death by dangerous cycling

[Tazio]

An article written by an MP with an axe to grind. In court there was disagreement about who was where and who said what, but it was established that the cyclist was approaching at 15-20mph along the road, not along a shared path.


That's not what you said. You said that "the fact that he was apparently riding a £6k bike in town gives me an instant (though possibly wrong) picture in my head of him." - not that he was riding in an unsuitable way on a public road (he was 36 incidentally) but that he was riding a very expensive bike in town. Whatever that picture is (and I can't begin to guess) it's a prejudice, because the value of his bike has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.

The MP also states that he is a cyclist, I'm not going to presume what his agenda is. From looking at the reports from the time of the trial it is accepted that what he shouted was reported verbatim, though that of course could be a fabrication from the girls friends.

My "prejudice", if that's what it is, is based on my experience of people using very specialized off road bikes in town in a flash way. This assumption was based on the cost of the bike. If I had a custom built off road bike I wouldn't be using it on road, a certain type of rider will. If that makes me wrong then so be it.

There is a culture amongst some people on here, and I don't mean you, that cyclists are faultless in incidents. There is a thread elsewhere about a cyclist punching a woman driver in the face where some people seemed to be justifying it as she had almost hit him. Missing the fact that he assaulted a woman and had to be stopped from going further by people on the scene.

 

[W W Biffta]

I don't really see how; road tax doesn't exist after all. It might seem like a pedantic point, but Vehicle Excise Duty exists mainly for wear and tear on the roads - I'm not sure how bikes can be lumped in with this.

yes vehicle tax as opposed to road fund is covered on that yahooo thread, niether should be applied to bikes, but thats the point of this legislation, it equates cars and bikes in the mind of the public and the law. if a bike is dangerous, not the rider, then you should need an mot right, and insurance, if you are in charge of a dangerous vehicle you should be licenced. etc etc

as regards the incident, he did shout those words, it wasnt debated. if i recall the guy was a middle aged professional, all the gear no idea, weekend warrior, if it wasnt so hard to park id use the car type, and his 6k bike was a piece of sports equipment. not reading anything into that tho

the mp is a woman i think, but mainly she is a tory, so you know what her agenda is.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

The MP also states that he is a cyclist

She.

My "prejudice", if that's what it is, is based on my experience of people using very specialized off road bikes in town in a flash way. This assumption was based on the cost of the bike. If I had a custom built off road bike I wouldn't be using it on road, a certain type of rider will. If that makes me wrong then so be it.

What makes you assume it was an "off road bike"? Like many people, I live in a town. That means that nearly all my rides - off road and on - begin and end in a town.

 

[Drencrom]

if a bike is dangerous, not the rider, then you should need an mot right, and insurance, if you are in charge of a dangerous vehicle you should be licenced. etc etc

Yes, that could be an idea. But then with so many uninsured drivers out there in cars that don't have an MOT how hard would it be to enforce?

the mp is a woman i think, but mainly she is a tory, so you know what her agenda is.

To appeal to her target electorate? Politics is a game after all.

 

[W W Biffta]

Yes, that could be an idea. But then with so many uninsured drivers out there in cars that don't have an MOT how hard would it be to enforce?

man i was being sarcastic. this is insideous evil. (as well as unenforcable)

To appeal to her target electorate? Politics is a game after all.

i dont want to be offensive but if you really think that you are a fool.

 

[Tazio]

I've been dredging through Google looking up the reports on this case. As expected there is a certain anti cyclist feel to a lot of the articles. However I can't find a single mention of the fact that the young girl had been drinking.

However there is mention of his bike not being road legal as he didn't have reflectors on his pedals and the back of the frame. I don't own a single bike with a reflector or indeed a single pair of pedals with the provision for reflectors. However if I ride after dark I always have lights so why do you need reflectors if it is illegal to not have a rear light?

 

[one-eyed_jim]

I've been dredging through Google looking up the reports on this case. As expected there is a certain anti cyclist feel to a lot of the articles. However I can't find a single mention of the fact that the young girl had been drinking.

A witness told the court that Rhiannon and eight of her friends were walking to a chip shop after drinking beer in a park. The court heard that Rhiannon had drunk “two or three” cans of lager but was “absolutely fine”.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ath-17458/

Of course that doesn't absolve the cyclist of any measure of blame, but it's certainly not the clear-cut situation that's portrayed in many of the articles that appeared in the mainstream press, or in Andrea Leadsom's article.

 

[Neil]

I've been dredging through Google looking up the reports on this case. As expected there is a certain anti cyclist feel to a lot of the articles. However I can't find a single mention of the fact that the young girl had been drinking.

A witness told the court that Rhiannon and eight of her friends were walking to a chip shop after drinking beer in a park. The court heard that Rhiannon had drunk “two or three” cans of lager but was “absolutely fine”.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ath-17458/

Of course that doesn't absolve the cyclist of any measure of blame

Naturally - nor would it were this a driver of a vehicle that had done the same.

but it's certainly not the clear-cut situation that's portrayed in many of the articles that appeared in the mainstream press, or in Andrea Leadsom's article.

I'm not so sure - unless there's a suggestion that a pedestrian suddenly, and unpredictable jumped out into the path of a moving vehicle / cyclist, then I'm entirely unsure what relevance it has.

If it's already been established that a hazard was clear, that the cyclist (by shouting) must have been aware, yet apparently / allegedly took no mitigating action (ie slowed down, altered course) then I fail to see the point.

Were this a driver of a car, proceeding at the same speed / course, after noticing people leaving a pub / club, possibly under the influence, that did not react to the hazard by slowing down and being ready to stop / change course, they would by hypothetically at fault, too. Were it a deliberate decision to not alter speed / course, then may well (hypothetically) fall into the category of dangerous driving (as opposed to DWDCA).

 

[one-eyed_jim]

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... &start=129

 

[Neil]

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127692&start=129

So?

I'm not specifically asking for your reply - these aren't PMs or emails. If responses are made to a thread on a forum like this, they're for general reference and general discussion.

Whatever you choose to do / not do regarding any replies I make to comments you make are entirely your choice - but they're hardly for your sole attention or even comment.