Nice picture of someone apparently too stupid to operate front and rear brakes at the same time.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Cyclist on illegal bike who killed a pedestrian on manslaughter charged 'blamed victim'
- Thread starter Garage_Doors
- Start date
Nice picture of someone apparently too stupid to operate front and rear brakes at the same time.
I think the facts have already established that that is about as likely as him shouting out the National Anthem.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
.......and strangely even less interesting........
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
No, the only thing we've established is NSC doesn't know all the facts and wildly conjecture, as usual.
You don't accept the fact that he had no front brake, then? OK - on yer bike, as they say......................
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,016
from the Guardian:
he shouted twice, he slowed; he had time to react yet not enough to avoid crashing. its hardly wild conjecture to suppose that's because he had insufficient braking.
Have you seen the NSC threads on drivers using mobiles?
It depends on the profile of the court case etc.
No he didn't. His back wheel was fixed to the pedals, but that's not the same thing.
Most cars aren't 2 tonnes either. It was still a fast moving vehicle, easily capable of killing someone. It could have been a child instead of an adult he hit.
It wasn't a kid, it was an adult. He was driving a dangerous illegal bike on the road. He may well have tried to swerve, no one is saying he killed her on purpose (that would be murder rather than manslaughter), but I expect she'd have lived if his bike was road legal.
Well it's not that I want them, it's just basic to determining guilt and culpability.
Yes, so you can argue contributory negligence.
Firstly, it wasn't necessarily 10mph, it could have been 18. Secondly, with brakes he might have stopped altogether, he had time to call out twice. Thirdly, if he had hit her at a lot less speed, then she probably would have lived. You say 'no idea', but that's wrong. There are adverts on tv explaining that speed kills and pedestrians have a much greater chance of survival when vehicles are going slower.
Agreed. Her punishment is death, you think his should be nothing.
That's hearsay. His online posts don't look like the posts of a man that is scarred for life.
Coalburner
Active member
- May 22, 2017
- 315
Because many cyclists condider themselves above the law
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Major generalisation. My husband drives a car, has a full motorbike licence, and cycles miles in a week.
The Fifth Column
Lazy mug
A lot of them do consider themselves above road traffic law. On a drive in my car into Brighton city centre on an average day I can guarantee seeing at least 2-3 cyclists or more running red lights or otherwise ignoring traffic signs etc. I can also guarantee seeing other motorists 'beating' the lights as they change and committing other traffic offences but given the proportion of cyclists to motor vehicles is tiny it does seem that a large proportion of cyclists feel that the road traffic act does not apply to them.
Or that the pedestrian was on the phone and walked into him (like pople do to me when I am walking in London - three in a minute one morning). Not saying this is what happned because the case has not been heard yet. No sure why there is a need for so much hot air on this thread, just because the accused has been emoting on twitter. None of us know the facts, and many of the deductions seem to be based on whether folk are cyclists or hate cyclists.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
I was questioning the shouting Get out of the way.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,016
that may well be the case, however his own testimony is that he had time to shout at her twice, yet not enough time to slow or stop. he's in court because of his actions and suspected negligence, not those of the victim.
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
Well that's just not true. Like motorists, it is the miniroty of cyclists who play fast and loose with the rules of the road. Sweeping generalisations such as this only succeed in turning debates into an 'us vs. them' mindset, which doesn't help anyone.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
Imagine a Muslim cyclist! What a ****! Am I right guys?
JCL - the new kid in town
Well-known member
- Aug 23, 2011
- 1,864
So he had no brakes at all? His argument that he was ignorant of the fact he needed a front brake surely goes out the window if he had no brakes? That is surely common sense to have some way to stop.
(as an aside i'm pretty sure i knew from about 6 years old that you needed both front and back brakes to cycle on the road)
Not in the conventional handlebar sense, no.
To slow down he would have had to modify his pedaling
To emergency stop he would have needed to 'pedal backwards'.
But as said a few times, the rear wheel is no use for stopping, as all locking that would do is slow you down, assuming the rider could control the skid.
JCL - the new kid in town
Well-known member
- Aug 23, 2011
- 1,864
Apparently crash investigator Edward Small said she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash. (calculated from CCTV)
3.8 seconds at 18mph is ~30 metres. Why did he crash into her?
3.8 seconds at 18mph is ~30 metres. Why did he crash into her?