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

Here’s hoping they catch the

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…

Crippledbiker wrote:

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.)

HawkinsPeter 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.

HawkinsPeter 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]

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

‘Wounding’? Is this not a

‘Wounding’? Is this not a strange charge for a road traffic collision.To my untrained ear it implies intent.

I hope the injured party makes a full recovery.

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.

mbrads72 wrote:

The police said the woman pedestrian involved in the collision with the man on a bike…

I look forward to the police referring to equivalent incidents as “The police said the cyclist involved in the collision with the man in a car…”

#notholdingmybreath

I get the arguments behind this – but when you collide with a car, it’s the car you hit and the car that does the damage on account of its being rather heavy. Being hit by a bicycle is probably no big deal – it’s the 80kg lump on top that also comes into with contact you and does the more damage.

Anyway, I hope the woman in this story makes a good recovery.

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.