Scumbag Cyclist Gets £2,200 Fine For Killing Girl He Could Have Avoided

[Stumpy Tim]

Care to explain the £2,200 Fine then?

From your original article - "A CPS spokesperson said: "A file of evidence from the police was reviewed by a senior CPS prosecutor and, based on that evidence, it was decided the charge of dangerous cycling was the most appropriate.

"Each case is kept under continuous review and following correspondence with Rhiannon's family, the case was looked at before and after the inquest into Rhiannon's death, which returned a verdict of accidental death. "

So in other words, the CPS decided there was NO PROOF for manslaughter. He was cycling too fast. But of course, you believe that you know better than the CPS because you've read some newspapers articles - while they only had the evidence in front of them

 

[London Calling]

Well I'd thought I'd seen it all until tonight. Part of the cycle lane is closed at Vauxhall cross.

Because the cyclist can't use the road (it's one way the other way), they are simply jumping off the closed cycle lane and using the pavement instead.

A 50 yard stretch, not even two metres wide.

I was on that pavement (outside the small Tescos) and had to get out of the way of one cyclist, got pissed off and told another to get off his bike. Big signs telling cyclists to dismount, every single wanker completely ignoring them.

I sat at the bus stop opposite for 20 minutes, waiting for a late bus and every single cyclist did the same.

Blows out the water the claim that it's a minority of cyclists in London.

It isn't I'm sorry.

Intersteing point, our part of the Hackney LCC is strong enough, that all road closures are discussed with them, and alternative options made available.

Recently TfL contractors set up (illegallY) get off your bike signs whilst they were road works, after a few calls, HackneyCouncil came down hard on them.

Made them put in appropriate provision.

In both your cases at Vauxhall a similar approach may have worked.

Also Hackney LCC members are willing to go down to hot spots and warn cyclists.

LC

 

[clapham_gull]

Intersteing point, our part of the Hackney LCC is strong enough, that all road closures are discussed with them, and alternative options made available.

Recently TfL contractors set up (illegallY) get off your bike signs whilst they were road works, after a few calls, HackneyCouncil came down hard on them.

Made them put in appropriate provision.

In both your cases at Vauxhall a similar approach may have worked.

Also Hackney LCC members are willing to go down to hot spots and warn cyclists.

LC

Not sure it's the same situation to be honest. There are adequate alternatives for cyclists, it's called the road.

To be honest - the sign doesn't need to be there, if the cyclists realised that the pavement isn't for cycling on

 

[London Calling]

But it is a bout planning, when a road is closed, notice is giving out weeks, months in advance, for motorists to make alternative arrangements.

The same rule needs to be shown to cyclists, its too late, just to put up a sign at the point of closure, with a "lump it lad" attitude. As you said, the path was closed, its a one way street. No altenative safe route at THAT POINT. Pre warning and suggesting alternative routes beforehand, can work.

Planning with the local LCC group may have come up with alternatives, plus Community Policemen at key times to mitigate unsocial behaviour.

It works you know.


You do have a ROUGH TIME down south with your cyclists

 

[sten_super]

But it is a bout planning, when a road is closed, notice is giving out weeks, months in advance, for motorists to make alternative arrangements.

The same rule needs to be shown to cyclists, its too late, just to put up a sign at the point of closure, with a "lump it lad" attitude. As you said, the path was closed, its a one way street. No altenative safe route at THAT POINT. Pre warning and suggesting alternative routes beforehand, can work.

Planning with the local LCC group may have come up with alternatives, plus Community Policemen at key times to mitigate unsocial behaviour.

It works you know.


You do have a ROUGH TIME down south with your cyclists

I'm sorry LC, I'm with clapham_gull on this one. If I (or you, or anyone reasonable) was in a car (or, for the sake of something a bit more similar, a motorbike), wanting to go down a one-way road that was closed for road works, would we just go 'f*** it, on the pavement it is for me' and ride down the pavement (assuming we could fit )? No, we would turn round and find an alternative route.

The problem that some cyclists have is that they believe the pavement is fair game, that they are entitled to use it. Cyclists need to learn that they aren't; they are in (admittedly specialist) vehicles. They use cycle lanes, if they are available, or failing that the road. THAT is the problem with some cyclists.

 

[Woodchip]

Not sure it's the same situation to be honest. There are adequate alternatives for cyclists, it's called the road.

To be honest - the sign doesn't need to be there, if the cyclists realised that the pavement isn't for cycling on

Because the cyclist can't use the road (it's one way the other way), they are simply jumping off the closed cycle lane and using the pavement instead.

Oh, is that conflincting information?

Should a pavement be closed part of the road is given over to pedestrians. Should a road be closed diversion routes are well signposted. If a cycle path is closed not provisions are made for alternate routes.

Possibly a bit of thought by contractors and planning authorities would assist in the matter.

 

[Woodchip]

I'm sorry LC, I'm with clapham_gull on this one. If I (or you, or anyone reasonable) was in a car (or, for the sake of something a bit more similar, a motorbike), wanting to go down a one-way road that was closed for road works, would we just go 'f*** it, on the pavement it is for me' and ride down the pavement (assuming we could fit )? No, we would turn round and find an alternative route.

The problem that some cyclists have is that they believe the pavement is fair game, that they are entitled to use it. Cyclists need to learn that they aren't; they are in (admittedly specialist) vehicles. They use cycle lanes, if they are available, or failing that the road. THAT is the problem with some cyclists.

The difference being road closures are generally signposted at the end of roads, not half way down them.

