This sort of thing seems to be gettting more common.

helz

There's a new article about this in The Times today: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4304006.ece

robmanic1

Very well written article, some great comments;

"Sometimes you have to brake to avoid running them down."

We have no chance!

whome

boybiker wrote:

, I have had to tell them to 'get out of the f**!!***ing road!'

Is that because you incorrectly believe pedestrians should not be on the road.
In the same way that drivers incorrectly think that Cyclists should not be on the road.

choppertron

Taken from bikeradars frontpage article,

"causing her to fall and hit her head on the pavement. She died six days later."

surely the answer isn't fines but compulsory helmet use among pedestrians, had she been wearing a helmet she'd still be alive . . .

this appears to be the solution offered by many in cyclist/motorist collisions, no need to educate road users though.

jedster

I genuinely dont know what to think about this case given how confusing the reporting is.
However, I do think that as a cyclist we have the prime responsibility to avoid collisions with pedestrians and this bloke clearly chose a dangerous line (too close to the peds given his speed). Whether it was genuinely reckless, aggressive or just a misjudgement I dont know.

I'm also confused about something else. Maybe Spen can help:

A lot of the coverage has bemoaned the fact that the maximum punishment for killing soemone on a bike is £2200. I seem to remember a case from last year (?) when a blok rode down a steep hill on the pavement and hit and killed a ped and got a much more serious punishment (prison?) after bein convicted of something like "furious cycling".

If so the issue is why that charge was not made in this current case. Perhaps because there was no evidence of that level of negligence/aggression?

J

jedster

here we go

Appearing at Truro crown court yesterday, Messen, of Swindon, Wiltshire, pleaded guilty to causing bodily harm by wanton or furious cycling. The crime, brought under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, carries a maximum sentence of two years in jail.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/0 ... e.uknews41

given that, it seems that there are suitable laws available to punish terrible cycling

J

chuckcork

whome wrote:

boybiker wrote:

, I have had to tell them to 'get out of the f**!!***ing road!'

I think I used that phrase once at full roar, coming around a corner in Twickenham, green light to go left, to find a woman in her 50's totally ignorant of good sense, traffic law, that little red man facing her, and me, scuttling across the road in heels.

Just about went over the handlebars to not run into her. If the road had been wet I probably would have hit her as I wouldn't have stopped in time.

Worse case in Putney and similar to the main thread of the topic, trailing 20 metres or so behind a car going through a junction, doing around 25mph, on green to go, some idiot decides its safe to run across the road as no motorised traffic coming for 10 secs or so, and then half the footpath surges after him without looking. No chance at all to stop with sudden unexpected and completely mindless herd behaviour like that. I still don't know how I managed to get through the miraculous gap that opened up (must have been my screaming) without slamming into anyone.

If it had been an oncoming car, the idiot who started the moron avalanche would have made it, but there would have been a few killed as they would have been hit full on.

Darwinian evolution at work though? This theory seems to apply to teenagers listening to iPods/texting/expecting someone else to look etc while they walk across the road completely entranced by their pretty toy/discussion about hairdo's...

ronstrutt

I really am torn about this case.

Firstly, assuming that even the Daily Mail can't afford to keep reporters in all the country's magistrate's courts, just in case a juicy anti-cyclist case comes up, this has been fed by a local reporter who has sensed a story that the nationals will pay for. Hence there are no guarantees as to the quality of the reporting.

The story is confused. Was the cyclist on the road or on the pavement? Was the victim on the pavement or the road? Did the victim step off the pavement into the path of the cyclist? Had the victim (aged only 17) been drinking? Did the cyclist actually shout the words as alleged? (I often shout the words "Coming through" as a warning when overtaking another bike or pedestrians on a shared path - could they be construed as "Get out of my way, I'm coming through"?)

Note that this case was heard in a magistrate's court before a District Judge, not a jury, and I'm sure we all remember another recent case involving a seemingly anti-cyclist District Judge.

