6.53m from 18mph? As said a car would struggle with that.
Can you link me to something explaining this nuance of how they knew when he started reacting? That seems extremely speculative.
Why does the UK hate cyclists?
- Thread starter rIcK
- Start date
- Status
Can you link me to something explaining this nuance of how they knew when he started reacting? That seems extremely speculative.
6.6m is just barely above a car’s purported braking distance at that speed. A bike has worse braking power than a car, even if we buy this cctv reaction business. I simply don’t believe a bike can stop from 18mph in that distance, two brakes or not.
I note also that the MET experiment related to bikes travelling at 15mph, not 18mph, so even their experiment doesn’t show what they say it shows with regard to him travelling at 18mph as per the prosecution’s evidence.
Additionally, you claim he didn’t take evasive action but your evidence of when he started to react is based on him taking evasive action. Which is it?
I note also that the MET experiment related to bikes travelling at 15mph, not 18mph, so even their experiment doesn’t show what they say it shows with regard to him travelling at 18mph as per the prosecution’s evidence.
Additionally, you claim he didn’t take evasive action but your evidence of when he started to react is based on him taking evasive action. Which is it?
Last edited:
Quite possibly, yes. To be honest it’s a bizarre twist of fate as it is given that only 10% of people hit by a car at 20mph die, never mind those hit by a bike at a lower speed.
I believe the majority of the damage was done not by the bike actually hitting her but by the impact launching him over the handlebars and effectively executing a flying headbutt.
Quite possibly.
In any case, I suppose the silver lining is that we can expect the police to now thoroughly investigate future road accidents involving cyclists to the point of checking cctv, car road worthiness, stopping distances, etc.
/sarcasm
IIRC the regular mountain bike did it in about 3.3m and the fixie with proper brakes in 4m, I'll double check that and edit post.
*EDIT*
This graphic shows it quite well:
They should lock up who ever created that pile of BS. No way a cyclist can stop in 3-3.3m traveling at 15mph with thinking time.
Also you have to ask, how long does it take a pedestrian to look and move out the way of a cycle if they actually looked.
I also followed this case closely as and looked at the CCTV. She walked into the road without looking.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge
There is always the chance of confusion or freezing up in the moment.
As much as I think he is a muppet I don't think its really fair that he takes the rap for "blame" entirely in this case but I think the sentencing was fair - they could have easily have put manslaughter on him.
The trouble is that if he were a car driver no one would be talking about manslaughter, and the driver would be acquitted of what would doubtless be a mere death by careless driving charge. Car drivers are bulletproof unless they’re drunk or going over 100mph. Anything else is fair game.
I'll try to find it when I get home, at work atm and it was ages ago when the case was live I looked at it.
Someone on here got sent down for manslaughter in very similar circumstances but on a motorbike.
EDIT: Actually was causing death by dangerous driving.
Last edited:
That's why it doesn't include thinking times, as stated.
I'm pretty sure if he was driving a car with no brakes (or more realistically some chavvy road racer with the ABS pulled out) it would factor into things if it prevented him from stopping.
That depends on whether you buy the stopping distances. I don’t.
As said, and ignored, the MET didn’t even look at a bike like his travelling at 18mph, presumably because they couldn’t find a copper fit enough to wind it up to 18mph. So the stopping distances claimed are spurious.
There are some perfect examples of the poor attitude so many "cyclists" have in these discussions - "Cyclists can not ever be in the wrong" - and as a "cyclist" myself I can't understand the need to pretend that we're somehow perfect and never at fault.
That doesn't mean that drivers or pedestrians are perfect either, both groups have idiots, but when we have examples like that above "a bike goes across roundabout without looking" the first reponse should always be "stupid cyclist" and not "well cars do it too so what's your point" and to answer in that way just shows how blinkered people can get when it becomes "my tribe vs your tribe" because *spoiler* the cyclist who didn't look in that example was absolutely 100% in wrong. In the same way if there's a different example of a driver pulling out of a T-junction without looking causing a cyclist to emergency stop then the same comment is true - "Stupid motorist" and not "Well cyclists pull out too".
