A cyclist has been found not guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving in relation to an incident which saw him collide with a pensioner as he cycled on a towpath, the 81-year-old woman falling to the ground and dying in hospital 12 days later.
As with the recent coroner’s inquest into the death of an elderly pedestrian in a collision with a cyclist in Regent’s Park, in London, the criminal trial at Oxford Crown Court was subject to national media attention, such as the coverage seen in The Telegraph, and has again prompted some to suggest the need for ‘dangerous cycling’ laws that were postponed due to the general election, but which Labour has said it would introduce once it formed a government.
Edward Bressan, a university lecturer, was found not guilty by a jury who heard evidence relating to the incident on 20 November 2022 on a towpath near Iffley Lock in Oxford. Polly Friedhoff “sustained serious injuries to her head, arms and ribs” and died in hospital 12 days later.
The court heard the cyclist had rung his bell to alert Mrs Friedhoff and her friend Ewa Huggins before attempting to overtake to their left as they were walking on the right-hand side. Mr Bressan had slowed down and estimated his speed was “probably 3mph” when there was an “unavoidable” collision as “both of us were moving and both of us were trying to take some kind of evasive action”.
While the cyclist told the court he does not have a “vivid memory” of “which part of the body or which part of the bicycle made contact”, there was a collision and Mrs Friedhoff fell to the ground.
During the trial, a defence witness called Nicholas Proudfoot, a professor in molecular biology at the University of Oxford, suggested the incident was less of a collision and more a case of Mrs Friedhoff having “lost her balance”.
He contacted the police two days after witnessing it and told the 999 operator: “The media is going on about a cyclist smashing into an old lady but it’s not what happened. My impression is not that the bike directly ran into her. She didn’t put her hands out at all and unfortunately fell over. My impression is very much that the lady lost her balance.
“She just flipped right over, she didn’t put out her hand out to stop herself at all, she just ended straight on the concrete path, the impact going unfortunately on her head. The cyclist was not a hit-and-run kind of guy. He was very concerned and very much involved and trying to care for her. I just want to protect the cyclist.”
In court, the prosecution suggested Mr Proudfoot may be biased after he admitted that he would “definitely describe” himself as “pro-cyclist”, something the professor denied, stating that his positive view of cycling is more “to do with the media and press” being “anti-cyclist” and attacking “a wonderful way to get around when it’s done safely”.
Prosecuting, Andrew Johnson had argued that “that Mr Bressan’s driving of his bicycle was reckless and that in overtaking the ladies, he caused bodily harm to Mrs Friedhoff”, but the jury reached a unanimous not guilty verdict yesterday.
The court also heard from Ms Huggins who said she saw her friend “basically flying” in front of her before “falling flat on the towpath”.
“Yes, at an angle and with incredible force actually, I can still hear her scalp hit the ground,” she said. “I can’t remember any shouting or bell-ringing before it happened.”
Mr Bressan concluded that he was “very upset” and apologised for the “very unfortunate accident”.
“However, I do not believe I was cycling carelessly or dangerously,” he said. “I was fully aware of my surroundings and gave adequate warning for the pedestrians to move out of the way. She moved into my line and made the accident unavoidable.”
This morning, the Telegraph has published an interview with Mrs Friedhoff’s sons, both of whom say they are cyclists and argue that while they believe the “laws for prosecuting cyclists need to be updated” this should only come if cyclists are given “a safe space to cycle” and “more infrastructure”.
> “Dangerous cycling” law will be passed following election, Labour confirms
Andrew, who is reportedly part of the London Cycling Campaign, told the newspaper: “This punitive approach, I don’t agree with unless you give them what they need which is a safe space to cycle — this is crucial and it has not happened, it happens piecemeal or chaotically.
“The laws for prosecuting cyclists need to be updated and that’s very clear. It’s tribal and this is the problem. My personal view is that if you want cyclists to take more responsibility, then you need to give them more infrastructure. You give them more of a place on the road, and more infrastructure, then with rights come more responsibilities.”
