Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6777
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 28 Jun 2019, 6:38pm

Prompted me to look them up. Nice. Are they all large?

soapbox
Posts: 60
Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 12:20am

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby soapbox » 29 Jun 2019, 10:19am

aaronaardvark wrote:My point is that, sooner or later, a civil court may apply the National Standard for Cycle Training as a gauge of liability. According to the barrister's notes, in this case they didn't.

The Standard says cover your brakes. Either the defendant was covering them or he wasn't. The witnesses weren't asked in this case. In future they may be. This concerns me.


I set out to ask you if you thought a cycle road test should be mandatory, but was waylaid when I looked up the National Standard for Cycle Training (which I hadn't heard of before) and its reference to John Franklin's Cyclecraft on the first page (in relationship to riding positions). From there I went to my copy of Cyclecraft, and on page 36 found: "There are three responses to an emergency: 1. brake sharply, 2. accelerate, 3. change direction quickly."

Points 2 and 3 could surely be argued from the point of the defendent, to counter the issue of covering the brakes.

skyhawk
Posts: 296
Joined: 30 May 2019, 3:00pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby skyhawk » 2 Jul 2019, 2:20pm

Too much for me to read through but, I used to cycle from home to my local supermarket, I lost count of the idiots who had parked, got their phoes out and crossed the STILL ROAD in the car park of the supermarket without looking.

Solution

Air Zound
Both I and my son are Autistic. We have aspergers and ADHD, not stupid :). If I sound "blunt" in my posts, please be understanding : I am not perfect. Thank you. Visit https://www.asdinfowales.co.uk/ to learn more

fullupandslowingdown
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 5:47pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby fullupandslowingdown » 7 Jul 2019, 1:18pm

me wonders... :roll:
he already had an airhorn. apparently to warn vehicle drivers, but had he, given the testimony of eyewitness Mr H, become accustomed to using the horn to get pesky peds out of his way? I see both sides of the argument, if you make the effort to accelerate, you don't want to have to slow again because of someone in your way, not least because a loss of momentum makes you more vulnerable to faster vehicles catching you up at places where you need to take the full road.

Case A from my neck of the woods: Cyclist at night, no lights, dark clothing, but riding correct place on road. Run over and killed by truck driver who didn't see him. Now I was always taught, go no faster than from which you can stop in the distance that YOU can see to be clear. Driver not prosecuted, police held him not liable at all, as cyclist couldn't be seen in the distance, i.e beyond the truck's headlight's reach.

Case B from my leg of the woods: 6 horses are killed by car after they had escaped their paddock and wandered onto the road. Car driver held blameless as horses shouldn't have been standing around in the middle of the road pooping and nattering.

I'm not saying Hazeldean was blameless, but it does feel that the law is increasingly biased against cyclists. Though as more electric cars hit the roads, I imagine the zombie problem will eventually reach critical levels to trigger some sort of proscriptive law for pedestrians at long last. I hate them on cycle lanes (not cyclepaths) especially with loose dogs, as if they can't find better places to exercise dogs (usually having first driven there) But like another poster, I'm a vegetarian with an inbuilt self preservation feature built in, so I automatically think first, avoid, before I think "OOOOOOOIHHHHHHH MUPPIT"

The absence of a national or required training standard for cycling is no excuse for cyclists to cycle badly. The law does (sometimes) require the application of common sense. We do ourselves a dis-service if we even suggest sanctuary from adherence to sensible cycling standards, simply because we don't have any laws requiring it. It's hard lesson for Mr Hazeldean, but maybe a wakeup call for the rest of us. Cycle cautiously, always.

The law is however an ass. It's always been a question of who has the most wealth. The idea that someone can somehow be subject to greater costs simply because they themselves don't have counsel smacks of the system attempting to strongarm people into always using expensive counsel just to limit their maximum liability. We can all see how that is fundamentally wrong, it's making law a closed shop and allows solictors and barristers to charge ever exorbitant rats. The Magna Carta must be turning brown in it's case.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2433
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby The utility cyclist » 7 Jul 2019, 2:34pm

fullupandslowingdown wrote:
Case A from my neck of the woods: Cyclist at night, no lights, dark clothing, but riding correct place on road. Run over and killed by truck driver who didn't see him. Now I was always taught, go no faster than from which you can stop in the distance that YOU can see to be clear. Driver not prosecuted, police held him not liable at all, as cyclist couldn't be seen in the distance, i.e beyond the truck's headlight's reach.


