Woman dies following hit and run by cyclist

Teflon Lettuce said:

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!



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"

Click to expand...

So in the case of the Alloston case he was prosecuted - so the legislation was already there. Personally I find the scale of his punishment objectionable given the accident was not the result of his error.

No I wouldn’t be defending a motorist leaving a scene. In the same way I haven’t defended the cyclist, however I have offered potential mitigating factors to counter yours and others supposition that it must have been due to some kind of guilt on his part. A motorist, of course, wouldn’t be cracking their head on the road as they would be likely restrained by their seat belt, so there is a difference.

But we still come back to the basic fact that the pedestrian caused the accident. Leaving the scene didn’t cause it, and it didn’t affect the consequences. So apart from looking to see if the road layout could be safer or better educating pedestrians, doing anything else is a complete waste of my tax. Sorry if you feel this is harsh, but you or I could have avoided the accident by correctly discharging our obligations before crossing the road. This lady didn’t, and that’s that as far as I’m concerned.

While the pedestrians certainly made errors, they are not necessarily the only ones. In both cases, it is quite possible that if the cyclist had been riding legally then any accident would have been avoided.

bramling said:

So in the case of the Alloston case he was prosecuted - so the legislation was already there. Personally I find the scale of his punishment objectionable given the accident was not the result of his error.

Click to expand...

Except that he had to be prosecuted under some archaic law relating to horses... proving that legislation covering cyclist is inadequate
Except he was prosecuted because his bike wasn't road legal... and he had no brakes... obviously if he HAD of had brakes he MIGHT have been able to stop instead of hitting the pedestrian!

bramling said:

No I wouldn’t be defending a motorist leaving a scene. In the same way I haven’t defended the cyclist, however I have offered potential mitigating factors to counter yours and others supposition that it must have been due to some kind of guilt on his part. A motorist, of course, wouldn’t be cracking their head on the road as they would be likely restrained by their seat belt, so there is a difference.

Click to expand...

Except that a motorist with such little regard for the law that they flee the scene of an accident is likely to have contempt for the law and is therefore more likely to NOT be wearing their seatbelt... so therefore just as likely to take a bang to the head {on the windscreen}

bramling said:

But we still come back to the basic fact that the pedestrian caused the accident. Leaving the scene didn’t cause it, and it didn’t affect the consequences. So apart from looking to see if the road layout could be safer or better educating pedestrians, doing anything else is a complete waste of my tax. Sorry if you feel this is harsh, but you or I could have avoided the accident by correctly discharging our obligations before crossing the road. This lady didn’t, and that’s that as far as I’m concerned.

Click to expand...

oh? so just because he didn't cause the accident he shouldn't be prosecuted for acting illegally is that what you're saying?

tony_mac said:

While the pedestrians certainly made errors, they are not necessarily the only ones. In both cases, it is quite possible that if the cyclist had been riding legally then any accident would have been avoided.

Click to expand...

I quite agree... the fact that the cyclist fled the scene and dumped the bike strongly suggests he had something to hide... no matter what the apologists would try and make us believe

tony_mac said:

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

Click to expand...

That's what I found too. (In 2016) Motorists 46% of deaths, others 54%, comprising pedestrians 25%, motorcyclists 18, cyclists 6 and "others" 6. So motorists do not "make up the majority of the figure" (your words) unless you include motorcyclists, I suppose, but then quite a few motorcyclists kill themselves. (It's hard for a pedestrian to do that.)

tony_mac said:

While the pedestrians certainly made errors, they are not necessarily the only ones. In both cases, it is quite possible that if the cyclist had been riding legally then any accident would have been avoided.

Click to expand...

It *might* have been the case in the Alliston case, although I’m sceptical he had that much opportunity.

It’s certainly not the case in the Dalston accident. I can’t see the cyclist had any opportunity to avoid the collision, with the pedestrian suddenly running into the road. I think it’s highly likely the first he knew of anything amiss was when he landed on the road. It’s like saying it’s a homeowners’s fault they’ve been burgled for forgetting to lock their window that day.

Teflon Lettuce said:

I quite agree... the fact that the cyclist fled the scene and dumped the bike strongly suggests he had something to hide... no matter what the apologists would try and make us believe

Click to expand...

