Caravan-towing motorist knocks cyclist off after close pass dispute; "It's incredible to see": Wiggo hails Pidcock's brilliance (+ "return of Froome"); Tour leaves the Alps; Alpe d'Huez reaction; Fancy dress bike bus + more on the live blog

BTW yes - we should take all road deaths seriously.  These ones happen to be very rare (which is why newsworthy).

The news article appears to be signing "wrong-un" here - which may be true.  I'm a little unclear on the exact circumstances but that may reflect the state of the evidence.  Without further detail I guess it's tempting to do what sometimes happens in motor crashes - chalk it up to "bad individual doing something they're not supposed to".

It's not clear if segregated spaces for cyclists and pedestrians would have prevented this case.  However the standard UK practice of either cycles + cars or cycles + pedestrians isn't good for safety.  There is usually no alternative to cycling on roads which are sometimes very unpleasant.  This pushes people to keep near the speed of the motor traffic.  The other UK situation is to deliberately mix cyclists and pedestrians e.g. by blue-signing a footway.  It's sometimes unclear where these start and stop.  In general we do not mark separate pedestrian and cyclist space even where room is sufficient for both modes.

.

If only there had been some separation.

.

Then he wouldn't have needed to ride so fast, nor to ride off without stopping.

.

Oh, hang on ...

.

Back under your bridge troll.

Nothing chris has said is in any way defending the cyclist.  Asking why an accident happened is something that should be done to figure out how to prevent them in the future.

You are just proving that you are incapable of reading what is actually being discussed.

Not surprising it made the news.

It's like the old, dog bites man isn't a story, but man bites dog certainly is newsworthy. 

One of the first comments BTL on there was

Quote:

So you can be run over and killed by a hit an run cyclist, and they get just a 12 month sentence. Who will be out in 9 months, life is cheap it seems these days.

Wait until they find out how much harsher motorists are treated when they hit-and-run.  Oh, waitaminute... 

brooksby wrote:

One of the first comments BTL on there was

Quote:

So you can be run over and killed by a hit an run cyclist, and they get just a 12 month sentence. Who will be out in 9 months, life is cheap it seems these days.

Wait until they find out how much harsher motorists are treated when they hit-and-run.  Oh, waitaminute... 

To be fair, I think that cowardly leaving the scene should garner a longer sentence. Alliston got 18 months and IIRC didn't leave the scene, so a 12 month sentence seems light in comparison.

I'd prefer both of them to have gotten lifetime driving bans and maybe shorter prison sentences as I don't think it's likely for a cyclist to cause a death and not change the way they cycle i.e. they're less likely to be a danger to the public.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

One of the first comments BTL on there was

Quote:

So you can be run over and killed by a hit an run cyclist, and they get just a 12 month sentence. Who will be out in 9 months, life is cheap it seems these days.

Wait until they find out how much harsher motorists are treated when they hit-and-run.  Oh, waitaminute... 

To be fair, I think that cowardly leaving the scene should garner a longer sentence. Alliston got 18 months and IIRC didn't leave the scene, so a 12 month sentence seems light in comparison.

I'd prefer both of them to have gotten lifetime driving bans and maybe shorter prison sentences as I don't think it's likely for a cyclist to cause a death and not change the way they cycle i.e. they're less likely to be a danger to the public.

Possibly... but first it would actually have to be an offence. I'm not sure what the point of even mentioning it is in these case - they don't list all the other perfectly legal things that the accused is 'guilty' of.

jh2727 wrote:

Possibly... but first it would actually have to be an offence. I'm not sure what the point of even mentioning it is in these case - they don't list all the other perfectly legal things that the accused is 'guilty' of.

Yes, I'd welcome a change in the law so that there is a legal requirement for people to attempt to render assistance (e.g. phone for an ambulance) after a collision. Although leaving the scene is a crime for motorists, there's no obligation for bikes/scooters/joggers etc. which I think is a mistake.

hawkinspeter wrote:

jh2727 wrote:

Possibly... but first it would actually have to be an offence. I'm not sure what the point of even mentioning it is in these case - they don't list all the other perfectly legal things that the accused is 'guilty' of.

Yes, I'd welcome a change in the law so that there is a legal requirement for people to attempt to render assistance (e.g. phone for an ambulance) after a collision. Although leaving the scene is a crime for motorists, there's no obligation for bikes/scooters/joggers etc. which I think is a mistake.

No legal obligation. But I'd say there's a human decency obligation. (Just an observation, I'm not disagreeing with you.)

Steve K wrote:

No legal obligation. But I'd say there's a human decency obligation. (Just an observation, I'm not disagreeing with you.)

Exactly. When there's no legal obligation to render assistance, there's virtually an incentive to get away and hope to not get caught.

The Recorder of Cardiff, Judge Tracey Lloyd-Clarke, told McGinn:

“You bear the responsibility of having ended someone’s life"

He does and I'm happy to see he has been punished, especially as it seems he has a drivers licence. It's just a real shame that if he'd been in a car we all know things would have been very different.

NOtotheEU wrote:

The Recorder of Cardiff, Judge Tracey Lloyd-Clarke, told McGinn:

“You bear the responsibility of having ended someone’s life"

He does and I'm happy to see he has been punished, especially as it seems he has a drivers licence. It's just a real shame that if he'd been in a car we all know things would have been very different.

I'm not sure if it said anywhere that he has a killing driving licence. It isn't a requirement to receive a driving ban.

No, one of the strange things you get when watching channel 5's cop car shows is the number of bans given to people without licences, even to those under the age of seventeen.

"McGinn, a father, was jailed for 12 months and banned from driving for two years and six months"

A driving ban for an offence committed on a bike. I didn't think it was possible to get points on your licence or a drving ban for an activity which doesn't require a licence?

EDIT: apparently it's possible to get your licence suspended for ANY offence if convicted in court.
https://ukcyclerules.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/can-you-lose-your-driving-...

Yep, I recall a case a few years back where a motorist who was flashing his lights at oncoming drivers to warn them of a mobile speed camera got points on his license for it, even though the charge (perverting the course of justice) wasn't/isn't a driving offence.

IanGlasgow wrote:

A drvinig ban for an offence committed on a bike. I didn't think it was possible to get points on your licence or a drving ban for an activity which doesn't require a licence?

I believe (IANAL but was told this by a cycling one) that you can be banned from driving for offences such as being drunk when riding a bike, including being banned from applying for a licence if you don't have one, but you can't be given points.

He should of been driving a van then he would have been acquited as happened in this case where a 4 year old child was run over on the pavement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514