Maybe it's because I'm just a "popping down to the shops" type cyclist with a "normal" bike, rather than a race style bike owner, that my attitude seems to be so different from what seems to be a lot of the other cyclists in here.
As an aside, regarding right and wrong when on the road I subscribe to the "I'd rather be alive and annoyed at a situation rather than in the right but dead" group where, even if I'm in a situation where I'm completely in the right, I'll still use my sense of "Self Preservation" before expecting another road user to be complete perfect and error free. For example, over the weekend I was filtering past static traffic and there's a junction ahead on my left side which joins onto my road with a car waiting to pull out. Now the highway code says I can cycle past the junction without issue because I have right of way, but do I do that, no, because people are idiots and make mistakes, so I slow down (oh no, no PB today) and cover my brakes whilst passing the junction and I go past without issue because I'd rather be alive and annoyed than "in the right" to keep cycling at full speed but hurt or dead if the idiot decides to pull out.
Again, I've been cycling for 30+ years now (since I was 10 - even on the roads at that age) and I've never had an issue, never been knocked off, never had someone peep the horn at me (in my car is a different matter
) so I'd suggest I may be doing something right.
That doesn't mean that drivers or pedestrians are perfect either, both groups have idiots, but when we have examples like that above "a bike goes across roundabout without looking" the first reponse should always be "stupid cyclist" and not "well cars do it too so what's your point" and to answer in that way just shows how blinkered people can get when it becomes "my tribe vs your tribe" because *spoiler* the cyclist who didn't look in that example was absolutely 100% in wrong. In the same way if there's a different example of a driver pulling out of a T-junction without looking causing a cyclist to emergency stop then the same comment is true - "Stupid motorist" and not "Well cyclists pull out too".
Maybe it's because I'm just a "popping down to the shops" type cyclist with a "normal" bike, rather than a race style bike owner, that my attitude seems to be so different from what seems to be a lot of the other cyclists in here.
As an aside, regarding right and wrong when on the road I subscribe to the "I'd rather be alive and annoyed at a situation rather than in the right but dead" group where, even if I'm in a situation where I'm completely in the right, I'll still use my sense of "Self Preservation" before expecting another road user to be complete perfect and error free. For example, over the weekend I was filtering past static traffic and there's a junction ahead on my left side which joins onto my road with a car waiting to pull out. Now the highway code says I can cycle past the junction without issue because I have right of way, but do I do that, no, because people are idiots and make mistakes, so I slow down (oh no, no PB today) and cover my brakes whilst passing the junction and I go past without issue because I'd rather be alive and annoyed than "in the right" to keep cycling at full speed but hurt or dead if the idiot decides to pull out.
Again, I've been cycling for 30+ years now (since I was 10 - even on the roads at that age) and I've never had an issue, never been knocked off, never had someone peep the horn at me (in my car is a different matter
) so I'd suggest I may be doing something right.On a motorbike? Not a car driver, then.
Prosecuted as a motorist though - car driver under the same circumstances would have been treated the same.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I like to think that poor cyclists are bad not because they are cyclists but because they are **** people. Take their bike away and give them a car and they will be just as bad for the same reasons. Inattentive, self entitled and uncaring on a bike - they are likely the same in a car. What about those panicky drivers who can't commit to anything until the moments almost pass and they surprise everyone by pulling out just as it seems that they are waiting for you to pass - likely the same if they were on a bike.
Sunday Cyclists with no etiquette, poor road positioning and oblivious to every road user there? Remind me of those Sunday drivers who go out for a cruise in their restored whip that they drive for a total of 2 hours throughout the summer.
Sunday Cyclists with no etiquette, poor road positioning and oblivious to every road user there? Remind me of those Sunday drivers who go out for a cruise in their restored whip that they drive for a total of 2 hours throughout the summer.
My point is I doubt it. Juries of car drivers are reluctant to convict car drivers except in extreme circumstances. A motorcyclist is not a car driver.
- Status