Woman dies following hit and run by cyclist

[jon0844]

A cycling group has said e-bikes are no worse than normal bikes. I took that as an unintentional admission that both are potentially as dangerous as each other!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Update



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026

The rest of the article goes on to talk about the reviewing of cycling laws, despite the objections to that of some on here.

quite right to... no matter what anyone on here wants to argue.. the cyclist involved FLED THE SCENE...in itself a crime... the fact that the article suggests the cyclist "dumped" their bike strongly suggests that, just as I have argued all along, he had something to hide by fleeing the scene..

and let's not forget... if it was a motorist that had committed a "hit and run" then NO-ONE would be trying to excuse his actions... like some on here have been wont to do in this case.

 

[JohnMcL7]

A cycling group has said e-bikes are no worse than normal bikes. I took that as an unintentional admission that both are potentially as dangerous as each other!

I'm not sure why you think that's an unintentional admission, I don't think e-bikes are worse than normal bikes so I'd agree they are as dangerous as each other which looking at the actual figures is not very dangerous at all given more people die putting up Christmas decorations than are killed by cyclists.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure why you think that's an unintentional admission, I don't think e-bikes are worse than normal bikes so I'd agree they are as dangerous as each other which looking at the actual figures is not very dangerous at all given more people die putting up Christmas decorations than are killed by cyclists.

Where's your source for that? U.S. figures give 190 accidents involving Christmas decorations requiring a visit to the emergency room in a year. The only deaths reported are from where Christmas trees which affects about 3 people per year and that's in a country with 325 million.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Where's your source for that? U.S. figures give 190 accidents involving Christmas decorations requiring a visit to the emergency room in a year. The only deaths reported are from where Christmas trees which affects about 3 people per year and that's in a country with 325 million.

Chris Boardman here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...s-highway-code-road-deaths-laws-a8489746.html

Even if you don't agree with that, the official figures put deaths caused by cyclists at 2-3 per year - far, far down any list of the causes of death in the UK. It's not that cyclists don't want cycling laws to be reviewed it's just more simply it isn't needed and it badly misrepresents cycling in making it out that cyclists are going around merrily murdering people without consequence. Even putting aside the fact the last cyclist who killed a pedestrian is in jail, very, very few people are killed by cyclist while 1,800 a year are killed by motor vehicles.

I'm not in any way trivializing the two deaths but it's frustrating that people are using it to bolster anti-cyclists views and completely ignoring the fact the reality is the only reason this topic exists is because it's so incredibly rare for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian. Around 100 people have been killed in the UK by motor vehicles since this topic was created but not one of them has their own topic.

 

[furnessvale]

A cycling group has said e-bikes are no worse than normal bikes. I took that as an unintentional admission that both are potentially as dangerous as each other!

Cyclists make a great play of the fact that motor cars are heavier than cycles, ergo, they must be more dangerous if and when they hit a person.

Is an e bike heavier than a classic cycle? If it is, surely the same ad hoc rule must apply.

 

[northwichcat]

Chris Boardman here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...s-highway-code-road-deaths-laws-a8489746.html

Even if you don't agree with that, the official figures put deaths caused by cyclists at 2-3 per year - far, far down any list of the causes of death in the UK. It's not that cyclists don't want cycling laws to be reviewed it's just more simply it isn't needed and it badly misrepresents cycling in making it out that cyclists are going around merrily murdering people without consequence. Even putting aside the fact the last cyclist who killed a pedestrian is in jail, very, very few people are killed by cyclist while 1,800 a year are killed by motor vehicles.

I'm not in any way trivializing the two deaths but it's frustrating that people are using it to bolster anti-cyclists views and completely ignoring the fact the reality is the only reason this topic exists is because it's so incredibly rare for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian. Around 100 people have been killed in the UK by motor vehicles since this topic was created but not one of them has their own topic.

Your source does not say what you claimed it stated. It states more people are killed by Christmas decorations than by cyclists but not specifically as a result of putting them up, so electrical faults with fairy lights causing fires would be included in that, as would an outdoor Christmas tree being blown up by gale force winds. However, it's an opinion piece written by a cycling journalist who doesn't state his source for that 'fact.'

