Prison for shouting at cyclist.

tony99

RaymondLin said:

tony99 said:

RaymondLin said:

tony99 said:

Brio said:

There is some confusion as to whether or not the pavement, at the scene of the accident was still shared.

Nor according to the judge. What evidence were you shown that confuses the issue for you?

"The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway."

That's what's been reported from the BBC :

As I said, what difference would that make? Let's say she shouldn't have been riding on the pavement.

Let's say you shouldn't be driving a car without MOT.

Can I ram your car near the edge of a cliff?

No you can't.  Because we are not Judge Dredd who gives out potential death sentences on the spot.

Sorry Raymond but someone asked specifically what confused the shared pathway issue. I thought the quote I posted showed the confusing bit.

I am merely pointing out that, even if it's 100% in the pedestrian's favour in terms of the right to ride a bike on there...it still doesn't give the right for the pedestrian to push someone off their bike.  (but yes, the police couldn't say which way it is, but not that it matters)

So people using that as a reason isn't a reason at all.

Ok Raymond I think you might be getting a bit emotive about the subject to be honest.

I also haven't seen anybody in this story being reportedly pushed off a bike so I'm not sure why you're saying that to make your point.

crunchman

drofluf said:

ICBM said:

crunchman said:

Pretty much the first thing I do when I get a new bike is take the bell off.

Why?

I am both a pedestrian and a cyclist - less often, but still enough to find a bell useful sometimes.

I find my voice both politer and more effective than a bell - although you can't do much against the headphone wearing pedestrians... Additionally on a road bike where you can safely be riding with your hands in different positions there's no one place to put a bell where it can always be reached. And if a pedestrian steps out in front of me I don't want to decide between reading for the bell or the brakes

This, plus the bit of my post that @ICBM snipped out when he quoted it.  In London, a pedestrian won't hear a bell over the traffic.  Shouting "Look out" at them is far more effective if they are about to step into the road without looking.  And, as you say, you can call out and use the brakes at the same time.

Also, the bells you get with a new bike to fulfil the requirement to have a bell are cheap nasty things that will probably stop working within three months, and are very quiet even if they do work.  If you want a bell, you need to buy a decent after market one.

Or get one of these:

https://hornit.com/collections/bike-horns-and-lights/products/v3-db140

That will definitely upset pedestrians on a shared use path though.  And is still useless on a drop bar bike most of the time because your hand is nowhere near it when you need it.

Shrews

To me it looks like the cyclist was always on the road or went onto the road at the command of the pedestrian, either way it looks to me like the cyclist is on the road and the pedestrian is on the path as they pass one another.

The pedestrian has either pushed, shoulder barged, attempted to push/barge (just missed), or the cyclist thought she might do so, and either then swerved to avoid her in anticipation (or reaction), or been physically pushed/barged.

However, if the pedestrian hadn't have said anything/done anything at all then the cyclist would be alive today. However, it could also be said that if the cyclist wasn't on the pavement to begin with then she would also be alive today.

If she knowingly pushed her into the path of the car (did she see it?) then that's murder to me. But I guess that's very difficult to prove.

I've challenged cyclists before riding on paths at speed "Get on the road!" You normally get a "fuck off" in response or some other muttering. But not often, maybe 5-10 times in the last 10 years. If that cyclist gets distracted at that moment, falls into the road, and gets fatally hit by a car, then I am to blame to some extent. 

But then again, do we not challenge 'crimes' any more? Are we not allowed to do that?  Is this case actually setting a precedent "The public should not challenge crimes being committed."

What about those have-a-go heroes who get rewarded for their bravery when stopping jewellery shop break-ins etc?  Say the gun goes off when you push the gunman over and kills the gunman?

crunchman

The Highway Code does say that you should use road rather than a shared path if you doing over a certain speed.  I think it's 18mph, but generally I'd use the road if I'm doing anything over 12mph or so - generally whenever I'm on my road bike.

In this case though, a 77 year old woman is not going to be going at ridiculous speeds.

chillidoggy

A question for cyclists - If you don’t have a bell to alert pedestrians to your presence, what form of word(s) do you use?

Sporky

tony99 said:

Ok Raymond I think you might be getting a bit emotive about the subject to be honest.