Mrs Friedhoff’s brother Mike added his belief that the law needs to be updated. “The fact is part of the reason the evidence wasn’t strong enough is that we haven’t got a relevant law of the 21st century. We’re talking about an 1861 law about a horse cart,” he said. “It’s ridiculous and it’s irresponsible of the government not to put this right.”
The family added that they believe Mr Bressan is a “decent man” who had “made a mistake”.

























72 thoughts on “Cyclist not guilty of causing pedestrian’s death by “wanton or furious driving” after trial over “3mph” towpath collision”
Quote:
Can you imagine expecting any witnesses in a dangerous driving case being expected to be anti car or are otherwise biased towards the defendant?
It’s a difficult dance for
It’s a difficult dance for the prosecution I imagine. Driving is the normal activity, cycling not. So the defence get to use the “oddball” / “chose to put themselves in this position” or even “risk taker” lines, and you’ve got to be wary of accidentally associating the good drivers of the jury or the judge with anything negative!
wycombewheeler wrote:
Can you imagine expecting any witnesses in a dangerous driving case being expected to be anti car or are otherwise biased towards the defendant?
Beat me to it. Actually an absolutely shocking and disgusting implication by the prosecution that the witness was effectively lying under oath about the accused’s culpability because he was pro cycling. In general it wouldn’t be a good idea for justice if this were the case, but one sometimes thinks it’s a shame lawyers can’t be sued for defamation for what they say in court when such outrageous accusations are made.
Barristers will say anything
Barristers will say anything
Came across this today
” I posted about this before, but last month I was a witness in court describing how a man that I did not know, and had never met, battered me at my front door. His defence solicitor Kieran Clegg said I brought it on myself three times in court- because I didn’t shut the door. Even when you get as far as court there is a sneering male defence solicitor right there to cheer their male client on that batters you. “
https://x.com/LauraFMcConnell/status/1811625609732243488
WTF do these shitty right
WTF do these shitty right wing media outlets actually get from dumping on cyclists all the time: what is that actually about? What does it feel like to be a ‘journalist’ on those rags and having to type out lies and distortions every day? I just don’t get it.
lots of advertising revenue
lots of advertising revenue for oil companies and car companies
so be pro car always.
But it’s ever diminishing
But it’s ever diminishing revenue (which is circulation dependent) as their readers age and die and aren’t replaced.
traditionalists vs
traditionalists vs progressivists culture wars have been selling since the sixties
Why is the son calling for
Why is the brother calling for new death by dangerous cycling laws? This case didn’t even pass the threshold for careless cycling. It would make no difference to the outcome.
I had initially thought the tow path was very narrow, but that’s not the case, it’s almost as wide as a road and well surfaced with tarmac.
It reminds me of an incident that I had a while back where an elderly lady very nearly fell over as I passed by. It was on a wide track too, there was a dog, elderly lady and another lady across the full width of the road. Approaching them from behind, I slowed right down to their walking pace and rang my bell. They moved a bit to the right, so I assumed they had heard me. There was a three foot gap to the left of them, between the edge of the road and the dog. So I slowly rolled past… But the dog must have been deaf, as I gave the dog a massive surprise. It jumped with fright and moved to the right into the legs of the elderly lady who stumbled and nearly tripped over it.
Thankfully I was running front and rear cameras, so had anything happened, there would be no doubt about ringing bell, calling out etc. Being very careful and not even making any contact. It’s quite possible, had the elderly lady fallen, her companion may not have realised she’d tripped over the dog and could have accused me of colliding with her!
Sadly I think it is sensible
Sadly I think it is sensible these days to ride with a camera on your bike. A couple of years ago I was cycling to work and a school kid ran out from behind a lorry, colliding with me. She was obviously not hurt because by the time I’d picked myself up off the road she was already gone. However, I was glad I had my camera because had it turned out to be something more serious I would have been able to show that I was unable to avoid her because she simply ran into me.
Decent cameras are quite
Decent cameras are quite expensive though, and cheaper ones seem to have very short battery life.
In the article the claim is
In the article the claim is the “Victorian law” (ie the wanton furious driving law) weakened their case. Even though they admit the evidence was basically just one person’s word against another anyway.