The underlying issue is more and more cyclists are appearing on the road, so it's becoming more important than ever that cyclists have a set of rules to follow them and do actually follow them.

 

[GB]

There are all manner of rules, laws and statutes that govern driving as well as statutes that govern sentences when things go wrong...why shouldn't the government turn some attention to cyclists? Its true that only 1 or 2 people are killed a year, but how many people are injured and how many times has a cyclist caused some kind of third party damage without any repercussions? Why shouldn't laws be changed so that a cyclist is held accountable and receives adequate penalties if they are found at fault?

 

[JohnMcL7]

Your source does not say what you claimed it stated. It states more people are killed by Christmas decorations than by cyclists but not specifically as a result of putting them up, so electrical faults with fairy lights causing fires would be included in that, as would an outdoor Christmas tree being blown up by gale force winds. However, it's an opinion piece written by a cycling journalist who doesn't state his source for that 'fact.'

The underlying issue is more and more cyclists are appearing on the road, so it's becoming more important than ever that cyclists have a set of rules to follow them and do actually follow them.

Ok then, so where is your source for all these people being killed by cyclists? Whether the number of people being killed by Christmas decorations or not is similar, the point remains - very, very few people killed by cyclists and even if it doubled it would still be a miniscule fraction of the people killed by motor vehicles never mind other causes of death.

Since you're so very concerned about two pedestrians killed by cyclists, surely you should be shouting from the roof tops about the 1,800 killed by motor vehicles? I'd have thought that's a much bigger priority but for some reason people are much more concerned about an occasional death caused by a cyclist. And also, were you not aware the last cyclist that killed a pedestrian is serving an 18 month jail sentence?

 

[JohnMcL7]

There are all manner of rules, laws and statutes that govern driving as well as statutes that govern sentences when things go wrong...why shouldn't the government turn some attention to cyclists? Its true that only 1 or 2 people are killed a year, but how many people are injured and how many times has a cyclist caused some kind of third party damage without any repercussions? Why shouldn't laws be changed so that a cyclist is held accountable and receives adequate penalties if they are found at fault?

By that logic then, surely they need to turn their attention to motoring laws first? If three deaths a year mean the cycling laws need overhauled then surely 1,800 deaths a year means the motoring laws need to be much more urgently reviewed?

 

[northwichcat]

Ok then, so where is your source for all these people being killed by cyclists? Whether the number of people being killed by Christmas decorations or not is similar, the point remains - very, very few people killed by cyclists and even if it doubled it would still be a miniscule fraction of the people killed by motor vehicles never mind other causes of death.

Since you're so very concerned about two pedestrians killed by cyclists, surely you should be shouting from the roof tops about the 1,800 killed by motor vehicles? I'd have thought that's a much bigger priority but for some reason people are much more concerned about an occasional death caused by a cyclist. And also, were you not aware the last cyclist that killed a pedestrian is serving an 18 month jail sentence?

I'm not claiming it's a fact that many people are killed by cyclists but you seem to have real difficulty telling the difference between an opinion and a fact.

Yes I am aware of the 18 month jail sentence, I'm also aware that there wasn't an appropriate law for the cyclist to be charged under so he had to be charged under a historic one intended for horse riders. Surely that's all the evidence that's needed that cycling laws aren't fit for purpose?

 

[northwichcat]

By that logic then, surely they need to turn their attention to motoring laws first? If three deaths a year mean the cycling laws need overhauled then surely 1,800 deaths a year means the motoring laws need to be much more urgently reviewed?

What's the matter with motoring laws? Is there evidence that motorists can commit serious offences and that there's not a suitable law to charge them under?

How many of the deaths you mention are due to driver error?

And why does it only matter if someone dies?

 

[JohnMcL7]

Cyclists make a great play of the fact that motor cars are heavier than cycles, ergo, they must be more dangerous if and when they hit a person.

Is an e bike heavier than a classic cycle? If it is, surely the same ad hoc rule must apply.

To start with, a car on average is over a ton heavier than a cyclist so even combining the cyclist weight and their bike a car is likely many, many times heavier. Cars also go much, much faster and also they're made of strong materials to protect the occupants.