This is the point I keep trying to make. You’re making an assumption. Yes it’s possible, but it’s equally possible not. I just don’t get where you’re trying to go with this - even if there was something amiss with him or his bicycle, it doesn’t change the root cause and it almost certainly wasn’t a causal factor. Enough time and money wasted walking down a dead-end alley.

Teflon Lettuce said:

Except that a motorist with such little regard for the law that they flee the scene of an accident is likely to have contempt for the law and is therefore more likely to NOT be wearing their seatbelt... so therefore just as likely to take a bang to the head {on the windscreen}

Click to expand...

That’s an absolutely ridiculous assumption to make.

I have to say I’m really glad you’re not responsible for deciding what my tax is spent on!

bramling said:

It *might* have been the case in the Alliston case, although I’m sceptical he had that much opportunity.

It’s certainly not the case in the Dalston accident. I can’t see the cyclist had any opportunity to avoid the collision, with the pedestrian suddenly running into the road. I think it’s highly likely the first he knew of anything amiss was when he landed on the road. It’s like saying it’s a homeowners’s fault they’ve been burgled for forgetting to lock their window that day.

Click to expand...

actually I think you'll find that if you forget to lock your house then the insurance company will invariably reduce your payout because they deem you to be partly to blame!

bramling said:

it doesn’t change the root cause and it almost certainly wasn’t a causal factor.

Click to expand...

if his speed was due to riding an illegally modified bike, then that is a causal factor. Both in the accident occurring and the severity of the accident.

tony_mac said:

if his speed was due to riding an illegally modified bike, then that is a causal factor. Both in the accident occurring and the severity of the accident.

Click to expand...

Only if he was going unacceptably fast. The CCTV doesn’t allude to that.

bramling said:

This is the point I keep trying to make. You’re making an assumption. Yes it’s possible, but it’s equally possible not. I just don’t get where you’re trying to go with this - even if there was something amiss with him or his bicycle, it doesn’t change the root cause and it almost certainly wasn’t a causal factor. Enough time and money wasted walking down a dead-end alley.

Click to expand...

bramling said:

That’s an absolutely ridiculous assumption to make.

I have to say I’m really glad you’re not responsible for deciding what my tax is spent on!

Click to expand...

Oh an assumption? As can be seen on any of the fly on the wall programmes about traffic police.. they look out for people not wearing seatbelts because it points to other criminal behaviour... as to him dumping his bike... what if it transpires it had been tampered with so it could go twice as fast as it is legally allowed to go.. wouldn't that point to a causal effect on the accident? of course you're trying to just shut down the debate yet again because you are trying to argue a position that is untenable!

bramling said:

Only if he was going unacceptably fast. The CCTV doesn’t allude to that.

Click to expand...

good grief where on earth do you get THAT idea from? watch the video there is a cyclist in the foreground at the beginning and the cyclist involved in the accident is going at LEAST twice if not THREE times the speed... and appears to be going at approximately the SAME speed as the CARS going in the opposite direction....

Teflon Lettuce said:

Oh an assumption? As can be seen on any of the fly on the wall programmes about traffic police.. they look out for people not wearing seatbelts because it points to other criminal behaviour... as to him dumping his bike... what if it transpires it had been tampered with so it could go twice as fast as it is legally allowed to go.. wouldn't that point to a causal effect on the accident? of course you're trying to just shut down the debate yet again because you are trying to argue a position that is untenable!

Click to expand...

No I’m trying not to base conclusions on something which isn’t there.

*If* it transpires that something did contribute to the accident then fine. But as it stands the only thing you have which points to that is your opinion that fleeing the scene must mean there’s a smoking gun in there.

As for seatbelts, yes it *may* be associated with other things. But again it’s making an assumption which is ultimately completely meaningless because it doesn’t tell you anything for sure other than that the motorist wasn’t wearing their seatbelt for whatever reason.

bramling said:

No I’m trying not to base conclusions on something which isn’t there.

*If* it transpires that something did contribute to the accident then fine. But as it stands the only thing you have which points to that is your opinion that fleeing the scene must mean there’s a smoking gun in there.

As for seatbelts, yes it *may* be associated with other things. But again it’s making an assumption which is ultimately completely meaningless because it doesn’t tell you anything for sure other than that the motorist wasn’t wearing their seatbelt for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

oh dear you must really have contempt for the way the police work then... they base there investigations on assumptions... they make an assumption and then look for the evidence to prove/ disprove that assumption!