 

[London Calling]

I'm sorry LC, I'm with clapham_gull on this one. If I (or you, or anyone reasonable) was in a car (or, for the sake of something a bit more similar, a motorbike), wanting to go down a one-way road that was closed for road works, would we just go 'f*** it, on the pavement it is for me' and ride down the pavement (assuming we could fit )? No, we would turn round and find an alternative route.

The problem that some cyclists have is that they believe the pavement is fair game, that they are entitled to use it. Cyclists need to learn that they aren't; they are in (admittedly specialist) vehicles. They use cycle lanes, if they are available, or failing that the road. THAT is the problem with some cyclists.

I am not saying that, you see from my other posts here and elsewhere, I don't condone that behaviour.

In fact stats show cyclists suffer from more accidents on pavements than on roads. Because pavements aren't designed for bikes!

THEY JUST GET KILLED ON ROADS.

I am just pointing out, treat all road users with equal respect and ahead ingly, if needs be get enforcement officers planned at hot spots than you reduce the anti-social behaviour Clapham refers to.

 

[London Calling]

Other thing bout cycle lanes they are optional not compulsory.

 

[sten_super]

Ok fair enough. Sorry I shouldn't really have isolated you particularly, it was just that yours was the last response!

I agree that there should be more consideration for cyclists at these kind of incidents. What I am trying to say though is that the fact there isn't better provision for them is NOT an excuse for them to do whatever they want. And it sounds like we agree on that.

What do you mean about them being optional? For who, car drivers?

 

[London Calling]

For cyclists.

Cycle lanes are not mandatory for cyclists.

Obviously if a cyclist doesn't use it - when it goes against the traffic in a one way street, they are commiting an offence.

 

[che]

Whole life is unfair

 

[sten_super]

For cyclists.

Cycle lanes are not mandatory for cyclists.

Obviously if a cyclist doesn't use it - when it goes against the traffic in a one way street, they are commiting an offence.

Oh right. Yes, but I was under the impression that the optional in that a cyclist can use the cycle path or the road, not the pavement. Am I wrong? (It wouldn't be the first time!)

 

[London Calling]

Oh right. Yes, but I was under the impression that the optional in that a cyclist can use the cycle path or the road, not the pavement. Am I wrong? (It wouldn't be the first time!)

You must be mate

according to C Gull 9/10 Clapham cyclists use the pavements, I thiink the local by law there says, that the road is optional.

LC

 

[Woodchip]

You must be mate

according to C Gull 9/10 Clapham cyclists use the pavements, I thiink the local by law there says, that the road is optional.

LC

And my understanding of the rules is that a cycle lane is the same as a parking bay, only free instead.

 

[sten_super]

Can you tell I'm bored at work?

From the Highway Code...

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.


[Law HA 1835 sect 72]

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

133-143: Multi-lane carriageways 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

 

[London Calling]

Can you tell I'm bored at work?

From the Highway Code...

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.


[Law HA 1835 sect 72]

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

133-143: Multi-lane carriageways 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

Should also say, Pavements are not compulsory but whilst in Vauxall and in a presence of an Albion fan, please use frequently

 

[clapham_gull]

Oh, is that conflincting information?

Should a pavement be closed part of the road is given over to pedestrians. Should a road be closed diversion routes are well signposted. If a cycle path is closed not provisions are made for alternate routes.

Possibly a bit of thought by contractors and planning authorities would assist in the matter.

No not all. Just a short diversion.

The same cyclists will be running down that road every day, so absolutely no excuse to simply mount the pavement.

Of course the cycle lane had to given over to pedestrians - they have no choice. Unlike cyclists....

I have no problem with cyclists getting off their frigging bikes and wheeling them along the pavement, but they can't be arsed.

As for the "dismount" signs, they are all over Vauxhall permanently - telling cyclists where the cycle path ends.

Temporary, permanent ? so what - they simply ignore them.

Tell you what I'll start walking in the middle of the road and tell all the motorists than I have a god given right to be there. I'll also use the excuse that I'm in the middle of a war with cyclists and the pavement is far too dangerous for me to walk on. Sound reasonable ? Of course it doesn't....

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

So in other words, the CPS decided there was NO PROOF for manslaughter. He was cycling too fast. But of course, you believe that you know better than the CPS because you've read some newspapers articles - while they only had the evidence in front of them

Sorry Tim, but you're making yourself look a bit daft here. That wasn't a speeding fine he was given. And it was a collison he chose not to avoid.

As Dick Knight's Mumm explained a couple of posts up 'that was the only charge they could make against him - the maximum fine was £2,500 which he did not get as he did stay around after the incident, and he has never aplogised for what happened. Maybe he is thinking about the private claim that may follow. But the judge's view was apparently that his hands were tied in his judgement.'

Got absolutely no idea why you are vehemently defending this creep. Presumably he's not a relative of yours. Don't suppose you've got a five grand pushbike by any chance? Is it the five grand pushbike-owning community that you're defending here?

Sorry, but I just don't get it

 

[Woodchip]

Sorry Tim, but you're making yourself look a bit daft here. That wasn't a speeding fine he was given. And it was a collison he chose not to avoid.

As Dick Knight's Mumm explained a couple of posts up 'that was the only charge they could make against him - the maximum fine was £2,500 which he did not get as he did stay around after the incident, and he has never aplogised for what happened. Maybe he is thinking about the private claim that may follow. But the judge's view was apparently that his hands were tied in his judgement.'

Got absolutely no idea why you are vehemently defending this creep. Presumably he's not a relative of yours. Don't suppose you've got a five grand pushbike by any chance? Is it the five grand pushbike-owning community that you're defending here?

Sorry, but I just don't get it

Leave 5grand bikes alone, you bully!!!

£4,674