death by dangerous cycling

[W W Biffta]

not stricly on topic, probabaly more interesting for the raft on anti cyclist sentiment in the comments, but:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blogs/talking_ ... 80155.html

i remeber this at teh time, very strange he was not prosecuted for manslaughter, but really another step towards insurance and road tax for cyclists

moved i see, soz about that, i wasnt sure which one ppl use for general stuff (you will be covered by this law on a pre 98 bike too you know lol.)

 

[Tazio]

Sadly the description of the accident is one I recognize. As I live in the city I quite often go for a Sunday ride up a shared pedestrian/cycle track that runs through Edinburgh following the river through town. I chuck a bell on the bike and enjoy a slow leisurely ride and acknowledge the fact that there are dogwalkers and families on the path by always saying hello or making eye contact and thanking them for letting me past.

However there are parts where it is quite steep and offroad in nature and when you reach those parts you often get lads on full sussers hammering past you at unsuitable speeds. I know they are coming as I can recognise the sound they make due to chain devices but a lot of walkers don't. I've lost count of the amount of near misses I've seen with kids and dogs. Sometimes feeling I have to apologise for these idiots to the people they have missed. I have also been forced off the path myself as they hammer towards you and refuse to drop down to one bikes width.

Any time I have been on a retrobike ride everyone on them has been polite to walkers and chatted to them thus improving people perception of cyclists behaviour. There is a time and place for that type of riding and shared areas is not it.

I have also remonstrated with a number of cyclists on my way to and from work for riding through red lights and across pedestrian crossing etc. In fact the only close shave I have had in the last year while cycling in town was with another cyclist who went through a red light in front of me as I was travelling at full speed (luckily not too fast with me) causing me to have to brake hard and go into a skid to avoid hitting him. His response was to shout F**k off and carry on his way.

These idiots are the type that get us all a bad name. The fact that he was apparently riding a £6k bike in town gives me an instant (though possibly wrong) picture in my head of him.

 

[Drencrom]

Part of the problem is the tarring of all cyclists with the same brush. The bulk of the complaints I see in the media tend to be aimed at commuters, both cyclists and motorists. I don't think it's hard to see why cyclists commuting at speed with only scant regard for other people gets on other road/path users nerves. Cyclists have to accept that there is very little protection on the road, so therefore need to ride carefully and respectfully (but confidentally), whereas on cycle tracks/dual use paths the pedestrian has the right of way at all times. They are not race tracks for you to get to work - leave earlier and ride slower, or ride on the road if you want to beat that personal best.

Pavement cycling on the other hand is just downright dangerous and beyond hypocritical as far as I'm concerned. Just because the road is a dangerous place, why shift the danger to pedestrians?

Maybe we have a responsibilty to ride with respect towards others to improve the image of cyclists, but fundamentally I've always felt it's because we should respect the law and ultimately other human beings, regardless of their means of transport.

 

[Drencrom]

but really another step towards insurance and road tax for cyclists

I don't really see how; road tax doesn't exist after all. It might seem like a pedantic point, but Vehicle Excise Duty exists mainly for wear and tear on the roads - I'm not sure how bikes can be lumped in with this. We pay for the roads through so much taxation in other areas of life that any motorist believing that the £180-ish amount of 'road tax' is enough to keep the network open and up to date is a moron.

Winston Churchill summed it up in the 1920's :"It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created".

 

[one-eyed_jim]

Sadly the description of the accident is one I recognize. As I live in the city I quite often go for a Sunday ride up a shared pedestrian/cycle track that runs through Edinburgh following the river through town.

That's not at all the situation as I remember reading about it at the time.

The cyclist was riding through quiet back streets and turned a corner to find a group of teenagers (who'd been drinking in a local park) walking along or across the road. He shouted but didn't immediately slow down. The girl who was killed had just stepped into the road when the collision occurred, and fell back onto the pavement. The cyclist was found guilty because he admitted he could have braked sooner, or crossed to the other side of the road.

The fact that he was apparently riding a £6k bike in town gives me an instant (though possibly wrong) picture in my head of him.

You should try not to let your prejudices cloud your judgment.

