log in
register

Cyclist facing manslaughter charge

Viewing 15 replies - 61 through 75 (of 123 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
  • Author
    Replies
  • August 16, 2017 at 10:02 am #900023
    0
    LastBoyScout
    peted76 wrote:
    LastBoyScout wrote:
    So far, no question of why wasn’t the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

    Double standards, much?

    Have you ever been to London? It can get quite busy at times and pedestrians are only moved to use infrastructure when infrastructure is either needed or convienient.. ergo the path of least resistance. Unless you’d prefer we were more American and had laws in place such as ‘jaywalking’ (which even sounds obnoxious) to add to the list of  things we can’t do this country. 

    Yes, many times. I’ve walked, cycled, driven a car and ridden a motorbike around London at all sorts of time of the day and week – I know what it’s like.

    My point was about the differences in reporting style – if it had been a cyclist knocked over by a car, there would no doubt have been a biased comment about the cyclist not being in a nearby cycle lane, or similar, and all the associated victim blaming.

    August 16, 2017 at 10:02 am #900021
    0
    alansmurphy

    Vehlin wrote:

    Vehlin wrote:

    alansmurphy wrote:
    And surely it should have been compared to the original bike with the original brakes?

    He WAS riding the bike with the original brakes. That bike has no front brake as standard and doesn’t have the mounts to fit one. Granted they could have tested it against a road bike rather than a mountain bike, but it wouldn’t have made that much difference I don’t think.

    Casper, road and mountain make huge difference, position of brakes, disc VS rim, tyre grip and in and in. I hear they ride up/down mountains differently too 🙂

    I mentioned removing the front brake as that’s what some reports had said, unsure whether it ever had one…

    I’ve also no doubt the cyclist was I the wrong to be riding it, just question the idiotic evidence presented. As brooksbys post says, thinking distance for a car driver at 20mph would result in a collision yet our ‘expert’ witness here doesn’t even account for that…

    August 16, 2017 at 9:49 am #900019
    0
    freespirit1
    LastBoyScout wrote:
    So far, no question of why wasn’t the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

    Double standards, much?

    Pedestrians are under NO obligation to use pedestrian crossings or to even cross only  the green man is shown.

    It cannot be classed as jaywalking as the offence does not exist in the UK.

    Therefore it cannot be double standards.

    August 16, 2017 at 9:27 am #900017
    0
    cyclisto

    The problem here is that
    The problem here is that young lad killed a lady with a illegal vehicle to be driven on the roads. It is the equivalent of killing somebody with an Formula 1 car on the road for the judges.
    My point is that brakeless fixies look cool but the combination of skinny 23mm tyres and a brake force applied only on the wrong wheel and that highly relies on the riders skills simply doesn’t work. Don’t encourage brakeless fixie riding on public roads

    August 16, 2017 at 9:13 am #900015
    0
    peted76
    LastBoyScout wrote:
    So far, no question of why wasn’t the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

    Double standards, much?

    Have you ever been to London? It can get quite busy at times and pedestrians are only moved to use infrastructure when infrastructure is either needed or convienient.. ergo the path of least resistance. Unless you’d prefer we were more American and had laws in place such as ‘jaywalking’ (which even sounds obnoxious) to add to the list of  things we can’t do this country. 
     

     

    August 16, 2017 at 9:02 am #900013
    0
    Dantenspeed

    I fancied riding a fixed gear

    I fancied riding a fixed gear on the road, right up until the point I actually tried one in the velodrome. Braking by resisting the pedals is not substitute for a proper brake.

    He should have had at least a front brake – end of.

    Planet X – and indeed other track bikes retailers – could do with being more explicit on their websites with what the bikes are for. They’ve been riding the ‘fixie boom’ for years and they need to clearly differentiate their models. I’ve seen this particular model online with a front brake attached with what looks like the original forks – though I could be wrong. There’s nothing stopping them selling them all with a front brake either attached or included, or even use it as an upgrade but they shouldn’t wash their hands of that possibility given that a significant number will end up on the road.

    As it stands they make no mention of its road use whatsoever – they should either explicitly say it shouldn’t be used or provide the option with a front brake.

    Some of these comments about the pedestrian are pretty distasteful, she shouldn’t have had to pay with her life whatever the mode of transport that hit her.

    August 16, 2017 at 8:54 am #900011
    0
    CasperCCC

    Who here rides fixed? Do you

    Who here rides fixed? Do you have any idea how much less effective skidding is than using your brakes?

    i used to ride with a front brake only, but when I started going out on clubruns I fitted a rear brake, because I thought it was safer.

    Riding at almost 20mph through a busy London street without the ability to stop properly is the act of a selfish idiot. If he *has* to ride brakeless, then it’s his responsibility to ride at a speed where he’s in control of his bike.

    Yes, pedestrians step out in front of cyclists (and drivers), and they shouldn’t. But it’s the moral responsibility of the vehicle user to make sure that they’re in control of their vehicle.

    Seriously, imagine how this board would be reacting if someone was killed by a driver in a vehicle that was missing the *most fundamental* safety mechanism.

