Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 20:34:09 GMT
Personally I think this sort of thing is one way where the French are ahead of us (apart from food, and art, and architecture)...they have zebra crossings but pedestrians never have priority and instead must at all times defer to road traffic. Further, it is an offence to cross ANYWHERE OTHER THAN a designated crossing. Fucking jaywalkers.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 3, 2020 20:38:29 GMT
Oh and can you cite a source for you first statement, or is it just wishful thinking? Yeah, it was actually. Oh well. But there is this: Careless and inconsiderate Cycling: If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other people using the road, they are guilty of an offence. The fine for careless cycling is £1,000 and a maximum of £2,500 for dangerous cycling. Causing injury by cycling furiously: This applies to legislation that dates back to 1861 and carries a 2 year prison sentence if found guilty. It applies to drivers of vehicles or carriages, including bicycles. Cycling furiously (no injury caused): You can get up to a £1,000 charge for cycling furiously, or for cycling too fast for the conditions you are in. You haven’t cited anything that says a cyclist has to obey vehicle speed limits. So I’ll take from that that they don’t have to, as I originally suspected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 20:48:28 GMT
Yeah, it was actually. Oh well. But there is this: Careless and inconsiderate Cycling: If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other people using the road, they are guilty of an offence. The fine for careless cycling is £1,000 and a maximum of £2,500 for dangerous cycling. Causing injury by cycling furiously: This applies to legislation that dates back to 1861 and carries a 2 year prison sentence if found guilty. It applies to drivers of vehicles or carriages, including bicycles. Cycling furiously (no injury caused): You can get up to a £1,000 charge for cycling furiously, or for cycling too fast for the conditions you are in. You haven’t cited anything that says a cyclist has to obey vehicle speed limits. So I’ll take from that that they don’t have to, as I originally suspected. Yep, that would seem to be correct. But there are two takeaways from that. 1) In 1861 'cycling furiously' meant going too bloody fast (this is what the guy in the Old St incident was sentenced to jail under), and I'm sure going as fast as you can is also probably covered by the first statement. 2) the laws relating to cycling are well-overdue for a revision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 21:10:34 GMT
Yes. They are. There seems to be a fair bit of support for arsehole cycle riders here. Personally whenever I hear of one involved in an incident I think of the guy who set off across Vauxhall Cross at rush-hour just as the lights turned green for crossing traffic (all five lanes of it). His response? He smirked and looked the other way. There is no support for people cycling recklessly. There is also no support for people crossing the road when their light is on red and someone else’s light is on green, and then whinging when they get run over. Oh but you are so wrong. The motor vehicle driver has insurance. Its like shooting fish in a barrel (if your victim doesn't have a dash-cam front and rear).
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 3, 2020 21:12:59 GMT
You haven’t cited anything that says a cyclist has to obey vehicle speed limits. So I’ll take from that that they don’t have to, as I originally suspected. Yep, that would seem to be correct. But there are two takeaways from that. 1) In 1861 'cycling furiously' meant going too bloody fast (this is what the guy in the Old St incident was sentenced to jail under), and I'm sure going as fast as you can is also probably covered by the first statement. 2) the laws relating to cycling are well-overdue for a revision. Yes going too fast for the circumstances. But not exceeding some arbitrary speed limit that doesn’t reflect the circumstances extant at the time. You second point may well be true, but is not relevant to this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 21:31:56 GMT
Yep, that would seem to be correct. But there are two takeaways from that. 1) In 1861 'cycling furiously' meant going too bloody fast (this is what the guy in the Old St incident was sentenced to jail under), and I'm sure going as fast as you can is also probably covered by the first statement. 2) the laws relating to cycling are well-overdue for a revision. Yes going too fast for the circumstances. But not exceeding some arbitrary speed limit that doesn’t reflect the circumstances extant at the time. You second point may well be true, but is not relevant to this case. It beggars belief that the judge (or magistrate) ruled that someone riding a powered bicycle, classified in law as a motorcycle, and with no insurance, can walk free following someone's death as a result of his actions. But its ok because the speed limit is 'arbitrary'. I'd love to hear what bullshit went on for the beak to arrive at that decision. Anyway such is the society we live in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 21:33:17 GMT
It wasn't a cyclist though was it.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 3, 2020 21:41:38 GMT
Yes going too fast for the circumstances. But not exceeding some arbitrary speed limit that doesn’t reflect the circumstances extant at the time. You second point may well be true, but is not relevant to this case. It beggars belief that the judge (or magistrate) ruled that someone riding a powered bicycle, classified in law as a motorcycle, and with no insurance, can walk free following someone's death as a result of his actions. But its ok because the speed limit is 'arbitrary'. I'd love to hear what bullshit went on for the beak to arrive at that decision. Anyway such is the society we live in. No it doesn’t. The death was not the result of the cyclist’s actions. The death was the result of the pedestrian walking out into the road at a set of traffic lights that were green for traffic and red for the pedestrian, without properly checking for traffic. The “bullshit” is the law, and common sense, and natural justice. Anyway, you will find too much calm logic here, I suggest you go back to the daily mail for a topping up of hysterical irrational blame culture. Perhaps you think that every train driver who has a suicidal person jump onto the tracks and get squished by his train, should be prosecuted?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 21:55:00 GMT
Yes, the pedestrian really should gave spent more time observing before she stepped off the kerb. But if the pilot of the motorbike had been going slower she wouldn't be dead (again, the same as Old St). I don't think blaming the rider is irrational and I do think on this case the law is unfit for purpose. FYI neither do I read the Daily Mail.