Teflon Lettuce said:

oh dear you must really have contempt for the way the police work then... they base there investigations on assumptions... they make an assumption and then look for the evidence to prove/ disprove that assumption!

Click to expand...

Yes exactly - they look for evidence. Something your assumptions aren’t supported by.

bramling said:

Yes exactly - they look for evidence. Something your assumptions aren’t supported by.

Click to expand...

good grief.... you really do have selective blindness don't you? I said they make ASSUMPTIONS and then look for evidence to prove/ disprove the assumption...

In this case the police will have said something like "the cyclist has fled the scene, from this it can be assumed that they have something to hide" they have then looked for evidence to prove/ disprove that assumption... they have now found EVIDENCE that that assumption is PROBABLY correct in that the cyclist DUMPED the bike therefore trying to DISASSOCIATE himself from it." They did NOT start from YOUR ASSUMPTION of "oh the poor cyclist fled from the scene therefore he must've been scared or concussed"

Now excuse me whilst I take a break to get a concussion of my own by repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall... it'll be more productive than trying to make you see that you have, on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, come to the wrong conclusions!

JohnMcL7 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I suspect that's because this incident feeds into an already existing widespread (and in my view, quite correct) concern amongst many people that a large proportion of cyclists do regularly cycle dangerously and with scant regard for the safety of pedestrians around them. In fact, as a regular cyclist myself in London, I'd say it's now a majority, not a minority, of London cyclists who fall into that category. Personally I'm all for encouraging cycling and discouraging car driving, but I think the issue of dangerous/inconsiderate cycling does need to be recognised by cyclists.

Having said that the Conservatives' tweet that Chris Boardman mentioned, "We're launching a consultation into dangerous cycling so that our most vulnerable road users are protected" really was pretty stupid, given that cyclists are, along with pedestrians, the most vulnerable road users. It seems that tweet has now been deleted.

Teflon Lettuce said:

good grief.... you really do have selective blindness don't you? I said they make ASSUMPTIONS and then look for evidence to prove/ disprove the assumption...

In this case the police will have said something like "the cyclist has fled the scene, from this it can be assumed that they have something to hide" they have then looked for evidence to prove/ disprove that assumption... they have now found EVIDENCE that that assumption is PROBABLY correct in that the cyclist DUMPED the bike therefore trying to DISASSOCIATE himself from it." They did NOT start from YOUR ASSUMPTION of "oh the poor cyclist fled from the scene therefore he must've been scared or concussed"

Now excuse me whilst I take a break to get a concussion of my own by repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall... it'll be more productive than trying to make you see that you have, on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, come to the wrong conclusions!

Click to expand...

This is where we keep going wrong. I suggested something like concussion *may* be a possibility. You’re implying that because he fled the scene that basically means he pretty much *must* have somehow been at fault. This isn’t the same thing at all.

If or when something comes to light that shows something amiss *which was relevant to causing the accident* (or which worsened the severity of it) then I’m more than happy to reconsider my position, which has been my position from the start, and unlike some others I wouldn’t consider it a shame or disappointing. Thusfar we don’t have that, but we do have some CCTV that very strongly suggests the incident was caused by the pedestrian’s error.

In the meantime we have one other example of an accident where a pedestrian has been killed as a result of a collision with a bicycle. Again in that instance the pedestrian was careless and failed to make a proper check before attempting to cross the road. The cyclist was punished heavily - personally I think disproportionately - so in that instance the legislation proved more than fit for purpose.

If there’s a case for change then I’d be expecting to see plenty of examples where a pedestrian has been killed or suffered injury as a result of a cyclist’s error. So far, and apologies if I’ve overlooked something on here, not one such example has appeared on this thread in quite a few days and posts. One can only form the conclusion from this that there aren’t many such examples. Demonstrate that there’s a big issue and I’ll gladly reconsider my position. In the meantime I pay enough tax funding things which I consider a waste of money, I don’t want something else.

bramling said:

This is where we keep going wrong. I suggested something like concussion *may* be a possibility. You’re implying that because he fled the scene that basically means he pretty much *must* have somehow been at fault. This isn’t the same thing at all.