    I agree that the coverage is sensational, and that people are killed by irresponsible drivers every day. And that it’s “man bites dog” – this only gets the amount of coverage as it does because it’s so rare. And that drivers get away with things they shouldn’t. And that pedestrians can be idiots, and will walk out in front of cyclists without checking properly.

    But there’s a whole load of Trump-esque comments on here with a “bad people on both sides… on both sides…”approach. If you’re in control of a vehicle, you’ve got a moral responsibility to be look after more vulnerable road users.  Riding at 20mph on a city street with no front brake is so far short of what’s acceptable that all the whataboutery should fade into the background.

    August 16, 2017 at 8:42 am #900009
    0
    LastBoyScout

    So far, no question of why

    So far, no question of why wasn’t the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

    Double standards, much?

    August 16, 2017 at 8:10 am #900007
    0
    brooksby

    Yorkshire wallet wrote:

    Yorkshire wallet wrote:
    Can you really see a car driver seeing court for this at the same speed? 20mph with a 10mph collision speed would probably see the blame fall on the pedestrian, especially if in phone-zombie-mode. Pedestrians have right of way, bla bla but pedestrians really don’t seem to give a shit about walking out in front of bikes, where they wouldn’t do it to cars.

    It seems to me that Lesson One to be taken from this whole sorry incident, is that even 20mph is probably pushing it for *any* vehicle to be moving in close proximity to pedestrians…  

    Come on, people, we’re happy for 40 tonne HGVs to drive at 30mph right next to pavements?!?

    (and with that, I’ve left the building on this discussion, ‘cos I suspect I can guess how the court case is going to pan out.  Read the article dottigirl linked to upthread, btw.)

    August 16, 2017 at 7:58 am #900005
    0
    TriTaxMan

    I think the key to this

    I think the key to this matter is the fact that the cyclist was on the road with a bike which was not road legal.  If the bike had a front brake fitted, then I think this would never have seen the light of day, but because he was cycling without a front brake he is being held to account.

    As people had said if this had been a car and a pedestrian had died, then in all likelyhood this would have been a non-event, however, if it had been a car with no valid MOT then the charges would likely be similar.

    Too many people are getting hung up on the cyclist being the perpetrator here and ignoring the deficiencies in his equipment.

    August 16, 2017 at 7:44 am #900003
    0
    Anonymous

    Can you really see a car
    Can you really see a car driver seeing court for this at the same speed? 20mph with a 10mph collision speed would probably see the blame fall on the pedestrian, especially if in phone-zombie-mode.

    Pedestrians have right of way, bla bla but pedestrians really don’t seem to give a shit about walking out in front of bikes, where they wouldn’t do it to cars.

    August 16, 2017 at 7:43 am #900001
    0
    brooksby
    Beecho wrote:
    FWIW… I get why he shouted at her straight after. I commute in London and have been taken out by pedestrians stepping out in front of me 5 times, always coming off far worse. The adrenaline surges through you. Last fella ran off after I shouted at him and not a soul checked if I was alright. OK, I was livid, but bleeding and could have easily been seriously (SERIOUSLY) injured by a vehicle, but got lucky. 

    Yeah, I thought that too.  Of course he shouted, before (presumably) realising she was more badly injured than he’d thought .   I know I would have, and I’m really not sure why the papers seem to imply that that makes him a bad person (the shouting afterward).

    August 16, 2017 at 7:40 am #899999
    0
    brooksby
    Vehlin wrote:
    alansmurphy wrote:
    And surely it should have been compared to the original bike with the original brakes?

    He WAS riding the bike with the original brakes. That bike has no front brake as standard and doesn’t have the mounts to fit one. Granted they could have tested it against a road bike rather than a mountain bike, but it wouldn’t have made that much difference I don’t think.

    Isn’t that in the evidence so far presented, that the cyclist bought the bike saying he was going to use it as a track bike?  That’s part of the prosecution’s argument: that a bike with only a fixed real wheel and no front brake is not legal to ride on the roads in the UK.

    August 16, 2017 at 7:38 am #899997
    0
    brooksby

    alansmurphy wrote:

    alansmurphy wrote:
    Alternatively, and to sound somewhat like his crass comments in defence, give someone doing 18mph less than 10 metres to stop (maybe around half that) and the likelihood is that there will be a collision.

    Car stopping distances, according to the HC:

    20mph thinking 6 metres, braking 6 metres = 12 metres
    30mph thinking 9 metres, braking 14 metres = 23 metres
    40mph thinking 12 metres, braking 24 metres = 36 metres

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but that means a car would have definitely hit a pedestrian stepping out in front, ten metres away…

    August 16, 2017 at 7:24 am #899995
    0
    Vehlin

    alansmurphy wrote:

    alansmurphy wrote:
    And surely it should have been compared to the original bike with the original brakes?

    He WAS riding the bike with the original brakes. That bike has no front brake as standard and doesn’t have the mounts to fit one. Granted they could have tested it against a road bike rather than a mountain bike, but it wouldn’t have made that much difference I don’t think.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 61 through 75 (of 123 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.