Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
- Thread starter
- #181
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
Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
- Thread starter
- #182
Like a bell you mean?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
But not cyclists though?
They appear but identification is harder.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
But not cyclists though?
A lack of a number plate makes that hard.
Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
- Thread starter
- #185
I wish i had thought of that.
That's not what I meant at all: there were definite cases where large numbers of cyclists went through a red light (generally a pedestrian crossing) and there were red lights where hardly any (or none) ventured through - I didn't keep count of each individual light because, as I said, I was doing it all in my head and I had just two numbers to think of.
I meant what I said originally - 18 to 22 percent of cyclists rode through red lights each week. And, for the third time, it's not scientifically rigorous: it was the same lights every time and it was always in the morning. I was extrapolating from those lights to make a general observation about cyclists' behaviour at lights.
I'm fully aware that it would not pass muster as an academic study (my first job was as a statistician so I know what a dodgy survey looks like) but I thought it did give a very rough guide to how cyclists in central London treated red lights.
BensGrandad
New member
Unfortunately identifying the cyclists would be nearly impossible and if it could be done very expensive. I have a simple answer ban all bikes and cyclists from A class Roads.
And for the fourth time, you've got it completely wrong. Those that you didn't see go through a light may have gone through another light on their journey. Or on their return journey. Or they may have gone through the same light or another light on a different day. You'd need to see the whole of every journey to be sure someone never jumped a light in during the week.
There's no point saying it wasn't fully scientific or ready for peer review in a journal, your presented results are complete nonsense.
That's completely irrelevant. I can only observe from one particular point, I can't draw any inferences about subsequent behaviour. That would be like a police radar trap pointing at a car within a speed limit and saying that he never exceeded it.
It's quite a simple sum: let's say the officer pointed at 1000 cars and clocked 180 going over the speed limit. The police could simply say that 18% of the cars at the point were speeding and that would be a valid observation - it doesn't mean that the ones who didn't speed wouldn't speed at some point in their journey or ones who did wouldn't stick to the limits at the next speed trap.
What you saying would be true if I were interested in named individuals but I wasn't. I was trying to get a snapshot at a particular point in time - if over a two-hour period, 100 cyclists approached a red light: 82 stopped and 18 didn't then it's a perfectly reasonable to say that. for that particular set of lights. 18% stopped. I'm not sure why you want to complicate things by saying that it depends how they behave in future; that has no bearing on that particular set of lights.
It's moved away from the main thrust of this thread now, so I'll stop there. Like I said, it was an interesting aside for me, something to relieve a boring commute. I make no claims for scientific rigour, just the behaviour of cyclists at certain sets of lights.
Here is a novel idea. How about everyone take responsibility for their own actions.
Pedestrians stop looking at their phones, when crossing the road and actually look both ways to make sure it is safe to cross.
Cyclists, stop riding like knobs and obey the rules of the road, stop at traffic lights etc
Car drivers have some patience when over taking a cyclist, stop using phone why driving. What most car drivers get annoyed about are not real things. For example there is no such thing as road tax, cyclists are told in the high way code to ride two abreast because it make over taking them more like over taking a car, the distance required to make the move is less. So if cyclists are getting up your nose make sure it is for the right reasons.
As for this chap, he was riding an illegal bike, so guilty in my book.
Pedestrians stop looking at their phones, when crossing the road and actually look both ways to make sure it is safe to cross.
Cyclists, stop riding like knobs and obey the rules of the road, stop at traffic lights etc
Car drivers have some patience when over taking a cyclist, stop using phone why driving. What most car drivers get annoyed about are not real things. For example there is no such thing as road tax, cyclists are told in the high way code to ride two abreast because it make over taking them more like over taking a car, the distance required to make the move is less. So if cyclists are getting up your nose make sure it is for the right reasons.
As for this chap, he was riding an illegal bike, so guilty in my book.
Last edited:
I know, but that's what you have (accidentally) done. That's what "18 to 22 percent of cyclists rode through red lights each week" means.
Agreed. And if you were watching 1 set of lights at a time, and you saw 18 to 22 percent of cyclist jump them. That's the same as saying "between 18 and 22 percent of cyclists rode through each red light", which is what I told you in post #174.
It is not the same as "between 18 and 22 percent of cyclists rode through red lights every week", which has a different meaning.
Agreed. Again, that's not what you said (I realise it's what you meant to say).
I don't want to say that, it was your sentence saying what they did in a week that complicated things.
I would have been going 15-20 mph in the road. Imagine the reaction of the driver of a car if I slowed to 8 mph just in case. When driving so you go 10 mph as soon as you see someone walking on the pavement? I don't.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
For clarification
The offence is 'causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving' - Offences Against the Person Act 1861
The offence is 'causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving' - Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Last edited:
I've very probably missed this somewhere in the thread... but does this offence cover having an illegal bicycle, or is the conviction for the way/speed he was riding it?
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
Did anyone else read that in the voice of Samual L Jackson?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I don't know. I'm getting the info from the Court UK.
BensGrandad
New member
What is the maximum sentence for this offense.