Click to expand...

ok let's try one last time...did the cyclist flee the scene of an accident... YES that is FACT
did he, on his way home, dispose of his bike? YES that is fact
so does the evidence point to a concussed person acting in fear or confusion OR does it point to someone who has something they want to hide?

oh and a correction not ONCE to my knowledge have I emphatically or otherwise stated that the cyclist must have somehow been at fault...

bramling said:

If or when something comes to light that shows something amiss *which was relevant to causing the accident* (or which worsened the severity of it) then I’m more than happy to reconsider my position, which has been my position from the start, and unlike some others I wouldn’t consider it a shame or disappointing. Thusfar we don’t have that, but we do have some CCTV that very strongly suggests the incident was caused by the pedestrian’s error.

Click to expand...

Well the police have now recovered the bike... IF their investigation of the bike proves that there was nothing illegal about said bike then I will be the first to admit that I've made a wrong call... with the caveat that the cyclist COULD have been fleeing the scene to avoid alcohol/ drug testing. However... IF the police investigation of the bike concludes that it was illegal for it to be on the road will YOU change your stance?

bramling said:

In the meantime we have one other example of an accident where a pedestrian has been killed as a result of a collision with a bicycle. Again in that instance the pedestrian was careless and failed to make a proper check before attempting to cross the road. The cyclist was punished heavily - personally I think disproportionately - so in that instance the legislation proved more than fit for purpose.

Click to expand...

In that particular incident the bike was found to have no brakes, therefore rendering it illegal to be ridden on the public highway. Also the police investigation concluded that the cyclist was riding recklessly ESPECIALLY considering that the bike had no brakes {and IIRC the cyclist was proven to have been high on drugs at the time of the accident}... on that basis the CPS decided to press charges and the cyclist was given a very LIGHT sentence compared to what a motorist would have received under the same circumstances... hence the outcry over his sentence.

bramling said:

If there’s a case for change then I’d be expecting to see plenty of examples where a pedestrian has been killed or suffered injury as a result of a cyclist’s error. So far, and apologies if I’ve overlooked something on here, not one such example has appeared on this thread in quite a few days and posts. One can only form the conclusion from this that there aren’t many such examples. Demonstrate that there’s a big issue and I’ll gladly reconsider my position. In the meantime I pay enough tax funding things which I consider a waste of money, I don’t want something else.

Click to expand...

But every time anyone mentions an incident they've been witness to or involved in you claim "circumstantial" "hearsay" or "anecdotal"... truth is I've seen an old lady taken to hospital with a serious gash to her leg after being sent flying by a cyclist on the pavement... the cyclist didn't even stop... and what did the police do? they shrugged their shoulders and said "what can we do?" hence why there are so few statistics on the matter... now I'm sure you'll dismiss it as "anecdotal" but it happened so therefore is evidence...

has it crossed your mind that one of the reasons why people call for registration/ tax / insurance is so that these rogue cyclists can be held accoountable for their actions... you say it would be a waste of your tax money... but I think that 10 yrs down the line you might end up being shocked at the true statistics of what a real problem anti-social cyclists have become.

Of course, on the "waste of tax payers money" "police have more important things to do" "sledgehammer to crack a nut" arguments... I well remember the same arguments being cried over the Dangerous Dog's Act... now I, at that time thought all of those things about that Act as I had never had any dealings with dangerous dogs... however all these years later, thanks to that act we now have a much clearer picture of how big a problem dangerous dogs are... and many are now saying that the act doesn't go far enough!

Teflon Lettuce said:

ok let's try one last time...did the cyclist flee the scene of an accident... YES that is FACT
did he, on his way home, dispose of his bike? YES that is fact
so does the evidence point to a concussed person acting in fear or confusion OR does it point to someone who has something they want to hide?

oh and a correction not ONCE to my knowledge have I emphatically or otherwise stated that the cyclist must have somehow been at fault...



Well the police have now recovered the bike... IF their investigation of the bike proves that there was nothing illegal about said bike then I will be the first to admit that I've made a wrong call... with the caveat that the cyclist COULD have been fleeing the scene to avoid alcohol/ drug testing. However... IF the police investigation of the bike concludes that it was illegal for it to be on the road will YOU change your stance?