But the Telegraph have a clear agenda with this thats more than just culture war stuff, they claimed police back new laws in an article the other week, when they just actually responded to the DfT consultation about it. Claimed councils spending “millions” on adult cycle training was a “frivolous waste”. Have had 3 articles already covering just this one case alone.
I’m surprised anyone who was part of the London cycling campaign would talk to them.
stonojnr wrote:
I’ve said it before, but I don’t see any newspapers out there campaigning for some serious revisions and updating of “the Victorian law” (the offences against the persons act 1861) which governs assault, GBH, etc…?
This annoys me because, while
This annoys me because, while it is clearly your duty to give way to the walkers, their dog is their responsibility, not yours. They have a duty to control their dog, deaf or otherwise.
They also have a duty to be aware of their surroundings. Walking across the whole path in a shared setting and without keeping vigilant for those approaching from behind is inconsiderate. That doesn’t trump the need for a cyclist to have greater care, but it doesn’t absolve the walkers of taking any care.
(and yes, this is different from cycling two abreast)
See the e-biker who was run
See the e-biker who was run into by a pedestrian at a green light ped crossing.
Initially press attacking the illegal ebike flying through red light, ploughing into a pedestrian, with witnesses discussing how it was all the riders fault and they tried to stop + detain them
Until CCTV footage emerged;
Oh; Green Light.
Oh; E-bike just been overtaken by a normal bike (i.e. doing ~15mph motor assist limit, so not illegal).
Oh; pedestrian ran into the cyclist, impacting the bike behind the rider.
Oh; rider reported incident to police.
Basically you had a crowd shouting at and grabbing the injured rider for being hit by a pedestrian so the rider fled.
People see what they want to
People see what they want to see…
Quote:
Can this be confirmed or denied by the LCC or does it fall under data protection?
“I was fully aware of my
“I was fully aware of my surroundings and gave adequate warning for the pedestrians to move out of the way. She moved into my line and made the accident unavoidable.”
I sounded my horn! It’s not my fault if the ped didn’t jump out of the way fast enough!
john_smith wrote:
Come on, that’s entirely unfair. According to the evidence given, which was accepted by the jury, the cyclist was doing 3 miles an hour, rang his bell, moved left to go round the pedestrian and she stepped into his path. Absolutely nothing like the comparison you’re trying to make.
john_smith wrote:
Yes, that’s a risky way to put things. However, it does sound, in context, as if the appropriate comment was that he had given adequate warning of his presence and had passed when the walkers were to one side.
I always ring my bell when
I always ring my bell when approaching pedestrians and slow down, but it does make me nervous when I don’t see any reaction to the bell especially if they have dogs or young children.
I’m not often actually asking people to move out of the way, just to alert them that I’m there. But what are you supposed to do if you don’t get a reaction? I would slow down and pass cautiously, but should I be waiting to pass until I’ve got a definite positive that they’re aware of my presence and aren’t just going to jump in front of me?
On a slightly different note, I do wonder sometimes why so many dog walkers on Southampton Common choose to walk their dogs on the cycle path, rather than in the huge empty open space. At least why, if they do choose to walk on the cycle path, they aren’t aware that there might be cyclists on it?
I call out in as friendly way
I call out in as friendly way as possible something like, “hello, can I pass on your left[/right], please”
If they’re walking dogs on the cycle path, I may be slightly less supplient. Especially if the dog is on (or off) a long lead.
I was on a cycle lane/shared
I was on a cycle lane/shared path the other week, with pedestrians just scattered randomly both sides of the path some in the cycle lane some not, most staring at phones, dogs off leads, children running around.
bit of a nightmare to navigate, so I ring my bell, nothing happens, nobody reacts they just carry on as before
so I think well ok Ive got to keep ringing my bell and adjust speed for each and every hazard Im approaching right as clearly they cant hear me, or theyre not paying attention and I dont want of these fools to step into me and claim I appeared from nowhere.
all told probably about 6 or 7 individual bell rings,finally pass the last pedestrian still staring at their phone walking in the cycle lane, who mutters “we heard you the first effin time mate”.
which i ignored, when I should have stopped and said, well if you had heard me the first time, as Im not psychic could you please in future acknowledge it in some way, like perhaps stepping out of the cycle lane, and not keep staring at your phone as you walk as that deprives you of the sense of seeing where you are walking.
stonojnr wrote:
“No, no, no – you’re confused, ‘mate’: its my other helmet which allows me to read minds!” 😉
I was asked to cycle on a
I was asked to cycle on a pedestrianised area of a shopping centre.
