Woman left with 'potentially life-changing injuries' after hit-and-run with cyclist closes East Street in Bedminster

hawkinspeter wrote:

Could this be the new Alliston?

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bedminster-east-street-cyclist-crash-2975260

Quote:

A cyclist who slammed into a pensioner leaving her with life-threatening injuries has been jailed.

Connor Coltman was pedalling at speed when he collided with Angela Horseman as she crossed East Street in Bedminster.

Having stopped momentarily as the 70-year-old lay unconscious in the road Coltman, who thought he had killed her, fled the scene.

He was later picked up, wearing different clothes, on the train track between Bedminster and Bristol Temple Meads.

Coltman was due to face a four-day trial in October but on June 13 he pleaded guilty to causing bodily harm to Angela Horseman by wanton or furious driving - a piece of legislation which dates back to 1861.

The 27-year-old, of East Street in Bedminster, also admitted a charge of failing to appear at court.

Judge William Hart jailed him for 16 months, as the court heard Mrs Horseman's world has been turned upside down.

Hr told Coltman: "Mrs Horseman faced the most serious of injuries, yet you who caused it face a sentence, if convicted after trial, which could only merit two years.

"Where death is caused there could be a manslaughter charge.

"This is not so here.

"There was inflicting grievous bodily harm as an alternative charge, but the crown has not pursued that."

The judge, having been shown CCTV of people crossing East Street, added: "Perhaps the council should review the road.

"I saw a lot of fast cyclists."

Yes, read this one today.  104 Bristol Post comments BTL and counting.  Lots of people utterly convinced that the old lady had been killed.  One reference to Alliston, so far. 

Lots of requests for banning shared space (it didn't take place in shared space), and for banning cyclists from the roads completely (cos they don't pay for them, innit), and for updating the law to allow for 'causing death by...' type offences.

Pretty much nobody on there seemed able to see how rare a cyclist injuring or killing someone actually is, certainly when compared to injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicles.

(When was that road safety review happening, again...?)

HawkinsPeter wrote:

There's an update: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/cyclist-denies-knocking-...

Quote:

A cyclist has denied seriously injuring a pensioner in Bedminster. Conor Coltman appeared before Bristol magistrates charged with knocking down 70-year-old Angela Horseman. The pensioner was struck while crossing East Street around 9am on Tuesday (January 15, 2019). Police said she suffered “potentially life-changing injuries” in the crash while the rider left the scene. Coltman pleaded not guilty to two charges at Bristol Magistrates’ Court. (Thursday, January 17). The 26-year-old, of East Street, pleaded not guilty to causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.

Also says he was remanded in custody.

I'm glad that the police take road safety so seriously, and will of course lock up as a precaution - before trial - every motorist who runs someone over or runs them off the road... 

slappop wrote:

Here's hoping they catch the little shit who scarpered off after doing this. ...

They caught them later the same day.  They've been charged with causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving and wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm without intent (according to the BBC).

slappop wrote:

Here's hoping they catch the little shit who scarpered off after doing this. Road users always have a duty of care to the more vulnerable ones in the 'hierachy of kinetic energy'. (Sensible countries, of course, enshrine this in law with strict liability).

One can't help wondering, though, if her injuries could have been ameliorated had she been wearing a helmet...

Are pedestrians more vulnerable than cyclists - all other things being equal (e.g. in this case the woman was probably older and perhaps frail)?  I operate on the basis that I will come off worst in a collision with a pedestrian whilst on my bicycle.  I give them as wide a berth as possible, still didn't help when an inattentive one managed to knock me off last summer.

Redvee wrote:

This latest charge for the person is one of many he's had including shoplifitng and assault and a recent stay at 19 Cambridge Road for 12 weeks from early October.

Yeah I spotted that, looks like he's been in and out of courts for all sorts of things

Redvee wrote:

This latest charge for the person is one of many he's had including shoplifitng and assault and a recent stay at 19 Cambridge Road for 12 weeks from early October.

Yeah I spotted that, looks like he's been in and out of courts for all sorts of things

HawkinsPeter wrote:

I heard someone on here state that there's no actual requirement for a bike/pedestrian to remain at the scene of a collision, so I wonder what they charged the suspect with?

That was probably me.