In that particular incident the bike was found to have no brakes, therefore rendering it illegal to be ridden on the public highway. Also the police investigation concluded that the cyclist was riding recklessly ESPECIALLY considering that the bike had no brakes {and IIRC the cyclist was proven to have been high on drugs at the time of the accident}... on that basis the CPS decided to press charges and the cyclist was given a very LIGHT sentence compared to what a motorist would have received under the same circumstances... hence the outcry over his sentence.



But every time anyone mentions an incident they've been witness to or involved in you claim "circumstantial" "hearsay" or "anecdotal"... truth is I've seen an old lady taken to hospital with a serious gash to her leg after being sent flying by a cyclist on the pavement... the cyclist didn't even stop... and what did the police do? they shrugged their shoulders and said "what can we do?" hence why there are so few statistics on the matter... now I'm sure you'll dismiss it as "anecdotal" but it happened so therefore is evidence...

has it crossed your mind that one of the reasons why people call for registration/ tax / insurance is so that these rogue cyclists can be held accoountable for their actions... you say it would be a waste of your tax money... but I think that 10 yrs down the line you might end up being shocked at the true statistics of what a real problem anti-social cyclists have become.

Of course, on the "waste of tax payers money" "police have more important things to do" "sledgehammer to crack a nut" arguments... I well remember the same arguments being cried over the Dangerous Dog's Act... now I, at that time thought all of those things about that Act as I had never had any dealings with dangerous dogs... however all these years later, thanks to that act we now have a much clearer picture of how big a problem dangerous dogs are... and many are now saying that the act doesn't go far enough!

Click to expand...

Okay, so in summary, wait for all the details to emerge - which was what I posted at the start of all this. Apparently that desire for balance and fact seems to make me a cycling zealot.

bramling said:

Okay, so in summary, wait for all the details to emerge - which was what I posted at the start of all this. Apparently that desire for balance and fact seems to make me a cycling zealot.

Click to expand...

and there comes the nub of it... there's something about this incident that doesn't fit in with your world view so you want to stifle any debate about it!

As to your assertion that all you seek is balance... really? how many times did people have to confront you with the facts before you conceded that the cyclist had done ANYTHING wrong... and even then, ever since then, your attitude has been "yes but" citing that he MAY have been suffering concussion and refusing to accept that he MAY have had nefarious reasons for fleeing....

seeking balance? I think not.... as to you wanting facts... well every fact that you are confronted with gets shot down as "circumstantial" "anecdotal" or "hearsay"

even now, after his bike has been found dumped, you still cannot concede that the evidence is pointing more towards nefarious intentions rather than fear or confusion!

Teflon Lettuce said:

and there comes the nub of it... there's something about this incident that doesn't fit in with your world view so you want to stifle any debate about it!

Click to expand...

I’m hardly stifling anything. It’s not me who has repeatedly threatened to make reports to the moderators.

My world view is that I like to deal in reality. No matter how much you return to the subject of leaving the scene, there’s yet to be any official evidence that this is in any way connected with some kind of guilt which may have been causal or contributory to the accident.

The presence of this cyclist on the road doesn’t, at this point, concern me from the perspective of a pedestrian. Were I crossing the road then I would endeavour to check both ways. If I neglected to for whatever reason and ended up getting hit by a cyclist who had no time to react they I’d regard the incident as being wholly my own fault, in fact I’d be offering to pay for any damage to the cycle. I don’t see that position as being unreasonable or unsavoury. If we find there was something amiss then this position is more than open to being revisited.

Perhaps that not fitting in with my world view is a sense of fairness and balance which seems to be missing from just a few contributions in this thread, and some experience of seeing pits fallen into as a result of making unjustified assumptions about things in the absence of full facts.

(Bedtime now, so that’s all for tonight...)

bramling said:

I’m hardly stifling anything. It’s not me who has repeatedly threatened to make reports to the moderators.

Click to expand...

I have only done so when you have repeatedly refused to do what I asked, namely to stop quoting me out of context in order to try and paint me as some kind of rabid lunatic... which you consistently failed to do...

bramling said:

My world view is that I like to deal in reality. No matter how much you return to the subject of leaving the scene, there’s yet to be any official evidence that this is in any way connected with some kind of guilt which may have been causal or contributory to the accident.