Its not hard to tell you like cycling. Good for you. I used to do a lot of pedalling. But come and drive around inner London every day all day for a month (in your most valuable car) and see how chirpy you feel about it afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 3, 2020 22:08:55 GMT
But if the pilot of the motorbike had been going slower she wouldn't be dead It's reported that the ebike was travelling at around 30mph, which isn't a massively high speed, given that 30mph is the speed limit in built-up areas in virtually all of the UK. The simple fact is that the pedestrian didn't check to see if the road was clear before crossing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 22:13:40 GMT
The simple fact is that the pedestrian didn't check to see if the road was clear before crossing. Far more likely that the pedestrian did check and made a possibly rather rapid judgement that the vehicle approaching was a bicycle which it would be safe to cross in front of due to the flat road and the tendency for bicycles not to be doing 30 miles an hour. I would have to get my slide rule out (which I do know how to use) to do the math and calculate the difference in time to collision between a bike doing 13mph and a bike doing 30mph. Despite its failings the human brain is remarkably good at estimating these sorts of things and bicycles categorically do not travel at 30mph. If they did as is the case with motor scooters then the rider must surely take into account the increased possibility of collision with pedestrians. It's really not rocket science.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 22:25:10 GMT
The simple fact is that the pedestrian didn't check to see if the road was clear before crossing. I would have to get my slide rule out (which I do know how to use) Actually I'd like you to show me how sometimeIt's really not rocket science. But it is brain surgery
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 3, 2020 22:28:49 GMT
Yes, the pedestrian really should gave spent more time observing before she stepped off the kerb. But if the pilot of the motorbike had been going slower she wouldn't be dead (again, the same as Old St). I don't think blaming the rider is irrational and I do think on this case the law is unfit for purpose. FYI neither do I read the Daily Mail. Its not hard to tell you like cycling. Good for you. I used to do a lot of pedalling. But come and drive around inner London every day all day for a month (in your most valuable car) and see how chirpy you feel about it afterwards. I don’t particularly like cycling. I do dislike people who tar an entire and diverse group, with the same brush. Sure there are some reckless cyclists in London. I wouldn’t be against new targeted laws. There are also reckless boaters, reckless people with umbrellas, reckless people who walk around glued to phones, reckless people who have babies when they can’t support them. Etc etc. The world is full of reckless people in all facets of life, but that doesn’t mean that all people are reckless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 22:41:38 GMT
But if the pilot of the motorbike had been going slower she wouldn't be dead It's reported that the ebike was travelling at around 30mph, which isn't a massively high speed, given that 30mph is the speed limit in built-up areas in virtually all of the UK. The simple fact is that the pedestrian didn't check to see if the road was clear before crossing. The point has been made that she should have looked more and I agree. However I believe the report was that the rider had been travelling in excess of 30mph. Even if this was not the case it was fast enough to be fatal. Also, the limit was 20mph, no? Crap though it may be, the culture here in England is that the road user has a greater burden of care for the pedestrian. After all the bullshit wrangling, a person is dead who might not have been if the jerk who hit her was not going as fast. She's dead. Someone's mother, or sister. Get it? I didn't see it happen but I bet you a pound to a penny he was riding close to the kerb and trying to underpass the slower traffic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 22:44:16 GMT
Yes, the pedestrian really should gave spent more time observing before she stepped off the kerb. But if the pilot of the motorbike had been going slower she wouldn't be dead (again, the same as Old St). I don't think blaming the rider is irrational and I do think on this case the law is unfit for purpose. FYI neither do I read the Daily Mail. Its not hard to tell you like cycling. Good for you. I used to do a lot of pedalling. But come and drive around inner London every day all day for a month (in your most valuable car) and see how chirpy you feel about it afterwards. I don’t particularly like cycling. I do dislike people who tar an entire and diverse group, with the same brush. I'm just talking about the two-wheeled pricks in London.
|
|