I'm not sure what to make of this one.

[northernladuk]

FTFY

Tailgaters are morons of the first order, frequently they get upset because the car in front is 2 seconds in front of me and they want me to pressure that car to accelerate into their own safe braking area by going up behind them and flashing my lights 6 foot from their boot. That causes ripples and that causes accidents. I can't wait for tailgating cameras.

Totally agree. I thought they did already have them though.

So to summarise

1. You believe a cyclist riding on the pavement illegally and who failed to stop to prevent an accident is in the right? If half the cyclists I see riding badly fell off when they were shouted about then the hobby would die out quickly.

What is right though. Legally, morally, situationally? And when it produced an outcome that was we were totally unaware of.

As I said at the beginning there are a ton of horrible factors. Her age is a problem, any younger and it's likely she wouldn't have wobbled off, busy road, ignorant pedestrian, the law, the timing/speed of the car that hit her. There is no answer to this one. Horrible situation.

2. Tailgating is perfectly sensible and normal drivers shouldn't protect themselves against warty level stupidity. I do however have a solution.

It isn't but you don't protect yourself by carrying out dangerous manoeuvres. You do what you safely can to get out of the situation. If someone is doing something wrong, doing something else wrong to fix their wrongness isn't always the answer.

[vetran]

I made some rubbish up please understand its my best work.
So if you're waiting for a Tube smoking a fag and I make a sudden screaming jump toward you "PUT THAT OUT", causing you to fall onto the lines in shock, I haven't caused your death? I didn't touch you. - no to make this work I would have to be running towards you the wrong way up the escalator.

You are being particularly obtuse today.

A person has died and all you want to do is claim the person responsible did nothing wrong "because cycling on the pavement is wrong". - no I said Manslaughter was harsh as the cyclist had created the situation that put her into danger and whilst unpleasant the walkers actions were not helpful blaming her for the woman falling off the bike was a stretch


I made a few ad hominin attacks because I realise logic is failing me when warty agrees.
Says it all really about you. Maybe the racist claims are unwarranted, you're just a nasty person generally.

FTFY /in text

[northernladuk]

FTFY /in text

Vet's second FTFY sum it up I think. Hard to argue otherwise really. Such a difficult situation.

[vetran]

Totally agree. I thought they did already have them though.

What is right though. Legally, morally, situationally? And when it produced an outcome that was we were totally unaware of.

As I said at the beginning there are a ton of horrible factors. Her age is a problem, any younger and it's likely she wouldn't have wobbled off, busy road, ignorant pedestrian, the law, the timing/speed of the car that hit her. There is no answer to this one. Horrible situation.

It isn't but you don't protect yourself by carrying out dangerous manoeuvres. You do what you safely can to get out of the situation. If someone is doing something wrong, doing something else wrong to fix their wrongness isn't always the answer.

If they had given her a caution that would have seemed sensible.

Slowing down and avoiding them is the only safe tactic in my experience, if you don't move over they get even more aggressive. I have had 40 tonners licking mine and then subsequently other people's exhaust in some cases. I covered a lot of miles, still do a load of motorway miles. I see it most days so we don't have enough tailgate cameras then.

[Zigenare]

Yeah totally but it comes back to the situation we have here. There is a law against bikes on the pavement but we've got a fatality and the law doesn't help in this instance. The exact scenario would if the person tailgating crashes while looking at you while you are making gestures. It's a surreal thought but it's become real if you get me.

The irony as I see it is that the cyclist was runover on the road.

[vetran]

oddly poorly marked "shared use pavement" (according to the Judge)





oddly no little pictures of bikes on the pavement or when entering the pavement.

No segregation line either.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...n-ltn-1-20.pdf

seems people aspire to more

Cycles must be treated as vehicles and not as pedestrians. On urban streets, cyclists must be physically separated from pedestrians and should not share space with pedestrians. Where cycle routes cross pavements, a physically segregated track should always be provided. At crossings and junctions, cyclists should not share the space used by pedestrians but should be provided with a separate parallel route. Shared use routes in streets with high pedestrian or cyclist flows should not be used. Instead, in these sorts of spaces distinct tracks for cyclists should be made, using sloping, pedestrian-friendly kerbs and/ or different surfacing. Shared use routes away from streets may be appropriate in locations such as canal towpaths, paths through housing estates, parks and other green spaces, including in cities. Where cycle routes use such paths in built-up areas, you should try to separate them from pedestrians, perhaps with levels or a kerb.

The road is clearly wide enough for a cycle path. Council should be sued!

[northernladuk]

oddly poorly marked "shared use pavement" (according to the Judge)

The road is clearly wide enough for a cycle path. Council should be sued!

Interesting there is a dropped kerb there though. Is that indicative of a cycle route like no 30 mph signs when the street lights are a certain distance?

Again council can't win. They spend a fortune making it good and they'll get ripped a new one, they don't, they get ripped a new one.

Relieved I'm just a keyboard warrior spouting my uninformed opinion on this one. Hate to be connected to any of the parties mentioned in this thread that are involved.

[northernladuk]

The irony as I see it is that the cyclist was runover on the road.

It is indeed.

So car drivers fault then. They should have been aware and approached the situation with the right speed to stop in time then I guess?

[northernladuk]

If they had given her a caution that would have seemed sensible.

Possibly but someone died. Is that representative of the outcome? Real moral maze this one.

Slowing down and avoiding them is the only safe tactic in my experience, if you don't move over they get even more aggressive. I have had 40 tonners licking mine and then subsequently other people's exhaust in some cases. I covered a lot of miles, still do a load of motorway miles. I see it most days so we don't have enough tailgate cameras then.

If it works for you then fair enough but you see my point. You've got a 40 tonner licking your exhaust and slowing down is the answer? Hell no. It's unlikely he can even see your brake lights at that distance. But you've kept safe this long so up to you.

[SueEllen]

Possibly but someone died. Is that representative of the outcome? Real moral maze this one.

She may have got off completely if she hadn't lied, had stopped at the scene, had looked upset and hadn't gone to carry on with her shopping.

If you run someone over and kill them because they crossed the road in front of you when you were driving at 30mph, didn't have enough time to brake and your car was roadworthy, as long as you stop at or near the scene you won't get a caution or conviction. If you drive off and completely leave the scene then you just done a hit and run.