so. But there's a crime between dangerous driving and manslaughter of causing death by dangerous driving which carries (or should carry) a harsher penalty than simply dangerous driving. Number9 says that cyclists kill one pedestrian a year. In those cases where the cyclists are at fault then yes, I think that they should be subject to a harsher penalty than is allowed under 'dangerous cycling'.
  • number9
    number9 Posts: 440
    Can we all agree:

    RTAs resulting in a fatality are not treated seriously enough?

    All deaths on the roads, even if caused by a momentary lapse of attention, ought to carry a lengthy ban and usually a custodial sentence?
  • robmanic1
    robmanic1 Posts: 2,150
    number9 wrote:
    Can we all agree:

    RTAs resulting in a fatality are not treated seriously enough?

    All deaths on the roads, even if caused by a momentary lapse of attention, ought to carry a lengthy ban and usually a custodial sentence?

    Can't agree on this Im afraid, regardless of the suppositions we're all making regarding this case, a custodial sentence would benefit no-one. I'm sure the guy will regret the incident for the rest of his life, whether he believes it was his fault or not. What you're suggesting is that if any of us should have a "momentary lapse of attention" we should be busted, so my question is what if it was the girl who had not been concentrating on where she was walking? what if the cyclist had died instead, should she have done time?
    Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/
  • Belv
    Belv Posts: 866
    number9 wrote:
    Can we all agree:

    RTAs resulting in a fatality are not treated seriously enough?
    Often this does seem to be the case, yes.
    number9 wrote:
    All deaths on the roads, even if caused by a momentary lapse of attention, ought to carry a lengthy ban and usually a custodial sentence?
    No
  • Clever Pun
    Clever Pun Posts: 6,778
    Robmanic1 wrote:
    <snip> what if the cyclist had died instead?

    No one would know about it
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • penugent
    penugent Posts: 913
    If the guy did just shout get out of the way and not take any other action he deserved to be punished more severely than he was. What would you all be saying about a motorist who just tooted on the horn and carried on.
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    penugent wrote:
    If the guy did just shout get out of the way and not take any other action he deserved to be punished more severely than he was. What would you all be saying about a motorist who just tooted on the horn and carried on.

    He was fined £2,200 - the maximum possible penalty even if he killed the whole group of people is only £2,500
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • robmanic1
    robmanic1 Posts: 2,150
    Getting back to the point of the thread, yes the reporting of "this sort of thing" is getting more common, I seriously doubt cyclists are deliberately killing more peds now than at any time previously.
    Cyclists are the press' "pet-hate" at the moment, they'll soon get bored and move on to hoodies, knife crime or Staffordshire bull terriers again.

    Terrible for the girls parents though, can't say I'd feel any differently,
    Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    penugent wrote:
    If the guy did just shout get out of the way and not take any other action he deserved to be punished more severely than he was. What would you all be saying about a motorist who just tooted on the horn and carried on.

    As they do.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • dang65
    dang65 Posts: 1,006
    Oh man, check this out.

    BBC Have Your Say ( :roll: ) about Road Rage.

    Most recommended comment:
    Added: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008, 13:13 GMT 14:13 UK

    Road Rage? I'm sick to death of Pavement Rage - how many more pedestrians will be killed before someone stops cyclists riding on the pavement. I have been hit by I bike and have had numerous close misses - THE LAW DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT THE PEDESTRIAN.

    AnAverage Bloke, Middle England

    Recommended by 43 people
    We've really upset them somehow. I'm expecting a crowd with pitchforks and torches round my house later.
  • robmanic1
    robmanic1 Posts: 2,150
    dang65 wrote:
    Oh man, check this out.

    BBC Have Your Say ( :roll: ) about Road Rage.

    Most recommended comment:
    Added: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008, 13:13 GMT 14:13 UK

    Road Rage? I'm sick to death of Pavement Rage - how many more pedestrians will be killed before someone stops cyclists riding on the pavement. I have been hit by I bike and have had numerous close misses - THE LAW DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT THE PEDESTRIAN.

    AnAverage Bloke, Middle England

    Recommended by 43 people
    We've really upset them somehow. I'm expecting a crowd with pitchforks and torches round my house later.



    Is I bike like I robot, some kind of self-propelling cycle that's developed an ability to harm humans?
    Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/
  • penugent
    penugent Posts: 913
    dondare wrote:
    penugent wrote:
    If the guy did just shout get out of the way and not take any other action he deserved to be punished more severely than he was. What would you all be saying about a motorist who just tooted on the horn and carried on.

    As they do.

    Not saying they don't.

