Death by dangerous cycling - discussion on radio 5live now

walkingbootweather

There was a thread on this a couple of weeks ago, but discussions about to kick off on radio 5live anytime now. Might be worth a listen if you can get to a radio....

jds_1981

It was mentioned on the wright stuff too (don't ask me how I know.) As you'd imagine, no in-depth discussion.
One of the guys appeared to be a cyclist and related how he'd hit a pedestrian who had stepped out without looking.

bails87

Cyclists shouldn't ride like d*cks and run people over.

For the most part though, we're pretty harmless. What is it, about half a person a year killed by being hit by a bike?

And I'm sure we're all aware of how often/rarely bad driving gets called 'dangerous' as opposed to careless and the difficulties of proving danger over carelessness.

So with that in mind, I don't disagree with the principle of the law. If I'm riding in a demonstrably dangerous manner and I kill someone directly because of that then I need to accept it. But it just doesn't happen enough for it to be worthwhile. Why not have a death by dangerous rollerblading or death by dangerous frisbee throwing charge?

It's just an excuse for bike haters on the Daily Mail website to vent some bile. Let them do it, and if you get convicted of the offfence, if it becomes law, then you were doing something seriously wrong.

walkingbootweather

Predictably not much of substance in the end. Typical lightweight radio piece that had to mention RLJ and other behaviours that most responsible cyclists indulge in. The earlier discussion thread was http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12766545&highlight=dangerous+cycling.

It was said that the rider was on the pavement riding a £5k bike when the collision occurred, but no mention of any contributory factors such as whether or not the group had been drinking or were being deliberately obstructive.
.
Existing legislation was not used because it wasn’t considered appropriate, but no reason given as to why.

Jay dubbleU

Part of the problem is that existing legistlation is not enforced - if people new it would cost them then they wouldn't cycle on pavemens or RLJ. Why ride a £5000 bike on the pavement anyway ?

bails87

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Part of the problem is that existing legistlation is not enforced - if people new it would cost them then they wouldn't cycle on pavemens or RLJ. Why ride a £5000 bike on the pavement anyway ?

This is specifically for death by dangerous cycling. Not dangerous cycling itself.

As for the Rhianon Bennett case, I don't know if it was ever established that he really was on the pavement.

SimonAH

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Part of the problem is that existing legistlation is not enforced - if people new it would cost them then they wouldn't cycle on pavemens or RLJ. Why ride a £5000 bike on the pavement anyway ?

Was it one of those status DH bikes that chavs like to ride around town I wonder? If so he was probably on the pavement because he was too slow for the road.

daviesee

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Why ride a £5000 bike on the pavement anyway ?

Why ride a £5 bike on the pavement?

The value of the bike is irrelevant to this debate. And to the court case but that doesn't stop lawyers placing notions in people's heads.

mudcow007

its just been on Radio 2 aswell the women whos daughter was kill by a "cyclist" whilst he was riding down the pavement. the Mother said that the guy who rode straight into her daughter got a £2000 fine :shock:

they were saying because the law hasnt changed for cyclists since 1887 or something

it really does grind my gears when you are riding behind someone or in front an the other rider goes straight through a red light or goes the wrong way down a one way street or.......rides on the pavement grrr

mudcow007

bails87 wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

As for the Rhianon Bennett case, I don't know if it was ever established that he really was on the pavement.

they said earlier that they have cctv footage of the guy riding on the pavement shouting im not going to move

snailracer

bails87 wrote:

Cyclists shouldn't ride like d*cks and run people over.

For the most part though, we're pretty harmless. What is it, about half a person a year killed by being hit by a bike?
...

Yes, that was a stat I found, too. DfT 2009, IIRC.

In fact, more cyclists get killed than pedestrians in bike-ped collisions. So they should be talking about introducing a "death by dangerous walking" law, if anything.

thelawnet

mudcow007 wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

As for the Rhianon Bennett case, I don't know if it was ever established that he really was on the pavement.

they said earlier that they have cctv footage of the guy riding on the pavement shouting im not going to move

False and false. The CCTV footage shows him in the road:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... ice226.jpg
and certainly wouldn't have any audio

The courts "heard conflicting evidence about whether he mounted the kerb at any point during the incident"

According to his solicitor, whethere he shouted and what he shouted was disputed by the witness. (
http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogs ... oited.html
)

The 17-year-old girl had consumed a minimum of 4.5 units of alcohol ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... hears.html ) and the whole group had been drinking.

It is highly unlikely that he was travelling at excessive speed, judged by the standard of motor vehicles - according to reports he was doing only 17mph, well within the lowest limit set for 3-tonne+ motor vehicles, and his solicitor argued that the deceased simply stepped into his path at the last minute.

The cyclist was travelling down this road:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 6,,0,27.85

and given what is reported of him ('£5k custom bicycle') it is ludicrous to imagine that he would have been cycling on the pavement by choice, whether the swerved onto it to avoid the pedestrians in the road, or if the witness reporting seeing his bicycle on the pavement was simply a result of the collision. The road is wide enough for two cards to pass, and while the pavement is not particularly wide, there should not, in principle have been in problem with him making his way around them, unless alcohol or foolishness was a factor.

Pretty much every member of this website travels at 17mph in close proximity to pedestrians on a regular basis - if one were to step in front of you there'd be precious little you could do about it.

Specialized Needs

thelawnet wrote:

False and false. The CCTV footage shows him in the road:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... ice226.jpg
and certainly wouldn't have any audio

£5000 flat bar. Is it a MTB?

