Cyclist found jointly liable for hitting pedestrian in road reading mobile



Edinburgh Black Cat said:
Seems like a fair decision.

Pedestrian clearly being careless, and cyclist not being properly aware of hazards.
Click to expand...

I do wonder whether that would be the general concensus on here (and the judges decision) if it was a car driver involved and not someone on a bike. She'd probably be dead now if she was unfortunate enough to be hit by a car and not a bike.

Are motorists be expected to trundle at 10mph through areas where there is potential for the gormless to walk without looking? No, and I don't even think we'd be having a discussion that the driver might be the in the wrong. That's the thing that annoys me about this case.
 
James said:
I do wonder whether that would be the general concensus on here (and the judges decision) if it was a car driver involved and not someone on a bike. She'd probably be dead now if she was unfortunate enough to be hit by a car and not a bike.

Are motorists be expected to trundle at 10mph through areas where there is potential for the gormless to walk without looking? No, and I don't even think we'd be having a discussion that the driver might be the in the wrong. That's the thing that annoys me about this case.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If you're in a car you are meant to be aware of potential hazards.

Someone walking towards the road staring at their phone is a trigger to slow down.
 
Edinburgh Black Cat said:
I disagree. If you're in a car you are meant to be aware of potential hazards.

Someone walking towards the road staring at their phone is a trigger to slow down.
Click to expand...

I obviously agree, but I don't think our justice system applies that sentiment fairly. Just an example here:

Lawyer cleared over grandfather’s death at zebra crossing

Kills someone in zebra crossing, walks away a free man. I do think we have a problem in this country of being blind to incidents like this as they happen so often, yet once a year when it happens to be someone in a bicycle the law comes down far harsher. It doesn't seem fair to me.
 
James said:
I obviously agree, but I don't think our justice system applies that sentiment fairly. Just an example here:

Lawyer cleared over grandfather’s death at zebra crossing

Kills someone in zebra crossing, walks away a free man. I do think we have a problem in this country of being blind to incidents like this as they happen so often, yet once a year when it happens to be someone in a bicycle the law comes down far harsher. It doesn't seem fair to me.
Click to expand...
Finding one example of a motorist getting off doesn't prove anything. Do we know how many cases are brought against cyclists each year? Do we know how many motorists are convicted?
Also the balance of proof is different in a criminal and civil court.
 
monkeytassle said:
Never been down cannon Street then. I'll keep my open for 128 people next time for the one that steps into the road.
Click to expand...
Maybe, just maybe, it's not fit for cycling in. Maybe we should leave it to the pedestrians and essential wheeled traffic* only.

*Buses, deliveries, emergency services.
 
Edinburgh Black Cat said:
Well yes, if there are 128 hazards then slowing down and being more alert sounds sensible does it not?
Click to expand...
Like sounding his horn and taking evasive action?

janiep said:
Maybe, just maybe, it's not fit for cycling in. Maybe we should leave it to the pedestrians and essential wheeled traffic* only.

*Buses, deliveries, emergency services.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It isn't though. It's a free for all abused by pedestrians and you know that
 
monkeytassle said:
Like sounding his horn and taking evasive action?
Click to expand...
Going slower to begin with. He was doing 15mph not 10mph as @James reported.

monkeytassle said:
Like sounding his horn and taking evasive action?


Agreed. It isn't though. It's a free for all abused by pedestrians and you know that
Click to expand...
Please don't put words in my mouth, it's not 'abused' by pedestrians. It's 'used' by pedestrians, and lots of them. Not least because they're going in and out of Cannon St station, and there's hods of them at rush hour. Time for bikes to be banned from it.

James said:
I do wonder whether that would be the general concensus on here (and the judges decision) if it was a car driver involved and not someone on a bike. She'd probably be dead now if she was unfortunate enough to be hit by a car and not a bike.

Are motorists be expected to trundle at 10mph through areas where there is potential for the gormless to walk without looking? No, and I don't even think we'd be having a discussion that the driver might be the in the wrong. That's the thing that annoys me about this case.
Click to expand...
The fact is at 15mph he was travelling faster than most motorised traffic manages down that street, which I know well. It's an example of where cycling is an absolute danger: there's literally thousands of pedestrians coming out of or going into Cannon St station in rush hour and needing to cross the road to the get to the heart of the City, there's practically stationary motorised traffic, and then there's cyclists, some of whom feel utterly uninhibited by the crowds of people/buses/cars and carry on as fast as they can.

James said:
I obviously agree, but I don't think our justice system applies that sentiment fairly. Just an example here:

Lawyer cleared over grandfather’s death at zebra crossing

Kills someone in zebra crossing, walks away a free man. I do think we have a problem in this country of being blind to incidents like this as they happen so often, yet once a year when it happens to be someone in a bicycle the law comes down far harsher. It doesn't seem fair to me.
Click to expand...
That is a criminal case. This is a civil case. It's a false comparison but if you must make it, then please note that the cyclist has not been prosecuted.

*Correction, the report says the cyclist was going at "10-15mph".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
janiep said:
Maybe, just maybe, it's not fit for cycling in. Maybe we should leave it to the pedestrians and essential wheeled traffic* only.

*Buses, deliveries, emergency services.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, buses in London are one of the worst offenders for pedestrian safety. Literally hundreds if not thousands of incidents involving pedestrians and buses over the last few years alone.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

The City is moving towards becoming essential deliveries, buses cycles and pedestrians anyway, I just wish they'd speed the process up.
 
Last edited:
janiep said:
Going slower to begin with. He was doing 15mph not 10mph as @James reported.


Please don't put words in my mouth, it's not 'abused' by pedestrians. It's 'used' by pedestrians, and lots of them. Not least because they're going in and out of Cannon St station, and there's hods of them at rush hour. Time for bikes to be banned from it.


The fact is at 15mph he was travelling faster than most motorised traffic manages down that street, which I know well. It's an example of where cycling is an absolute danger: there's literally thousands of pedestrians coming out of or going into Cannon St station in rush hour and needing to cross the road to the get to the heart of the City, there's practically stationary motorised traffic, and then there's cyclists, some of whom feel utterly uninhibited by the crowds of people/buses/cars and carry on as fast as they can.


That is a criminal case. This is a civil case. It's a false comparison but if you must make it, then please note that the cyclist has not been prosecuted.

*Correction, the report says the cyclist was going at "10-15mph".
Click to expand...
It is absolutely abused.
 

Back
Top