Click to expand...

as I've said repeatedly tonight... it's now been reported that the bike has been found and that it had been abandoned...obviously when the police went and questioned the cyclist they couldn't find the bike so had to go looking for it... that STRONGLY SUGGESTS that the cyclist wanted to hide something...

bramling said:

The presence of this cyclist on the road doesn’t, at this point, concern me from the perspective of a pedestrian. Were I crossing the road then I would endeavour to check both ways. If I neglected to for whatever reason and ended up getting hit by a cyclist who had no time to react they I’d regard the incident as being wholly my own fault, in fact I’d be offering to pay for any damage to the cycle. I don’t see that position as being unreasonable or unsavoury. If we find there was something amiss then this position is more than open to being revisited.

Click to expand...

and if said cyclist knocked you flying leaving you seriously injured and just rode off without checking that you're ok you'd just lay there and say to all around you "don't worry. It was all my fault." I think not... you'd be furious with the cyclist!

Teflon Lettuce said:

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!

Click to expand...

If the vehicle being unroadworthy wasn't a causal factor in the collision, and the driver was otherwise driving within the law, then charging the driver with a serious offence (Causing Death by Dangerous Driving) would strike me as a bit harsh. This doesn't mean he'd get off scot-free, as there are a number of more appropriate charges in relation to the vehicle being unroadworthy.
Being involved in an incident would've led to those charges, just as if one drives marginally over the alcohol limit (the morning after, for example) and is rear-ended resulting in police attendance, then one will be breathalysed and (rightly, in my opinion) subsequently charged with drink-driving in spite of it not being a causal factor in the incident. The alcohol not being causal may or may not result in a shorter ban (i.e. mitigation) which is all that @bramling appeared to be suggesting when citing possible concussion or fear of "mob justice" in relation to the cyclist fleeing the scene.

Teflon Lettuce said:

I have only done so when you have repeatedly refused to do what I asked, namely to stop quoting me out of context in order to try and paint me as some kind of rabid lunatic... which you consistently failed to do...

as I've said repeatedly tonight... it's now been reported that the bike has been found and that it had been abandoned...obviously when the police went and questioned the cyclist they couldn't find the bike so had to go looking for it... that STRONGLY SUGGESTS that the cyclist wanted to hide something...

and if said cyclist knocked you flying leaving you seriously injured and just rode off without checking that you're ok you'd just lay there and say to all around you "don't worry. It was all my fault." I think not... you'd be furious with the cyclist!

Click to expand...

I've been catching up on this thread after not reading since the first few days, and your argument throughout has been flawed. You've repeatedly accused others of quoting you out of context whilst doing the same yourself. Whilst others have compromised and made allowances you haven't ceded an inch, instead resorting to random capitalisation of words and threats of reporting to moderators. I'm sure that you're not as objectionable an individual as you've come across as on this thread, but you've not given a great account of yourself on here, in my opinion.

Let's not forget that someone died in this collision. Whether or not she was partially responsible for it, that's still a tragedy. Whether or not the cyclist was also partially responsible (for the collision, rather than fleeing afterwards) will presumably come out following the police investigation, but either way he'll have to carry that with him- just as train drivers often "feel responsible" for PHBT incidents despite them being, in reality, unable to prevent it.

Thoughts to the family and friends of the lady who died.

bramling said:

The presence of this cyclist on the road doesn’t, at this point, concern me from the perspective of a pedestrian. Were I crossing the road then I would endeavour to check both ways. If I neglected to for whatever reason and ended up getting hit by a cyclist who had no time to react they I’d regard the incident as being wholly my own fault, in fact I’d be offering to pay for any damage to the cycle. I don’t see that position as being unreasonable or unsavoury. If we find there was something amiss then this position is more than open to being revisited.

Click to expand...

You have clearly stated what your position would be as a pedestrian.

Now if I just return to the parallel scenario where a motor vehicle is clearly indicating to turn left, but a cyclist decides to undertake that vehicle and is clipped. No grey areas like the vehicle had just overtaken the bike and didn't leave him enough room.

Presumably you would be accepting liability and paying for any damage to the vehicle.

furnessvale said:

You have clearly stated what your position would be as a pedestrian.

Now if I just return to the parallel scenario where a motor vehicle is clearly indicating to turn left, but a cyclist decides to undertake that vehicle and is clipped. No grey areas like the vehicle had just overtaken the bike and didn't leave him enough room.