Pedal bikes come in a wide range of weights from the super lightweight carbon machines at around 7 or so kilos up to heavier steel tourers or the likes of Boris bikes around the 20-25kg mark. The weight penalty for an ebike varies depending on the size of the motor and battery, they're generally around the 20-25kg mark as well so taken as a proportion of the rider and cycle combined weight the additional weight is small and several orders of magnitude smaller than the difference between a cyclist and a car. In addition to that the ebike riders are capped at 15.5mph which they're only going to exceed on hills as the additional weight limits the speed of the bike whereas a good rider on a light bike will be able to go faster on the flat.

 

[tony_mac]

Even putting aside the fact the last cyclist who killed a pedestrian is in jail, very, very few people are killed by cyclist while 1,800 a year are killed by motor vehicles.

You are including the motorists themselves, which makes up the majority of the figure.

Of course far more people are killed by cars, there are far more cars on the roads than cyclists. Hardly anyone is killed in accidents with purple cars.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

it amazes me how pro-cyclists are trying to defend the current law situation by bleating that "motorists kill more people" that is NOT the point... the fact is that, by and large, the laws and penalties concerning motoring are adequate for when motorists break the rules... the laws and penalties concerning errant cyclists are not fit for purpose.... how does "motorists kill more people" justify that state of affairs?

Truth is, if the pedestrian had died by the culpability of a motorist, then said driver would be charged with either "causing death by dangerous driving" or "causing death by reckless driving" whereas if, in this case, the cyclist is deemed to be culpable then they will have to be charged using some archaic law relating to horses....

So no matter how much bleating there is from the pro-cycling lobbyists it is a matter of FACT that the laws regarding cycling need to be reviewed and overhauled!

BTW I am sure it is of great comfort to the family of the pedestrian that died that at least it wasn't a car that hit her!

 

[GB]

By that logic then, surely they need to turn their attention to motoring laws first? If three deaths a year mean the cycling laws need overhauled then surely 1,800 deaths a year means the motoring laws need to be much more urgently reviewed?

Motoring laws are continually looked at and do change where necessary.... and have done so for last however many decades....not so for cyclists.

 

[SWTCommuter]

So no matter how much bleating there is from the pro-cycling lobbyists it is a matter of FACT that the laws regarding cycling need to be reviewed and overhauled!

Just out of interest, apart from 'causing death by dangerous cycling' which is already being considered by the government, what other rules or laws specific to cyclists would you like to see in addition to rules 59-82 of the Highway Code?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Just out of interest, apart from 'causing death by dangerous cycling' which is already being considered by the government, what other rules or laws specific to cyclists would you like to see in addition to rules 59-82 of the Highway Code?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

I didn't say anything about additional rules or laws... I said that the rules and laws need to be reviewed and overhauled... whether that means new laws or just that the penalties and enforcement of current rules is up to the reviewers to determine... certainly something has to be done to curb the anti-social element amongst cyclists... and no matter what anyone wants to say here or anywhere else about "perception" or "anecdotal evidence" there is a significant minority of cyclists who think that the rules of the road do not apply to them, that believe that they can NEVER be in the wrong.. and that pavements are there for their use and pedestrians should damn well jump out of their way! If anyone wishes to argue the contrary then I really do strongly suggest they apply for a white cane and/or a guide dog!

 

[AndrewE]

You are including the motorists themselves, which makes up the majority of the figure.

I understood it was the opposite: the vast majority of "road deaths" are pedestrians on the pavement or cyclists.

 

[jon0844]

Motoring laws are continually looked at and do change where necessary.... and have done so for last however many decades....not so for cyclists.

Even though cancer, floods, wars, plagues and earthquakes are far more harmful to human life! Seems extremely unfair to keep looking at motoring laws until all of the above are fixed.

If cyclists can claim cars are worse (so give them a break) then motorists can sure use the whataboutery trick too?

 

[Senex]

And also, were you not aware the last cyclist that killed a pedestrian is serving an 18 month jail sentence?

