Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 17:20:49 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616So the bloke who killed a pedestrian on his fast ebike has been cleared in court. What a lucky man. I don't understand this. They say it wasn't possible to determine whether the pedestrian looked both ways when crossing. This is ridiculous. Everyone looks both ways it's basic to do this you would have to be brainless not to but you see a bicycle coming and assume it's a bicycle, two wheeled devices which don't move as fast as cars. 30mph ebikes are a bit improbable in most situations. This seems to ask more questions than it answers. I suppose if it helps to bring in insurance requirements for cyclists and legalisation of high powered ebikes it could end up being good but it definitely seems a bit wrong to me. Why question the ability of the pedestrian to cross a road safely rather than questioning the person riding an electric bike which is considerably faster than any legal bicycle is allowed to go? Saving the planet??
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 3, 2020 17:23:42 GMT
??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 17:28:53 GMT
It's a story in the news kris
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 3, 2020 17:30:06 GMT
It's a story in the news kris I was asking about you quoting your first post. But I see you’ve deleted it already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 17:31:46 GMT
It's a story in the news kris I was asking about you quoting your first post. But I see you’ve deleted it already. Yes sorry that was an editing error.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 3, 2020 17:36:29 GMT
The pedestrian may or may not have been negligent, but it is hard to see why the rider was cleared of driving without a licence and insurance, taking into account that his bike should be classified as a motor bike. The CPS seem to have missed an opportunity in this case. The danger is that this may set a precedent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 17:37:36 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616So the bloke who killed a pedestrian on his fast ebike has been cleared in court. What a lucky man. I don't understand this. They say it wasn't possible to determine whether the pedestrian looked both ways when crossing. This is ridiculous. Everyone looks both ways it's basic to do this you would have to be brainless not to but you see a bicycle coming and assume it's a bicycle, two wheeled devices which don't move as fast as cars. 30mph ebikes are a bit improbable in most situations. This seems to ask more questions than it answers. I suppose if it helps to bring in insurance requirements for cyclists and legalisation of high powered ebikes it could end up being good but it definitely seems a bit wrong to me. Why question the ability of the pedestrian to cross a road safely rather than questioning the person riding an electric bike which is considerably faster than any legal bicycle is allowed to go? Saving the planet?? You kill someone and no blame is attached? The machine was legally a motorbike and its ok there was no insurance? I suppose there are too many grey areas surrounding e-bikes at the present. But notwithstanding that the motor is supposed to cut out at 15mph, that the speed limit is 20mph, and he was reported as moving at more than 30mph, you would think some of that shit would stick. Remember the guy on a track bike who killed someone near the City Road? All he could be charged with was 'furious riding', an archaic law that nonetheless saw him go to the clink. Why did this guy get let off? Its all bollocks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 17:45:59 GMT
Why question the ability of the pedestrian to cross a road safely rather than questioning the person riding an electric bike which is considerably faster than any legal bicycle is allowed to go? I thought that is what the court did... It certainly didn't question the deceased...
I've cycled on a pedal bike at nearly up to 50 mph - not in a built up area though.
A 'Criminal Court' needs to decide whether someone was acting outside the law to decide on a conviction - even if the pedestrian was looking straight at the cyclist the verdict should be the same. The press give their own twist to the story to suit public opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 18:14:08 GMT
I have to admit to having once unwisely stepped out without looking and caused a cyclist to hurriedly swerve with much swearing and fist shaking... I was shocked but unharmed and because I was able to I was the first to admit I was at fault... So pedestrians do not always look both ways, sadly this one could not be proved if they did.