Not massively crowded but plenty of people around.
Nothing happened but the memory of it still scares me more than when I cycle on main roads, with drivers around me, on a regular basis with almost no concern.
On the cycle path at Elephant
On the cycle path at Elephant and Castle a couple of weeks ago I politely called out “Could you walk on the [completely empty and wider than the cycle path] pavement please so I can come through?” Completely ignored, I tried again, “Can I just come through please?” Response, “I heard you the first time and I’m not moving, there’s no law says I have to.” So I bunny hopped onto the (as I said, completely empty) pavement, went round him and back onto the cycle path, I’m sure he told people when he got home that there was a bloody cyclist riding on the pavement.
Rendel Harris wrote:
If you meet him again – Highways Act 1980, Wilful obstruction of the highway is the law that says he has to.
Tom_77 wrote:
I’ll bear it in mind!
I always shout ‘bike back’,
I always shout ‘bike back’, or, ‘bike front.’ If I don’t get a reaction I know the person is probably hard of hearing.
You can’t get it right for some people and that’s ultimately because you’re “cycling in their space”.
Since we’ve learned to get out of the way of cars (over a couple of generations, via lots of trial and fatal / crippling error) we’ve mostly seized on the idea that the compromise is that all the other space is for walking. (That’s a misunderstanding of course – it’s just sometimes less desirable, to some motorists…)
… so “cycling on the footpath!” *.
Bell / no bell? Can’t get that right for everyone either – because of above a few people interpret it not as “I am here” but “out of the way!” (cf. “friendly toot”) And it can be unnecessary noise pollution / bit distracting if you’re walking and keep hearing bells. OTOH some people will kick off even if you pass them very slow and wide without serving sonic notice – even when there’s zero need for you to alert them as there’s tons of space…
* TBF I think (with some exceptions) many such spaces at least started as footways / paths. I think the exact legal status can vary so I tend to avoid saying “cycle path” in the UK (certainly not for “shared use”) unless it’s clearly a dedicated one with special markings. Which are very rare … All so as not to spook my fellow vulnerable road users.
That path is a clearly marked
That path is a clearly marked national cycleway. Signposted regularly and conspicuously. It is also the Thames towpath and on any reasonably dry day tends to be very busy with walkers, tourists, rowing coaches on bikes staring at their rowers and trying to keep up as they shout at them and cycle commuters dodging Oxford traffic.
Carbon cycle wrote:
Well… not a few roads are also signposted as part of the NSN … I believe legally it depends how it was set up eg. was it converted to highway under the process per The Cycle Tracks Act 1984 (not well versed on this and subsequent developments though!).
Again though when you’re outnumbered considerably by pedestrians who know they’re right, that’s moot. Shouldn’t be, but will probably continue until we finally start doing these “the way that works in practice” (or have sufficient % people cycling, which likely needs the former)…
It’s quite rare for anybody
It’s quite rare for anybody to take offense at the bell, although there’s sometimes a problem with a large groups walking or standing and chatting oblivious to the bell. A man with a dog on a long lead shouted at me once, I asked him what he thought would happen to his dog if the lead got caught in my bike.
The worst person was a blind man who yelled abuse at me after I rang the bell to let him know I was nearby. The rules state clearly that we should ring a bell especially when passing vulnerable pedestrians and I’m sure being blind would fall into that category. There’s a strong chance that he’s never read the rules for cycling in shared spaces though.
I always make sure I either raise a hand in thanks or say thanks as I pass when somebody has acknowledged me. I try to be friendly and polite to people.
The vast majority of the time
The vast majority of the time I have no problems – as usual it’s the bad interactions which are unusually salient (this is on shared use paths away from motor-traffic around Edinburgh).