It really is difficult to decide the truth of the matter.

For me, this is something of a case of "There but for the grace of God go I".

A couple of weeks ago I was cycling at about 15mph through a village near Lincoln on my way from Dover to Durness. The only other vehicle on the road, a car, overtook me and went on down the road. On the other side of the road a mother, with a young son and another child in a pushchair, was waiting to cross. I can only assume that she saw me approaching – it wasn't as if I was invisible since my panniers had their bright yellow covers on and me my yellow waterproof jacket.

As I approached, the mother began to ease the pushchair off the kerb into the road and the young boy went ahead of her. I assumed that they were intending to cross behind me but as I got much closer I saw concern on the mother's face. Presumably she'd suddenly realised that I was travelling a lot faster than she'd expected. The son had now crossed the centre line of the road when suddenly the mother, rather than yelling "Stop", called to the boy to hurry up. As a result, he broke into a run, with his head down.

With the kerb to my left and the boy to my right, I had nowhere to go apart from straight on. Fortunately, I didn't do the obvious thing and slam on my brakes, otherwise he'd have got in front of me and I'd have hit him. Instead I put the power on and just got through in front of him. We missed by no more than a foot. I could have reached out and touched him as I passed. He must have felt the air movement as I passed because he suddenly looked up.

I didn’t stop because I was shaken and I’d have given mother an absolute mouthful. Had we collided, the child would surely have been severely injured and I don’t suppose I’d have come off very lightly either. As it is, and in the light of this recent news, the mother is probably telling all her friends about the lycra-lout who put on speed and tried to kill her little Johnny.

So what should I/could I have done?

sc999cs

ronstrutt wrote:

So what should I/could I have done?

You must have done the right thing because you missed the child. It doesn't matter what else you could have done. Any decision which avoids an accident is correct.

Steve C

dondare

ronstrutt wrote:

I really am torn about this case.

Firstly, assuming that even the Daily Mail can't afford to keep reporters in all the country's magistrate's courts, just in case a juicy anti-cyclist case comes up, this has been fed by a local reporter who has sensed a story that the nationals will pay for. Hence there are no guarantees as to the quality of the reporting.

If the entire staff of the Daily Mail had been in court we still couldn't believe a word of it.

ronstrutt wrote:

So what should I/could I have done?

Honestly? Slow down and cover the brakes when you see young children or Mothers with pushchairs waiting to cross, because they usually will. Legally, and morally in my opinion, pedestrians do have priority over all vehicles.

jedster

I think, in general it is unwise to ever assume that other road users (including peds) will do the right or sensible thing. YOu need to allow for them doing something stupid.

You assumed that the mother and kids would wait. While she made the big error, you could have made allowances for the chance that she would do that (slowing, covering the brakes).

I'm not being really critical here, just responding to your question.

Cheers,

J

ellieb

Re: the times article: Where I feel I despair is when you read the ex-cabbie complaining about the abuse he has received after overtaking too close to a bike & citing this as an example of what is wrong with cyclists. Do these people really have something mis-wired in their brain?

chuckcork

ellieb wrote:

Re: the times article: Where I feel I despair is when you read the ex-cabbie complaining about the abuse he has received after overtaking too close to a bike & citing this as an example of what is wrong with cyclists. Do these people really have something mis-wired in their brain?

A work collegue complained to a truck driver that he'd nearly hit him with his truck. Response was that he hadn't so what was he complaining about?

A miss is a good as a mile in the case of most drivers attitudes, and near miss is even further away.

I like the story of the motorcyclist who has a driver look at him, then pull out in front of him, and the biker naturally collides. Driver stops, and the motorcyclist (not too injured) picks himself up, and asks the driver, what did you do that for? response is, " I thought you'd swerve". Biker then throws a punch, which connects with jaw. Driver (now on ground) gets up and says "what did you do that for"? Answer: "I thought you'd duck!"