Specialized Needs

snailracer wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Cyclists shouldn't ride like d*cks and run people over.

For the most part though, we're pretty harmless. What is it, about half a person a year killed by being hit by a bike?
...

Yes, that was a stat I found, too. DfT 2009, IIRC.

In fact, more cyclists get killed than pedestrians in bike-ped collisions. So they should be talking about introducing a "death by dangerous walking" law, if anything.

BBC is giving a higher figure than that (but no link to source, just suggests DfT): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13034162

bails87

Specialized Needs wrote:

snailracer wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Cyclists shouldn't ride like d*cks and run people over.

For the most part though, we're pretty harmless. What is it, about half a person a year killed by being hit by a bike?
...

Yes, that was a stat I found, too. DfT 2009, IIRC.

In fact, more cyclists get killed than pedestrians in bike-ped collisions. So they should be talking about introducing a "death by dangerous walking" law, if anything.

BBC is giving a higher figure than that (but no link to source, just suggests DfT): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13034162

Whatever it is, it's so low as to barely register.

_Brun_

Given the conflicting evidence, I can't imagine this case would ever have gone to court with a charge of causing death by dangerous cycling. Of course then we'll be told we need 'causing death by careless cycling', which will probably be punishable with... a fine of a few thousand pounds.

In other words, this is a complete waste of time.

deptfordmarmoset

_Brun_ wrote:

Given the conflicting evidence, I can't imagine this case would ever have gone to court with a charge of causing death by dangerous cycling. Of course then we'll be told we need 'causing death by careless cycling', which will probably be punishable with... a fine of a few thousand pounds.

In other words, this is a complete waste of time.

How about ''Causing death by carless driving?'' - because a bad cyclist is pretty much indistinguishable from a driver on a bike.

thelawnet

Specialized Needs wrote:

snailracer wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Cyclists shouldn't ride like d*cks and run people over.

For the most part though, we're pretty harmless. What is it, about half a person a year killed by being hit by a bike?
...

Yes, that was a stat I found, too. DfT 2009, IIRC.

In fact, more cyclists get killed than pedestrians in bike-ped collisions. So they should be talking about introducing a "death by dangerous walking" law, if anything.

BBC is giving a higher figure than that (but no link to source, just suggests DfT): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13034162

According to http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopModules/Ar ... &mid=13641, and I believe you can check the figures online,

"Road Casualties Online, 2005-2009 shows that only two out of 70 road casualties involving pedestrians on footways also involved a cyclist during that period. The remaining 68 involved a motor vehicle. "

and

"The Department For Transport publication Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2009 shows that no pedestrians were killed by cyclists during 2009 but that 426 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles.'

Dudu

Howard was not on the pavement. He was on the road.

Rhiannon Bennett was on the road.

Rhiannon Bennett had been drnking alcohol, under-age, unsupervised in a public place.

AFAICT, the only mistake Howard made was riding round a corner, fast, on the road, close to the pavement.

The above can all be found in press court reports at the time.

My construction on this case - and it is only opinion based on the facts reported - was that Rhiannon and her friends were a bit pissed, milling about on and off the pavement, and Rhiannon was hit by a cyclist trying to ride round the corner fast who could not change course without crashing.

Now how many times have any of us been confronted by a bunch of pissed teenagers playing chicken? And what's the advice in this situation in Richard's Bicycle Book?

snailracer

Dudu wrote:

...
Now how many times have any of us been confronted by a bunch of pissed teenagers playing chicken? And what's the advice in this situation in Richard's Bicycle Book?

Teenagers...

I was riding home from work a few weeks ago and saw a teenage girl about to step off the pavement on my side of the road. She wasn't looking in my direction, so I slowed down and stopped, all the time ringing my bell and trying to call her attention. Still looking in the opposite direction, she dabbed her foot back and forth from gutter to pavement, in the rather comical manner of a cat testing a hot radiator. After a few more seconds, she stepped onto the road, then turned to look in my direction to see me stopped 5 feet from her with an incredulous scowl on my face. She screamed and jumped back onto the pavement. Her (I guess) mum then approached in a car, so the girl ran out onto the road, forcing her mum to swerve to avoid mowing her down. Girl jumps into car to a furious telling-off from her mum.

mudcow007

travelling down the trans-pennine track (disused railway track that runs through liverpool) its a magnet for scallywags but it litrally runs to about 500 yrds from my house an runs all the way to work, rode on there last week to avoid the brutal headwind when came across 4-6 "kids" walking side by side i roll up to them doing about 8-10mph they dont move

i get the feeling something might happen so i dont stop but continue at about 8mph an ride through them when i see a gap unfortuantly one of the scroats walks into my shoulder causing him to shout "stuff"

why couldnt they have just moved, they seen me, i seen them i tried to do as much as i could

its the same with kids crossing the road when your driving down the road, they see cars as "they wont run me over" so they stroll across

it grinds my gears it does

bails87

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

Given the conflicting evidence, I can't imagine this case would ever have gone to court with a charge of causing death by dangerous cycling. Of course then we'll be told we need 'causing death by careless cycling', which will probably be punishable with... a fine of a few thousand pounds.

In other words, this is a complete waste of time.

How about ''Causing death by carless driving?'' - because a bad cyclist is pretty much indistinguishable from a driver on a bike.

:?

Not sure what that means? I'm a driver and a cyclist.

Am I a driver on a bike or a cyclist in a car?