I don’t always ring – as I’ll always slow when passing – but I try to make some noise though.
A very few occasions I can remember folks getting boilingly angry *. A bit more common is a grumble (e.g. “it’s not just for bikes you know”) or just a look.
I try to remember to make eye contact and thank anyone who seems to have moved / waited for me. Quite a few people are positively friendly!
* A couple of people who I think didn’t realise the path was shared use – I hadn’t even passed them but was hanging back as I was turning off anyway and perhaps that worried them? One “big man” felt I’d encroached on his girlfriend’s space and even decided he was going to run after me – so (having sped up after passing them slowly) I slowed down again just enough so he didn’t get dropped and waited to see how far he could go!
The denouement
The denouement
https://youtu.be/aUU89xI_0Hs?t=194
Hirsute wrote:
Ah, that one never gets old 😀
“be considerate of other road
“be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians, and horse riders Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by calling out or ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.”
When necessary makes it a judgement call, as it should be
Having read a more detailed account of this incident I suspect
that he rang his bell as he came up behind them, they were on the rhs side of the path, he was on the LHS, the woman who was with the victim said “that’s a bike coming [or similar]” and moved further to the right (but doesn’t want to admit it now or has genuinely forgotton) and the victim moved, without looking, to the LHS intending to go to other side but actually stepped right in front of him. In which case, had he not rung his bell she would not have moved and probably would still be alive.
I can’t prove it of course, it is conjecture based on the evidence of the three people present who are still alive and their accounts are not entirely consistant
Agree, and I certainly echo
Agree, and I certainly echo your thoughts/actions.
Most people are either offended you have rung your bell (sometimes repeatedly as their is no obvious way of knowing they have heard you) or annoyed you did not ring your bell (when you actually did).
I have also been made to stop and wait on a stretch of a “National Cycle Route” by a “family group”, when asked if I could just squeeze through, I was verbally abused and told it was a footpath and “pedestrians had right of way.” When I pointed out it was a shared path and right of way does not extend to completely blocking the 3+ metre wide bridleway, I was told to “shut the f#ck up!”
Nothing like a relaxing Sunday afternoon bike ride to lift the spirit!
bensynnock wrote:
They’re not daft – they walk their dogs on the path, cycle or otherwise, to avoid treading in the dog eggs left by the more carefree members of society.
Daclu Trelub]
[quote
Off-topic, but what is it with the type of dog walker who dutifully follows the law by picking said item up in a bag then hangs it on a tree or drops it back on the ground, often in wooded areas or other places council cleaning services are unlikely to visit? ? If you choose to have a canine companion, you have no legal choice but to dispose of its mess correctly. ?
In recent months it has
In recent months it has probably been a bit of swamp, though I do notice the same on my park, some sort of deep seated fear of the wild!
The prosecution said the
The prosecution said the witness might be biased ! So moving forward any prosecution for dangerous driving can we make sure the jury is not made up of drivers?
This was my thought.
This was my thought. Hilarious that they genuinely went for the defence of “I think you are pro cyclist and therefore biased”. I have never heard a cyclist spout the sort of hatred towards any other mode of transport that we routinely get about cyclists. I would wager that the majority of every jury in the land is made up of people who run the gamut between mild dislike of cyclists to outright hatred of them. The fact its so normalised as well means that no doubt they wouldn’t see any reason to recuse themselves from the jury on the ground of prejudice as obviously their bigoted views are actually just the truth about all the scumbag cyclists.
Makes you wonder why on earth
Makes you wonder why on earth this even went to court.
Complete mess from the Police and CPS – quite obviously anti cyclist.
If I was Mr. Proudfoot, I
If I was Mr. Proudfoot, I would’ve been tempted to say “Proudfeet!” when called to the witness stand
Odo Proudfoot himself would
Odo Proudfoot himself would be wiggling his toes in appreciation of that long-expected post; thank you.
That’s very sad.
That’s very sad.
A few weeks ago, riding from
A few weeks ago, riding from Falkirk to Edinburgh along the Union Canal towpath (NCN 754), I’d had plenty of pleasant reactions from peds (including those with dogs) when calling out to them as I approached – several even apologising, needlessly really, for being in my way.