The Highway Code is implicit in the go at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear, but it is ignored by police, judges and CPS at every avenue in favour of those that kill and maim and do so with virtual impunity.

The then CTC president in the 1930s objected to compulsory rear lights for cyclists, he could see it was the slippery slope that has completely shifted the onus of responsibility to not get killed has been put squarely onto the vulnerable persons (and animals), and from that the continuous victim blaming that occurred then as it does now. And the motor industry helped by governments simply built out to improve safety of the occupants with next to zero consideration of those outside, as we saw with the seat-belt laws.

So now motorists have lighthouse standard headlights so they can drive at ever faster speeds at night but dazzle other road users and because of the speeds they are unable to process the information from what they see so crash into innocent people and put the blame squarely on their shoulders. They have bigger brakes so they can stop quicker from x speed (but human reactions are no faster), so then you need bigger wheels and thus wider tyres so you can corner at insane speeds and to take the weight of the bigger/heavier vehicle because of the increase in 'safety' that is desired as well as all the new tech to distract drivers.
They then put more 'safety' features and driver aids, which weigh more/take up more space and take risk out of driving so drivers drive worse yet again, drivers want to be higher up and feel more protected so demand bigger vehicles, and round and round it goes, all to the detriment of pedestrians, people on bikes and everything else around them that dare get in their way!

All the whilst the government and police protecting these people and absolving them of their innate responsibilities to do no harm and the hate and vilification of people on bikes increases ever further such that we even see those that are meant to uphold the law bend the law and evidence to suit their agenda, such that we see the government prioritise harsher laws for people on bikes before they consider harsher laws for those actually doing the maiming and killing :twisted:
I've said many a time that the inequity is massive, it's also in my opinion unlawful but no-one will do anything to rectify this disgusting inequity and lack of protection for the vulnerable! :twisted:

But yeah, apparently I'm in the wrong for saying I want a programme that is aimed at creating an even worse situation for people on bikes to be banned! :roll:

fastpedaller
Posts: 2076
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby fastpedaller » 7 Jul 2019, 10:23pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
But yeah, apparently I'm in the wrong for saying I want a programme that is aimed at creating an even worse situation for people on bikes to be banned! :roll:


I may be wrong, but from what I see, the consensus on this forum about the Channel 5 programme is that we need to see it before we can judge if it's likely to be anti-cyclist. I personally agree that the title of the programme, however, does appear to be inflammatory (with or without the question mark) - I can imagine some people saying to me next week "yeah, there was that programme on CH5 last week about how cyclist are the scourge of the streets" even if (or maybe because?) they didn't see the programme.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2433
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby The utility cyclist » 8 Jul 2019, 1:05pm

fastpedaller wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
But yeah, apparently I'm in the wrong for saying I want a programme that is aimed at creating an even worse situation for people on bikes to be banned! :roll:


I may be wrong, but from what I see, the consensus on this forum about the Channel 5 programme is that we need to see it before we can judge if it's likely to be anti-cyclist. I personally agree that the title of the programme, however, does appear to be inflammatory (with or without the question mark) - I can imagine some people saying to me next week "yeah, there was that programme on CH5 last week about how cyclist are the scourge of the streets" even if (or maybe because?) they didn't see the programme.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -less-safe

fastpedaller
Posts: 2076
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby fastpedaller » 8 Jul 2019, 1:18pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
fastpedaller wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
But yeah, apparently I'm in the wrong for saying I want a programme that is aimed at creating an even worse situation for people on bikes to be banned! :roll:


I may be wrong, but from what I see, the consensus on this forum about the Channel 5 programme is that we need to see it before we can judge if it's likely to be anti-cyclist. I personally agree that the title of the programme, however, does appear to be inflammatory (with or without the question mark) - I can imagine some people saying to me next week "yeah, there was that programme on CH5 last week about how cyclist are the scourge of the streets" even if (or maybe because?) they didn't see the programme.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -less-safe


I saw the same article on the thread about cyclist hating, and this was my response.....

I've sent the link and my own words to the Police Commissioner for South Yorks, from whom I am awaiting feedback about the 'garroting journalist'
Clearly the Guardian journalist has seen the programme and is not impressed - maybe some action does need to take place to stop this being aired?
FP

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6777
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 8 Jul 2019, 1:24pm

fastpedaller wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
fastpedaller wrote:
I may be wrong, but from what I see, the consensus on this forum about the Channel 5 programme is that we need to see it before we can judge if it's likely to be anti-cyclist. I personally agree that the title of the programme, however, does appear to be inflammatory (with or without the question mark) - I can imagine some people saying to me next week "yeah, there was that programme on CH5 last week about how cyclist are the scourge of the streets" even if (or maybe because?) they didn't see the programme.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -less-safe


I saw the same article on the thread about cyclist hating, and this was my response.....