Only 18 months for killing someone sounds like a miserably soft sentence—much softer than a motorist would have got, and many of us regard the sentences for killing by motor-car as pretty feeble in any case. Presumably 18 months means out in 9?

But however many/few pedestrians are killed by cyclists, what has that to do with the general point of expecting that cyclists should observe all the laws that apply to them and not allowed to operate in a world where they act as if they are a law unto themselves?

 

[furnessvale]

To start with, a car on average is over a ton heavier than a cyclist so even combining the cyclist weight and their bike a car is likely many, many times heavier. Cars also go much, much faster and also they're made of strong materials to protect the occupants.

Pedal bikes come in a wide range of weights from the super lightweight carbon machines at around 7 or so kilos up to heavier steel tourers or the likes of Boris bikes around the 20-25kg mark. The weight penalty for an ebike varies depending on the size of the motor and battery, they're generally around the 20-25kg mark as well so taken as a proportion of the rider and cycle combined weight the additional weight is small and several orders of magnitude smaller than the difference between a cyclist and a car. In addition to that the ebike riders are capped at 15.5mph which they're only going to exceed on hills as the additional weight limits the speed of the bike whereas a good rider on a light bike will be able to go faster on the flat.

A simple "YES" would have sufficed.

An e bike IS heavier than a classic bike and therefore must present more danger in a collision with a pedestrian.

 

[bramling]

Only 18 months for killing someone sounds like a miserably soft sentence—much softer than a motorist would have got, and many of us regard the sentences for killing by motor-car as pretty feeble in any case. Presumably 18 months means out in 9?

But however many/few pedestrians are killed by cyclists, what has that to do with the general point of expecting that cyclists should observe all the laws that apply to them and not allowed to operate in a world where they act as if they are a law unto themselves?

Again, it’s worth remembering that in that incident - as with the Dalston incident - the main cause was the pedestrian’s error.

If anything it seems there’s more value in better educating pedestrians about the dangers of running into the road, specifically the danger of running between two vehicles travelling in one direction and neglecting to properly check the other direction - which also happens to be a pretty major cause of collisions when vehicles pull out of side turnings. *That* is the lesson to be learned from this incident if anything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A simple "YES" would have sufficed.

An e bike IS heavier than a classic bike and therefore must present more danger in a collision with a pedestrian.

It's insignficant. And because the difference between the weight of the actual bikes is small but people vary massively, a 20 stone rugby player riding a lightweight road bike would pose more of a risk than a short, skinny person of 10 stone riding an e-bike.

 

[bramling]

it amazes me how pro-cyclists are trying to defend the current law situation by bleating that "motorists kill more people" that is NOT the point... the fact is that, by and large, the laws and penalties concerning motoring are adequate for when motorists break the rules... the laws and penalties concerning errant cyclists are not fit for purpose.... how does "motorists kill more people" justify that state of affairs?

Truth is, if the pedestrian had died by the culpability of a motorist, then said driver would be charged with either "causing death by dangerous driving" or "causing death by reckless driving" whereas if, in this case, the cyclist is deemed to be culpable then they will have to be charged using some archaic law relating to horses....

So no matter how much bleating there is from the pro-cycling lobbyists it is a matter of FACT that the laws regarding cycling need to be reviewed and overhauled!

BTW I am sure it is of great comfort to the family of the pedestrian that died that at least it wasn't a car that hit her!

I don’t get the point. Apart from the leaving the scene (mitigating factors or otherwise), which was not causal and had no bearing on the severity of the consequences, the accident was the fault of the pedestrian - just like it would have been if she had run out in front of a car, bus, motorcycle, van or whatever else. I don’t see how that lends any weight at all to any idea that laws need to be changed.

If there is such a case then this incident certainly isn’t the best example to be using.

It’s a bit like saying it’s the train driver’s fault when someone jumps in front of their train. I’ve heard that seriously suggested by some, who have promptly been told where to go!

 

[bramling]

It's insignficant. And because the difference between the weight of the actual bikes is small but people vary massively, a 20 stone rugby player riding a lightweight road bike would pose more of a risk than a short, skinny person of 10 stone riding an e-bike.