    What I am suggesting is that too many are seemingly supporting the cyclist just because he is a cyclist. Neither cyclist nor motorist would deserve support in such circumstances
  • penugent
    penugent Posts: 913
    Robmanic1 wrote:
    Getting back to the point of the thread, yes the reporting of "this sort of thing" is getting more common, I seriously doubt cyclists are deliberately killing more peds now than at any time previously.
    Cyclists are the press' "pet-hate" at the moment, they'll soon get bored and move on to hoodies, knife crime or Staffordshire bull terriers again.

    Terrible for the girls parents though, can't say I'd feel any differently,

    Would it be fair to suggest that we see more of these tales simply because there are more cyclists on the roads these days? After all, there will be as big a percentage of d;ckhe@ds holding the bars of a bike as there are holding the wheel of a motor vehicle.
  • karl j
    karl j Posts: 517
    sc999cs wrote:
    One line worthy of mention i think is this "Despite its [the bike] cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back" - something i do see as becoming more common.

    Why? A rear reflector and pedal reflectors are only required during the hours of darkness. The highway code is not the law, but a set of recommendations. To quote from another post, section 4 of the RVLR.
    Exemptions—General
    4.
    <snip>

    (3) Nothing in these Regulations shall require any lamp or reflector to be fitted between sunrise and sunset to-

    <snip>


    (c) a pedal cycle,

    Steve C


    Fair enough, but i seriously doubt many of those who quite legally ride round with no reflectors in daytime, then go indoors at dusk to fit reflectors. Anyway thats all a a bit OT and not worth arguing over.

    I see the BBC < here > now quotes her mother with "He was on the footpath, where she should have been safe." .

    And just how many "cyclist kills...", "cyclist knocked down..." type stories have they linked to ? Did someone mention media demonisation...
    Morning route (when i don't get the train)

    Evening route ,
  • prj45
    prj45 Posts: 2,208
    I've no respect for the guy, he should of stopped or slowed, he's lucky they didn't charge him with something else.

    As for the kid though, if she was intoxicated, it's well known that if intoxicated people fall over they are likely to sustain head injuries as they don't get their arms up quickly enough. Still, I don't blame her at all.

    As for the Daily Mail article, what a dispicable collection of spin, assumptions and insination. Would be more honest if it just reported the facts and finished every sentence with the words "hate cyclists, hate cyclists".

    I mean, the paper must employ people who cycle right?

    If I worked for a publication that published such outright bile I'd go round to the author's desk and sh*t in their drawers.
    Photos - Blog - Bike
  • karl j
    karl j Posts: 517
    And after quoting her mother with "He was on the footpath, where she should have been safe." , at 1/4 past 6 the BBC go and show the CCTV footage of him riding on the road. And the bloke from the AA again.

    Wtf's it to do with the AA ?

    Isn't the media in this country fantastic
    Morning route (when i don't get the train)

    Evening route ,
  • Garry H
    Garry H Posts: 6,639
    If (and that's a big if)the report on ITN news is anything to go by, the guy was riding down the road at 23 mph :roll: , and turned right to enter a small lane (I take it this lead to the cul-de-sac). The pavement had been tapered down to allow for such access. It didn't make it very clear whether he hit her whilst crossing over the pavement, (so I'll assume she was in the road), but said she was making her way to the pavement. This would have put him on the wrong side of the road when he hit her.

    I don't think this guy can be excused in any way. What is without doubt is that he had time to stop or at least slow down considerably, but chose to go for the gap instead. This wasn't a lapse of concentration, as is alluded to above, his decision to go for the gap lead to the death of the lass. He certainly isn't deserving of our sympathy, her family is.
  • woodford2barbican
    woodford2barbican Posts: 1,505
    I am more interested in what his bike was - according to the BBC it was £4,500.......
  • robmanic1
    robmanic1 Posts: 2,150
    woodford2barbican wrote:
    I am more interested in what his bike was - according to the BBC it was £4,500.......

    and, more to the point, how the flip is that relevant to the story? The only reason I can think of is to emphasise the fact that he was ONLY fined a paltry sum compared to the value of his bike.
    Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/
  • woodford2barbican
    woodford2barbican Posts: 1,505
    Robmanic1 wrote:
    woodford2barbican wrote:
    I am more interested in what his bike was - according to the BBC it was £4,500.......

    and, more to the point, how the flip is that relevant to the story? The only reason I can think of is to emphasise the fact that he was ONLY fined a paltry sum compared to the value of his bike.

    You're right not relevant to the story at all. Must be a pretty nice bike though. I wonder if he will sell it now........

    I hope it wasn't damaged!

Categories