Hipster causes murder on a bike

[BrilloPad]

[/B]
No, absolutely not. The law is clear that pedestrians always have priority and you should always aim to be driving/riding/whatever in a manner that allows you to stop or avoid in time. Riding an illegal bike with no brakes rather ignores that concept. (So, come to that, is being so engrossed in something that you put yourself in danger, but in the pedestrian's case that is only ever a mitigation)

I suspect this case will be decided on if the rider met that stop-or-avoid requirement or not. If he didn't his ignoring the legalities of cycling will no doubt colour his eventual penalty.

He could easily have stopped. He had time to shout twice.

Amazing really that in London more pedestrians are not run over. They continually do not look where they are going. They act as if they can walk in front of a fast moving bus at zero distance. Technically they do have priority. That will not stop the laws of physics.

[WTFH]

Amazing really that in London more pedestrians are not run over. They continually do not look where they are going. They act as if they can walk in front of a fast moving bus at zero distance. Technically they do have priority. That will not stop the laws of physics.

I wonder if you could apply the same comments to cyclist v cars about "technically" and "the laws of physics"?

[SueEllen]

I wonder if you could apply the same comments to cyclist v cars about "technically" and "the laws of physics"?

Do you need to ask?

Whatever mode of transport Brillo uses he's in the right.

[BrilloPad]

I wonder if you could apply the same comments to cyclist v cars about "technically" and "the laws of physics"?

Absolutely! Which is why I cycle as if every car driver(or pedestrian for that matter) is out to kill me.

Virtually every day a car driver nearly runs me down, even though I am tall and wear hi-viz. About once a week they deliberately do it to get ahead quicker.

Which is why I want the judge, lawyers and jury to cycle across London in the rush hour. The bell end would be found not guilty.

About the only time I feel safe on my bike is cycling round Surrey throwing gel wrappers. Stuck up wimps only ever write to their MP....

[WTFH]

Amazing really that in London more pedestrians are not run over. They continually do not look where they are going. They act as if they can walk in front of a fast moving bus at zero distance. Technically they do have priority. That will not stop the laws of physics.

Which is why I want the judge, lawyers and jury to cycle across London in the rush hour. The bell end would be found not guilty.

Except one of your usual arguments is about how in a collision a 1 tonne car will only have a dent if a bike hits it, but the cyclist is killed/injured, so the car is always at fault.

So, let's take your above statement and change it, to see if you still agree:

Amazing really that in London more cyclists aren't hit. They continually do not look where they are going. They act as if they can ride past a fast moving bus at zero distance. Technically they do have priority. That will not stop the laws of physics.

[BrilloPad]

Except one of your usual arguments is about how in a collision a 1 tonne car will only have a dent if a bike hits it, but the cyclist is killed/injured, so the car is always at fault.

Where did I say that? Show me where that is and I will show you a post you edited - you have form in that area.
I certainly saw others arguing that its okay for a cyclist to cyclist inches past cars, but its different for cars. I do not agree. Last night a car in a queue of traffic turned left then indicated. I was going downhill at the time - however I was still able to stop. The driver was in the wrong - however I assume all drivers are out to kill me.
Also remember that the vast majority of cyclists killed are female. A great trajedy. However they *tend* not to cycle aggressively enough.

Amazing really that in London more cyclists aren't hit. They continually do not look where they are going. They act as if they can ride past a fast moving bus at zero distance. Technically they do have priority. That will not stop the laws of physics.

Cyclists are almost always paying attention. The issue is pedestrians focused entirely on the phone. On the pavement it is annoying. On the road it is dangerous - possibly lethal.

I note that so far they have not released the texts the woman was making. Or the CCTV.

[SueEllen]

Absolutely! Which is why I cycle as if every car driver(or pedestrian for that matter) is out to kill me.

Virtually every day a car driver nearly runs me down, even though I am tall and wear hi-viz. About once a week they deliberately do it to get ahead quicker.

Which is why I want the judge, lawyers and jury to cycle across London in the rush hour. The bell end would be found not guilty.

About the only time I feel safe on my bike is cycling round Surrey throwing gel wrappers. Stuck up wimps only ever write to their MP....

As:
1. "He could easily have stopped. He had time to shout twice ", and,
2. Had no front brake so his bike was not roadworthy.

Would difference does it make if any one of the judge, lawyers or jury cycle in London during rush hour?

Your comments don't make sense.

[SueEllen]

I note that so far they have not released the texts the woman was making. Or the CCTV.

They can't until the trial is finished.

They did that with that lorry driver who went into the back of a car when he was playing with his phone.

[Hobosapien]

Also remember that the vast majority of cyclists killed are female. A great tragedy. However they *tend* not to cycle aggressively enough.

Maybe there should be bicycle training along similar lines of motorcycle training, where you are told to dominate your space to discourage aggressive manoeuvres by others. i.e. ride in the centre of the lane not in the gutter. Less chance of a tipper truck overtaking you to then squash you when you slip up the gutter just as it's about to turn left.

A bit surprising the government, who are always on the lookout for new tax/income streams, haven't introduced a CBT equivalent for cyclists, to ensure competence in cities and dangerous junctions where good roadcraft becomes important (whether the bike is motorised or not), followed up by regular licencing renewals to ensure the photocards are up to date.

This guy was obviously taking that aggressive stance too far by having a bike with improper braking and relying on shouts to clear the way. i.e. no intention of slowing down or stopping if he felt he had right of way.

[WTFH]

Where did I say that? Show me where that is and I will show you a post you edited - you have form in that area.
I certainly saw others arguing that its okay for a cyclist to cyclist inches past cars, but its different for cars. I do not agree.

Sorry it took so long, but I knew it was recent:

The vast majority of the time cyclists on the pavement do not endanger pedestrians. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian, both get hurt. When a car driver hits a cyclist, only the cyclist gets hurt. The cases where cyclists are killed usually involve cyclists not being aggressive enough.