The requirements to stop, report, and/or provide details comes from the Road Traffic Act 1988, specifically s.170. (1988 c.52 Part VII S.170).[1]

The act specifically states "mechanically propelled": this does not mean that there is a mechanism within it's propulsion, but rather that the motive force comes from a battery, engine, turbine, reactor etc - if you're pedaling, cranking, using an animal etc, it's not mechanically propelled.

E-bikes aren't mechanically propelled either; they're mechanically assisted, unless you're running entirely off a manual throttle - in which case you're right buggered now, mate.

So, when cycling, no need to stop, no need to offer details, no need to report to the police.
However, leaving an RTC with a pedestrian, especially a wounded one, is a dick move. If it's because you feel endangered, OK, fine - get away but then call the police to report or least an ambulance... Is what I'd have said before Alliston. Now, I'm not sure what I'd do, and I think it depends on what happened.

Also note s170(5) - invalid carriages, regardless of type, are not required to stop nor report nor provide details. This includes handcycles and other adaptives - a nice bit of law to know when encountering twats parked on pavements such as to leave no option but to scrape through. Any damage caused? Ah well, bye!

I've made use of this quirk within the last week, in fact - wheelchair only, no cycle attatched, white SUV parked blocking a drop kerb, only way down was by scraping along the front bumper.
Accidentally took the license plate off with my wheel...Didn't stop, no remorse.

[1]https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

I heard someone on here state that there's no actual requirement for a bike/pedestrian to remain at the scene of a collision, so I wonder what they charged the suspect with?

That was probably me. The requirements to stop, report, and/or provide details comes from the Road Traffic Act 1988, specifically s.170. (1988 c.52 Part VII S.170).[1]-snip-

It's a shame that inconsiderate parking has put you in that position. Not only are cars taking up lots of expensively maintained (ha) roads, but they're also taking up pavement space as well.

It's incredible infuriating, and I'm now at the point where I have zero compunction, compassion nor hesitation towards damaging or potentially damaging vehicles that are obstructing my passage along the pavement - whether that's risking damage from a narrow gap, or literally using bits of the car to pull myself along in full knowledge that it'll cause damage[1], in short, fuck 'em.

However, it's not all bad - it does mean that I now know the law around my requirements, rights, responsibilities etc as both an invalid carriage user and a cyclist - It also means that I now know when a Road Traffic Order banning cycles isn't actually applicable to handcyclists, which is most of the time!

It's more a problem for other cripples, though, who might not know their rights and exactly what they can and cannot do - and more so for those who aren't, uh, lets go with ornery to force issues when necessary.

[1]Note; Not intentionally causing damage, as that would be a criminal offence. If I'm using bits of car to drag myself along, it's because they've parked so badly that I literally don't have enough room to grab my 'rims to push, or because the pavement is so damaged from these berks that it's pitted and cratered such that I would get stuck if I tried.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

I heard someone on here state that there's no actual requirement for a bike/pedestrian to remain at the scene of a collision, so I wonder what they charged the suspect with?

That was probably me. The requirements to stop, report, and/or provide details comes from the Road Traffic Act 1988, specifically s.170. (1988 c.52 Part VII S.170).[1]-snip-

It's a shame that inconsiderate parking has put you in that position. Not only are cars taking up lots of expensively maintained (ha) roads, but they're also taking up pavement space as well.

It's incredible infuriating, and I'm now at the point where I have zero compunction, compassion nor hesitation towards damaging or potentially damaging vehicles that are obstructing my passage along the pavement - whether that's risking damage from a narrow gap, or literally using bits of the car to pull myself along in full knowledge that it'll cause damage[1], in short, fuck 'em. However, it's not all bad - it does mean that I now know the law around my requirements, rights, responsibilities etc as both an invalid carriage user and a cyclist - It also means that I now know when a Road Traffic Order banning cycles isn't actually applicable to handcyclists, which is most of the time! It's more a problem for other cripples, though, who might not know their rights and exactly what they can and cannot do - and more so for those who aren't, uh, lets go with ornery to force issues when necessary. [1]Note; Not intentionally causing damage, as that would be a criminal offence. If I'm using bits of car to drag myself along, it's because they've parked so badly that I literally don't have enough room to grab my 'rims to push, or because the pavement is so damaged from these berks that it's pitted and cratered such that I would get stuck if I tried.