I've sent the link and my own words to the Police Commissioner for South Yorks, from whom I am awaiting feedback about the 'garroting journalist'
Clearly the Guardian journalist has seen the programme and is not impressed - maybe some action does need to take place to stop this being aired?
FP

Are you being serious?

fastpedaller
Posts: 2076
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby fastpedaller » 8 Jul 2019, 1:53pm

Bonefishblues wrote:
fastpedaller wrote:


I saw the same article on the thread about cyclist hating, and this was my response.....

I've sent the link and my own words to the Police Commissioner for South Yorks, from whom I am awaiting feedback about the 'garroting journalist'
Clearly the Guardian journalist has seen the programme and is not impressed - maybe some action does need to take place to stop this being aired?
FP

Are you being serious?


Have you read the Guardian article? From what the journalist says, he's fearful of going out on his bike after the programme is aired? Is that a good situation. Whilst I believe in free speech some standards are needed to stop hate messages getting across!

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6777
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 8 Jul 2019, 2:17pm

fastpedaller wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
fastpedaller wrote:
I saw the same article on the thread about cyclist hating, and this was my response.....

I've sent the link and my own words to the Police Commissioner for South Yorks, from whom I am awaiting feedback about the 'garroting journalist'
Clearly the Guardian journalist has seen the programme and is not impressed - maybe some action does need to take place to stop this being aired?
FP

Are you being serious?


Have you read the Guardian article? From what the journalist says, he's fearful of going out on his bike after the programme is aired? Is that a good situation. Whilst I believe in free speech some standards are needed to stop hate messages getting across!

He said: "I’ll be a little bit more wary when I cycle into work..."

Are you serious that the programme should be banned?

fastpedaller
Posts: 2076
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby fastpedaller » 8 Jul 2019, 2:35pm

Bonefishblues wrote:
fastpedaller wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:Are you being serious?


Have you read the Guardian article? From what the journalist says, he's fearful of going out on his bike after the programme is aired? Is that a good situation. Whilst I believe in free speech some standards are needed to stop hate messages getting across!

He said: "I’ll be a little bit more wary when I cycle into work..."

Are you serious that the programme should be banned?

Why Not?
If it is hatred against cyclists. Channel 5 wouldn't put out a 'documentary entitled 'Black people scourge of the streets?' would they?
We have to stop cyclist hatred before it escalates.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6777
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 8 Jul 2019, 2:57pm

fastpedaller wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
fastpedaller wrote:
Have you read the Guardian article? From what the journalist says, he's fearful of going out on his bike after the programme is aired? Is that a good situation. Whilst I believe in free speech some standards are needed to stop hate messages getting across!

He said: "I’ll be a little bit more wary when I cycle into work..."

Are you serious that the programme should be banned?

Why Not?
If it is hatred against cyclists. Channel 5 wouldn't put out a 'documentary entitled 'Black people scourge of the streets?' would they?
We have to stop cyclist hatred before it escalates.

I'm not aware that cyclists are covered by anti-discrimination legislation - perhaps that should be a route to investigate?

What other censorship would you recommend?

mattheus
Posts: 730
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby mattheus » 8 Jul 2019, 4:23pm

fastpedaller wrote:Have you read the Guardian article? From what the journalist says, he's fearful of going out on his bike after the programme is aired? Is that a good situation. Whilst I believe in free speech some standards are needed to stop hate messages getting across!

I think that's reasonable; broadcasters should be held to higher standards than private citizens speaking their mind in the pub, or on the internet.

this programme isn't about "Free Speech", and moderating it wouldn't be totalitarian "censorship". C5 could make a doc about conflict between road-users without deliberately stoking the fires.

Anyone with a brain cell knows that they are playing to the gallery with this programme, and "free speech" is the last thing on their agenda. Lowest common denominator TV is not something to be celebrated.

EDIT: see this thread for more detail viewtopic.php?f=6&t=131143&start=75#p1372647
Last edited by mattheus on 9 Jul 2019, 9:15am, edited 1 time in total.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6777
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 8 Jul 2019, 5:20pm

Who should act as the arbiter of good taste to ensure content is sufficiently highbrow, I wonder?