But as I approached a group of teenage girls with with their backs to me, I slowed to their pace and prepared to call out once the oldish bloke walking towards me had passed them. Imagine my surprise when he repeatedly shouted “slow down!” even when I asked how much slower I could possibly ride when I was at walking pace. He started grabbing at me, at which point my calm demeanour ran out and I warned him, with colourful words, not to touch me again as I tried to get moving again.
I ended up apologising to the girls for the language (not that they seemed bothered) and felt the need to warn a fellow rider later on who would likely have encountered him a couple of minutes later.
The canal has had its fair share of such nutters by all accounts, but this was my first one. I’m not sure if he’d been drinking, but he certainly shouldn’t have been allowed outside on his own. He was older than me but much stockier than my ‘skinny cyclist’ build, but one good shove would probably have seen him having a bath so he was lucky I had more self control than him!
As others have said, there’s no single way to alert peds to your presence that works for everyone. I don’t use a bell or horn (had the latter as a kid and had more success sticking it out the car window at speeders overtaking us as the siren sounds had the desired effect!) but I usually say “coming through” to roadies and “passing on your left/right” to more casual riders and peds (alternatively using “excuse me” for groups of peds or more mature peds who may just react better to that). But it’s crazy we as cyclists seem to have to use so many different ways to communicate the same thing to different people because we have to try to predict aggression!
Not that there’s only one out
Not that there’s only one out here but makes me think of this.
What to do with the Ronnie Pickerings of the world? (Keep ’em away from cars, canals and Councillorships, for a start…)
chrisonabike wrote:
Certainly a fairly decent description of the guy I had to deal with.
I would get and use a bell,
I would get and use a bell, it is a sound that is widely recognised as indicating the imminent arrival of a bike
How’s that help with a
How’s that help with a lunatic who apparently hangs about to assault cyclists?
R Sharrock wrote:
Some pedestrians take offense to cyclists using a bell, whilst other peds take offense when a cyclist doesn’t use a bell.
I find it’s easier to use your voice as you can vary the tone and politeness.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Exactly. I’ve seen enough examples of riders getting verbal abuse for simple ping of a bell. There really [I]is[/I] no one size fits all method, but a voice is literally the most humanising solution to announcing your presence.
I tend to find that
I tend to find that pedestrians, including myself, jump, sometimes into the path of the cyclist, when they hear a bell binged behind them, so I have stopped using mine and ask them if they mind I pass instead.
It’s difficult to appreciate
It’s difficult to appreciate just how stupid people are- I have just come back from a trip down Garstang High Street, which is single lane, narrowed by pinch points where traffic is occasionally stopped completely when buses can’t pass badly parked cars. This time I was beeped several times from behind and then the car-bound moron shouted ‘You’re a bike, not a car’. I can’t even work out the primitive thought process behind this comment.
wtjs wrote:
— wtjsThought process? Generous.
I was on a shared path
I was on a shared path recently and I always cycle very slowly as I am aware of the rules of priority and that some pedestrians do feel apprehensive around men on cycles. Anyway, i came up behind a group of dog walkers, three or four people, with loads of dogs (it’s a thing in London; professional dog walkers) I slowed right down, and said excuse me as they were completely blocking the path. They couldn’t or wouldn’t hear me as there were too many dogs and they were chatting away. So I came off the path (at about 3 mph) and cycled on the rutted muddy bit which made me slip and spooked one of the dogs which jumped ever so slightly. Cue outrage. Bloody cyclists, blah, blah. Soon the whole park was joining in. I wasn’t scared just frustrated. I tried to argue my corner but none of the mob were having it. I was a selfish, dangerous cyclist. Case closed. I even mentioned that the Corporation of London requires ‘professional’ dog walkers to have a license to use their parks – so show me your liCense. None were forthcoming.