I can't say that I blame you.

Another thing that puzzles me is that a lot of motorists are really possessive/protective of their vehicle and yet leave it lying around where not only can anyone cause damage to it, but quite often you have to expend effort in order to not damage/scuff their paintwork.

I'd quite happily admit to being protective of my bike, but I don't leave it where it would cause an obstruction - that's just dumb.

In former lives, I've lived in Eastern Europe and South Asia. In some EE countries, parking on pavements is legally permitted, required even - the area to park in is marked out by paint lines. Drivers are supposed to leave a certain width, I think it's 1.5m, clear on the pavement - but of course many, most in some places, just drive up to the wall, completely blocking the pavement. Nothing is done about it. 

In SA it's a different story - drivers are not possessive or protective of their cars in the same way. You can stop in traffic and lean on a car roof, no one cares. (This does not mean people are "not materialistic" it's more likely a greater pragmatism.)

Crippledbiker wrote:

This includes handcycles and other adaptives - a nice bit of law to know when encountering twats parked on pavements such as to leave no option but to scrape through. Any damage caused? Ah well, bye! I've made use of this quirk within the last week, in fact - wheelchair only, no cycle attatched, white SUV parked blocking a drop kerb, only way down was by scraping along the front bumper. Accidentally took the license plate off with my wheel...Didn't stop, no remorse. [1]https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

Absolutely.  As I've said (probably more than once) if it was a dumped sofa or mattress blocking the pavement or drop kerb, nobody would object if you happened to damage it in trying to get past it, so I don't see that an illegally-parked vehicle should be any different.

Cars appear to get special dispensation that other objects left in the street don't, but in my view that should only apply if they are somewhere they are legally allowed to be.

(In fairness I guess the same would have to apply to any bike left locked in a place that causes a real obstruction.)

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It's often difficult to know on which side to come down.  If you run into someone on a bike (or in a car), the 'decent thing' is of course to stop and see if that person is OK.  

But Alliston changed all of that.  

^ This.
I've been arrested for no good reason, lost a day's pay and a night's sleep etc., no fun at all.
It's risky to hang around if you're a cyclist even when you've done absolutely nothing wrong.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It's often difficult to know on which side to come down.  If you run into someone on a bike (or in a car), the 'decent thing' is of course to stop and see if that person is OK.  

But Alliston changed all of that.  

^ This.
I've been arrested for no good reason, lost a day's pay and a night's sleep etc., no fun at all.
It's risky to hang around if you're a cyclist even when you've done absolutely nothing wrong.

However, if you later get caught then it's going to make you look guilty.

The fact that you're on a bicycle means you're already 'guilty' in the eyes of the person who runs Britain - namely, the editor of the Daily Mail. 

HawkinsPeter wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It's often difficult to know on which side to come down.  If you run into someone on a bike (or in a car), the 'decent thing' is of course to stop and see if that person is OK.  

But Alliston changed all of that.  

^ This.
I've been arrested for no good reason, lost a day's pay and a night's sleep etc., no fun at all.
It's risky to hang around if you're a cyclist even when you've done absolutely nothing wrong.

However, if you later get caught then it's going to make you look guilty.

If you have to be "caught" then it's likely you are guilty?
If you've done nothing wrong there should not be any need for you to be "caught".

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It's often difficult to know on which side to come down.  If you run into someone on a bike (or in a car), the 'decent thing' is of course to stop and see if that person is OK.  

But Alliston changed all of that.  

^ This.
I've been arrested for no good reason, lost a day's pay and a night's sleep etc., no fun at all.
It's risky to hang around if you're a cyclist even when you've done absolutely nothing wrong.

 I do wonder about who gets arrested and who doesn't, and what determines that.  I don't understand the system at all.

It's very common to hear of road collisions, including with fatalities, where the driver is not arrested at the scene.

Wonder if there are any stats about the relative likelihood of arrests for motorists vs cyclists (vs...er... pedestrians running into each other)?  I have no reason to presume there's a difference there, but would be interesting to know.

Is it just down to how confident the cops are whether they can come and get you at home later if needed?  In which case I suppose motorists might be considered to be more identifiable and hence less arrestable.