 

[Tazio]

Sadly the description of the accident is one I recognize. As I live in the city I quite often go for a Sunday ride up a shared pedestrian/cycle track that runs through Edinburgh following the river through town.

That's not at all the situation as I remember reading about it at the time.

The cyclist was riding through quiet back streets and turned a corner to find a group of teenagers (who'd been drinking in a local park) walking along or across the road. He shouted but didn't immediately slow down. The girl who was killed had just stepped into the road when the collision occurred, and fell back onto the pavement. The cyclist was found guilty because he admitted he could have braked sooner, or crossed to the other side of the road.

The fact that he was apparently riding a £6k bike in town gives me an instant (though possibly wrong) picture in my head of him.

You should try not to let your prejudices cloud your judgment.

I'm basing it on the report in the link in the OP.

"Rhiannon was walking with friends on the pavement near her home when a cyclist approached the group at speed, jumping from the road to cut across the pavement where they stood and yelling, "Move, because I'm not stopping!" He was travelling so fast that the group had no time to react."

As to the second point I did state that my image was possibly wrong. And what do you infer that my prejudices are? If you mean young lads riding in an unsuitable way on public roads you are correct. This months MBUK has a piece in it based on a race through Bristol between a single speeder and a DH bike that I think is one of the most irresponsible articles I have read in a long time.

 

[Neil]

Sadly the description of the accident is one I recognize. As I live in the city I quite often go for a Sunday ride up a shared pedestrian/cycle track that runs through Edinburgh following the river through town.

That's not at all the situation as I remember reading about it at the time.

The cyclist was riding through quiet back streets and turned a corner to find a group of teenagers (who'd been drinking in a local park) walking along or across the road. He shouted but didn't immediately slow down. The girl who was killed had just stepped into the road when the collision occurred, and fell back onto the pavement. The cyclist was found guilty because he admitted he could have braked sooner, or crossed to the other side of the road.

The test, here, and the measure of whether something needs to be done is to compare a similar scenario, were the cycle / cyclist a driver of a vehicle at the time.

If, in that instance, a driver would have been charged with (death by) dangerous driving, as opposed to DWDCA, then I suspect it's a reasonable proposition that there's an anomaly or gap in the law. After all, a cycle / cyclist at speed may not be as dangerous as a vehicle at speed, but surely is more so than merely other pedestrians.

Culpability, in this instance, seems to be this "He shouted but didn't immediately slow down." - from the sounds of things, the cyclist apparently / allegedly didn't modify his cycling after encountering a hazard.

 

[Drencrom]

This months MBUK has a piece in it based on a race through Bristol between a single speeder and a DH bike that I think is one of the most irresponsible articles I have read in a long time.

Haven't read it (or any MBUK for about a decade) but history repeats. MBUK filmed Getta Grip back in late '95/early '96 on the streets and pavements of Bristol. I might have looked cool seeing Steve Peat jumping flights of steps, but the Police didn't take too kindly back then. It was tough back then, and even tougher now 'round here. Bristol might be our cycling capital, but the attitude to cyclists hasn't ever been lower than it is at the moment. Cheers MBUK, more ammunition for the local press.

 

[Drencrom]

Culpability, in this instance, seems to be this "He shouted but didn't immediately slow down." - from the sounds of things, the cyclist apparently / allegedly didn't modify his cycling after encountering a hazard.

Indeed, that seems to be at the heart of this case, and of plenty I encounter. Cyclists have a responsibility legally and morally: the right of way does not belong to the cyclist on a path or cycle track.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

I'm basing it on the report in the link in the OP.

An article written by an MP with an axe to grind. In court there was disagreement about who was where and who said what, but it was established that the cyclist was approaching at 15-20mph along the road, not along a shared path or on the pavement.

And what do you infer that my prejudices are? If you mean young lads riding in an unsuitable way on public roads you are correct.

That's not what you said. You said that "the fact that he was apparently riding a £6k bike in town gives me an instant (though possibly wrong) picture in my head of him." - not that he was riding in an unsuitable way on a public road (he was 36 incidentally) but that he was riding a very expensive bike in town. Whatever that picture is (and I can't begin to guess) it's a prejudice, because the value of his bike has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.