....edit to add that the comment of him being a "lucky man" doesn't sit well with me, if I had caused the death of somebody whether they were culpable or not I dont think I'd feel lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 3, 2020 18:33:58 GMT
Luckily, as well as being painted a highly visible bright yellow colour (Parakeet Yellow is its official name) my little Honda is slightly noisier than a Panzer tank going flat out heading east through Poland in 1939 so this type of incident shouldn't affect me. If it did then the last thing I would do is attempt to flee the scene because the Filth could just follow the trail of exhaust smoke back to my boat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 19:09:34 GMT
I have to admit to having once unwisely stepped out without looking and caused a cyclist to hurriedly swerve with much swearing and fist shaking... I was shocked but unharmed and because I was able to I was the first to admit I was at fault... So pedestrians do not always look both ways, sadly this one could not be proved if they did. ....edit to add that the comment of him being a "lucky man" doesn't sit well with me, if I had caused the death of somebody whether they were culpable or not I dont think I'd feel lucky. But that is because you are a nice person. There are many in London whose only concern is their own excitement and convenience who 'furiously' travel around London with a very well-developed sense of self-entitlement. And given the the stance of City Hall, its not hard to see why. The guy in the Old Street incident was only very sorry for himself and at no time demonstrated any remorse. A little anecdote: one day David Cameron was photographed pedalling the wrong way down a one-way street. There was a minor scandal; he apologised profusely and swore not to do it again. The very next week he was caught again in the same spot. City Hall issued an edict that it is OK for a cyclist to go the wrong way. Oh, and who was the mayor at the time? Look left...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 19:10:45 GMT
Luckily, as well as being painted a highly visible bright yellow colour (Parakeet Yellow is its official name) my little Honda is slightly noisier than a Panzer tank going flat out heading east through Poland in 1939 so this type of incident shouldn't affect me. If it did then the last thing I would do is attempt to flee the scene because the Filth could just follow the trail of exhaust smoke back to my boat. Not to mention the trail of blood stains and Yorkie wrappers Rog
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 3, 2020 19:11:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 3, 2020 19:23:26 GMT
On the other hand, it was at traffic lights which were green for the cyclist and red for the pedestrian. If you are going to cross on a pedestrian red light, you had better be absolutely sure there is nothing coming, not be glued to your phone, otherwise you qualify for a Darwin Award.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 3, 2020 19:25:47 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616So the bloke who killed a pedestrian on his fast ebike has been cleared in court. What a lucky man. I don't understand this. They say it wasn't possible to determine whether the pedestrian looked both ways when crossing. This is ridiculous. Everyone looks both ways it's basic to do this you would have to be brainless not to but you see a bicycle coming and assume it's a bicycle, two wheeled devices which don't move as fast as cars. 30mph ebikes are a bit improbable in most situations. This seems to ask more questions than it answers. I suppose if it helps to bring in insurance requirements for cyclists and legalisation of high powered ebikes it could end up being good but it definitely seems a bit wrong to me. Why question the ability of the pedestrian to cross a road safely rather than questioning the person riding an electric bike which is considerably faster than any legal bicycle is allowed to go? Saving the planet?? You kill someone and no blame is attached? The machine was legally a motorbike and its ok there was no insurance? I suppose there are too many grey areas surrounding e-bikes at the present. But notwithstanding that the motor is supposed to cut out at 15mph, that the speed limit is 20mph, and he was reported as moving at more than 30mph, you would think some of that shit would stick. Remember the guy on a track bike who killed someone near the City Road? All he could be charged with was 'furious riding', an archaic law that nonetheless saw him go to the clink. Why did this guy get let off? Its all bollocks. Don't be so harsh, after all, he did have a good sob: "Mr Hanlon held his head in his hands and sobbed as the foreman of the jury announced the verdicts." Or perhaps he was just having a good snigger as.... "Mr Hanlon's red 'Hardrock' mountain model from cycle company Specialized had been fitted with a highly-powered battery motor capable of travelling at double the legal 15.5mph speed limit for E-bikes." He had this bike souped-up, and he knew it. "The court heard it was not possible to tell from CCTV footage whether Ms Cihan had looked both ways before stepping off the curb." - just what has that got to do with anything? What if it had been a blind person? (edit - just seen Telly's remark about green/red traffic lights. Green means Mean, Red means Dead. Fair enough, I suppose. Cross at red at your peril.) "he knew he had crashed into Mrs Cihan but left without checking on the victim, the court heard last Thursday. A full transcript of the police interview was read to jurors in which Hanlon said: 'I just wanted to go home, I was confused...I just wanted to sleep, I just wanted my mum...' " - well.... fuck me.
|
|