Try mentioning Highway code
Try mentioning Highway code 56 to them. That’ll get their piss proper boiled. Dog walkers with out of control dogs on a shared path is a nightmare around here, I had one fella screaming, inches away from my face, that he was going to find my house (good luck with that one) on Strava, come round and do me! All because I wouldn’t reinforce his bad behaviour with a “thank you” as he was forced to round up his dogs and get them under control. #wanker
People will watch a video of
People will watch a video of a cyclist nearly being killed by someone in a car doing something really stupid and still come out with hatred and bile for the cyclist and completely ignore the driver. Some people hate cyclists and anything involving them will be seen entirely through that lens.
So the cyclist didn’t stop?
So the cyclist didn’t stop?
Elderly women and he thought squeezing by was the answer, because he’d used his bell?
I’m one of the first to express an pro-cycling opinion on many of the articles on this site, but this time from the brief info given it appears the cyclist has got away with it.
What a shit outcome for everybody.
My condolences to the family of the deceased.
All the information above
All the information above indicates that the cyclist was not at fault – slowed to 3mph, gave a clear warning and moved to cycle round and the unfortunate lady stepped into his path, this corroborated by an eye witness and clearly accepted by the jury. What in the information above leads you to the conclusion that the cyclist “has got away with it”?
Apparently (it comes with the
Apparently (it comes with the asterisk that it’s the cyclist’s own account) slowed to walking speed and tried to pass through what appeared to be an available space (not ‘squeezing by’) – if that’s true then it’s hard to see what more could be asked. It’s not really reasonable that they shouldn’t ever pass anybody, no matter how slowly, or how much space was available.
So as long as the cyclist
So as long as the cyclist perceives that there was enough room, that’s OK then?
There obviously wasn’t otherwise the elderly woman would still be here today.
He should have waited until it was safe to pass.
I find it unbelievable that two of you have decided to argue the toss when someone has lost their life.
Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:
Have you considered what the jury accepted, that there was enough room, that it was safe to pass, and that the elderly woman moved into the cyclist’s path? I find it unbelievable that you have decided to argue the toss when a court of law has accepted that the cyclist was not at fault. Also that you appear to believe that because you have stated, without any evidence, that the cyclist has “got away with it” that should be accepted and that nobody should argue with your conclusion because someone has lost their life. Do you believe that whenever a person loses their life in a collision with a cyclist the cyclist must automatically be guilty? That appears to be the case from your comment. You have given no reason from the evidence to suggest that the cyclist was at fault, you’ve just made up a scenario in which he would be.
Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:
It doesn’t appear that you actually read my comment, because I clearly caveated that the statement that there was sufficient room was according to the cyclist themself. Having said that, as Rendel points out, that’s the version the court accepted, and since neither of us was there or in the courtroom, that’s all we’ve got to go on.
This doesn’t follow at all. It’s extremely unclear from the reported testimony what caused the fall, or whether it has anything at all to do with how close the cyclist was passing. By that logic, if someone walks into the river because they’re paying more attention to a passing boat than where they’re walking, that would be the fault of whoever was driving the boat.
The whole purpose of the
The whole purpose of the trial was surely to test these kinds of prejudices and despite a massive media campaign and vast resources the prosecution lost. It was clearly the case that the pedestrian walked into the cyclist despite warnings. If anybody got away with improper behaviour it was the CPS for authorising this charge.
A friend of mine takes
A friend of mine takes advantage of his squeaky disk brakes approaching people from behind, I thought it was quite clever when we were discussing quieting them up one day.
Unfortunately, my TRP Spyre
Unfortunately, my TRP Spyre cable disc brakes virtually never squeal
There was a time when no lady
There was a time when no lady of a certain age would be without a hat when walking in public, A moderately stiff brimmed felt hat might perhaps have saved this unfortunate ladies life. Perhaps it should be recommended as appropriate wear for pedestrians of an age where fall reflexes are dulled?
Quite clearly the family
Quite clearly the family reactions reported in the Telegraph after the deserved acquittal were very raw and as a result very confused. Presumably they had thought that the prosecution had a reasonable chance of winning this case but that would have been highly unlikely given the very strong and unbiased evidence base supporting the cyclist’s account. The family were undoubtedly also persuaded by what appears to be a very biased and prejudicial account presented by the deceased pedestrian’s companion and the media. No law would have led to a conviction and therefore the CPS have a case to answer (yet again).
Which PBU are you ?
Which PBU are you ?