Indeed - and the speed argument is irrelevant on the road where the speed limit would have been at least 20 mph and probably 30 mph. Even a Brompton can do 25 mph on the level on a good day. I’d imagine it’s more the mass of the rider that contributes to the severity of an incident that that of the bike.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Again, it’s worth remembering that in that incident - as with the Dalston incident - the main cause was the pedestrian’s error.

Sorry? you're going to try and blame the pedestrian when the cyclist was found GUILTY by a court of law? really?

I don’t get the point. Apart from the leaving the scene (mitigating factors or otherwise), which was not causal and had no bearing on the severity of the consequences, the accident was the fault of the pedestrian - just like it would have been if she had run out in front of a car, bus, motorcycle, van or whatever else. I don’t see how that lends any weight at all to any idea that laws need to be changed.

What? you don't see the point? it's a simple one really... the cyclist collided with a pedestrian... it doesn't matter whose fault it is... and then FLED THE SCENE. As I have repeatedly said... if it was a motorist that had done so then there would, quite rightly, be outrage and NO-ONE least of all yourself would be trying to excuse the motorists actions in doing so.... so why the hell is it ok for a cyclist to flee the scene? the FACT that his bike was found ABANDONED clearly points to the idea that he had something he didn't want the authorities to know... and he didn't flee because he was "scared of the crowd" or "confused from a concussion" HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.... How you can STILL try defending his actions is completely beyond me... and, I suspect, many others on here!

 

[bramling]

Sorry? you're going to try and blame the pedestrian when the cyclist was found GUILTY by a court of law? really?



What? you don't see the point? it's a simple one really... the cyclist collided with a pedestrian... it doesn't matter whose fault it is... and then FLED THE SCENE. As I have repeatedly said... if it was a motorist that had done so then there would, quite rightly, be outrage and NO-ONE least of all yourself would be trying to excuse the motorists actions in doing so.... so why the hell is it ok for a cyclist to flee the scene? the FACT that his bike was found ABANDONED clearly points to the idea that he had something he didn't want the authorities to know... and he didn't flee because he was "scared of the crowd" or "confused from a concussion" HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.... How you can STILL try defending his actions is completely beyond me... and, I suspect, many others on here!

What happened afterwards is irrelevant - it doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t cause the incident.

The Alliston case is dubious to me as it seems to centre upon the bicycle not having the correct brakes. However again the incident involved a pedestrian’s error.

I don’t get the desire to vilify for someone else’s error.

You can raise the issue to your heart’s content about leaving the scene, but can you really not see that this had zero bearing on the course of events? The woman would still be dead has he not done so. She wouldn’t be dead if she’d looked properly before foolishly running across a busy London street in between traffic.

 

[tony_mac]

I understood it was the opposite: the vast majority of "road deaths" are pedestrians on the pavement or cyclists.

the statistics aren't massively difficult to find...
https://assets.publishing.service.g.../attachment_data/file/648081/rrcgb2016-01.pdf

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

What happened afterwards is irrelevant - it doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t cause the incident.

The Alliston case is dubious to me as it seems to centre upon the bicycle not having the correct brakes. However again the incident involved a pedestrian’s error.

Oh so if a pedestrian gets killed by stepping out in front of a car without looking and it transpires that the car wasn't road worthy in the first place then the motorist shouldn't be prosecuted because "it was the pedestrians fault"? No? then in that case the same rule should apply for the cyclist... as it was in this case!

You can raise the issue to your heart’s content about leaving the scene, but can you really not see that this had zero bearing on the course of events? The woman would still be dead has he not done so. She wouldn’t be dead if she’d looked properly before foolishly running across a busy London street in between traffic.

I will thankyou very much because you STILL miss the point... you have been quick to try and defend the cyclists actions... but when you're challenged as to whether you would do the same were it a motorist you remain resolutely silent and refuse to answer the question... as a barrister would say in court... "I will leave the jury to draw their own conclusions from your silence on the matter"

and of course YOU miss the point that the evidence now points to the fact that he was totally compos mentis and had a nefarious reason for fleeing the scene... ie the dumping of his bike to hide evidence!