Presumably you would be accepting liability and paying for any damage to the vehicle.

Click to expand...

That scenario wouldn’t arise as there’s no way I would be undertaking a vehicle which is clearly intending to turn left.

bramling said:

That scenario wouldn’t arise as there’s no way I would be undertaking a vehicle which is clearly intending to turn left.

Click to expand...

And this seems to be the error made by a very significant number of London cyclists, and seems to be the most common way by which they get killed or seriously injured.

When cycling do not, ever place yourself to the left of a vehicle which is (a) indicating left, or (b) is in a left turn filter lane unless you also intend to turn left. And do not pass a vehicle to the left which is moving or could soon move under any circumstances at all. And if you are going to sit in the blind spot of any large vehicle, do so assuming that when they move they may move in any direction. And if you choose to filter through traffic as a cyclist or motorcyclist, do so with the assumption that no vehicle has seen you and may turn onto you (possibly to make space for someone else to filter on the other side) or open a door at any time - so do it slowly, attentively (watching the front wheels of any vehicle you pass) and with your hands on the brakes. Oh, and on topic, have brakes!

If you do find yourself in one of these positions, remove yourself from it immediately. If necessary, dismount and lift your bike onto the pavement, reposition it on the road somewhere safe and remount.

As a similar one, on a motorway, never change lane into a large vehicle's blind spot. They will not have seen you and may pull out on you. Always do it onto the gap between two vehicles.

The rights and wrongs of the law are irrelevant, you can't sue someone if you're dead. People in London cycle too assertively and aggressively by and large - not defensively enough - and that is why they get flattened with scary regularity.

Take an extra 10 minutes for your journey, sit back and give large vehicles lots of space - and you will arrive safely and unstressed.

Bletchleyite said:

And this seems to be the error made by a very significant number of London cyclists, and seems to be the most common way by which they get killed or seriously injured.

When cycling do not, ever place yourself to the left of a vehicle which is (a) indicating left, or (b) is in a left turn filter lane unless you also intend to turn left. And do not pass a vehicle to the left which is moving or could soon move under any circumstances at all. And if you are going to sit in the blind spot of any large vehicle, do so assuming that when they move they may move in any direction. And if you choose to filter through traffic as a cyclist or motorcyclist, do so with the assumption that no vehicle has seen you and may turn onto you (possibly to make space for someone else to filter on the other side) or open a door at any time - so do it slowly, attentively (watching the front wheels of any vehicle you pass) and with your hands on the brakes. Oh, and on topic, have brakes!

If you do find yourself in one of these positions, remove yourself from it immediately. If necessary, dismount and lift your bike onto the pavement, reposition it on the road somewhere safe and remount.

As a similar one, on a motorway, never change lane into a large vehicle's blind spot. They will not have seen you and may pull out on you. Always do it onto the gap between two vehicles.

The rights and wrongs of the law are irrelevant, you can't sue someone if you're dead. People in London cycle too assertively and aggressively by and large - not defensively enough - and that is why they get flattened with scary regularity.

Take an extra 10 minutes for your journey, sit back and give large vehicles lots of space - and you will arrive safely and unstressed.

Click to expand...

This is a very good post. I think the key message from this thread is there needs to be better training and education for all road users. It’s not just a safety benefit - for example motorways would flow better if more people knew how to drive efficiently.

bramling said:

So in the case of the Alloston case he was prosecuted - so the legislation was already there. Personally I find the scale of his punishment objectionable given the accident was not the result of his error.

Click to expand...

Jailed for 18 months under a law intended for horse drawn carriages because there wasn't a suitable cycling law, so it's unsurprising there are calls for changes to cycling laws because of it.

All new motorcyclists and drivers have to undertake a hazard perception test, which mainly consisting of hazards you might see when travelling around at low speeds to test how quickly you can react to them, that's because they are expected to take action if a pedestrian, cyclist or motor vehicle driver does something stupid. Alloston should have sounded his bell, applied the brakes and tried to prevent directly hitting the pedestrian, if he had done that and still had an accident he wouldn't have been to blame for it but he couldn't apply the brakes because he had disabled them and made his bicycle a danger to other road users. It was only right he was sent to jail and it was unfortunate there weren't more relevant laws to charge him under.