Let's not get into accusing people of any given state of mind just because they have a different viewpoint. Play the ball, not the player. 

tony99

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

Ok Raymond I think you might be getting a bit emotive about the subject to be honest.

Let's not get into accusing people of any given state of mind just because they have a different viewpoint. Play the ball, not the player. 

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

RaymondLin

tony99 said:

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

Ok Raymond I think you might be getting a bit emotive about the subject to be honest.

Let's not get into accusing people of any given state of mind just because they have a different viewpoint. Play the ball, not the player. 

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

Or push someone into traffic.

Both point is putting someone else is mortal danger, a very simple concept to understand.

tony99

RaymondLin said:

tony99 said:

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

Ok Raymond I think you might be getting a bit emotive about the subject to be honest.

Let's not get into accusing people of any given state of mind just because they have a different viewpoint. Play the ball, not the player. 

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

Or push someone into traffic.

Both point is putting someone else is mortal danger, a very simple concept to understand.

Again though, I haven't seen anyone being reportedly pushed into traffic.

drofluf

chillidoggy said:

A question for cyclists - If you don’t have a bell to alert pedestrians to your presence, what form of word(s) do you use?

The polite ones or the other ones?

Usually just "stop" or "look out" though.

RaymondLin

tony99 said:

RaymondLin said:

tony99 said:

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

Ok Raymond I think you might be getting a bit emotive about the subject to be honest.

Let's not get into accusing people of any given state of mind just because they have a different viewpoint. Play the ball, not the player. 

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

Or push someone into traffic.

Both point is putting someone else is mortal danger, a very simple concept to understand.

Again though, I haven't seen anyone being reportedly pushed into traffic.

Then you are not watching the video where you see her push the lady on the bike, where her hands extend as the bike got near, then the bike goes into the road.

You are going to argue "but we don't actually see the physical contact".

Then we are into the realm whether her motion, or action caused the accident...which I will leave the argument to the courts, who have more information and the court and its judgement clearly deemed that her action caused the accident.

Sporky

tony99 said:

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

It is unseemly to make assertions about someone else's emotional state (which, in any case, you cannot know) in order to try to dismiss their argument. 

tony99

RaymondLin said:

tony99 said:

RaymondLin said:

tony99 said:

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

Ok Raymond I think you might be getting a bit emotive about the subject to be honest.

Let's not get into accusing people of any given state of mind just because they have a different viewpoint. Play the ball, not the player. 

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

Or push someone into traffic.

Both point is putting someone else is mortal danger, a very simple concept to understand.

Again though, I haven't seen anyone being reportedly pushed into traffic.

Then you are not watching the video where you see her push the lady on the bike, where her hands extend as the bike got near, then the bike goes into the road.

You are going to argue "but we don't actually see the physical contact".

Then we are into the realm whether her motion, or action caused the accident...which I will leave the argument to the courts, who have more information and the court and its judgement clearly deemed that her action caused the accident.

I've seen both the videos Raymond. I'm not making my own judgement either. I'm just saying I haven't seen it reported anywhere that she pushed the lady off the bike.  Also I was just agreeing with an earlier post that the "shared pathway (or not) designation" is confusing given what has been reported.  

You've just taken what I've posted and ran with it.

victorludorum

crunchman said:

The Highway Code does say that you should use road rather than a shared path if you doing over a certain speed.  I think it's 18mph, but generally I'd use the road if I'm doing anything over 12mph or so - generally whenever I'm on my road bike.

In this case though, a 77 year old woman is not going to be going at ridiculous speeds.

This is what's sad. It doesn't look like she's going very quickly, so why not just stop and let the pedestrian walk by? It seems pretty clear that the woman on the pavement is agitated before the bike finally arrives, so if it were me and I was riding on the pavement I'd have stopped, but it wasn't. When the poor woman falls off she looks like she's barely in control of that bike (in the 1 clip I've seen). All a very tragic and pointless accident.

tony99

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

It is unseemly to make assertions about someone else's emotional state (which, in any case, you cannot know) in order to try to dismiss their argument. 

No I'd say it's very fair to opine whether someone is being emotive or descriptive around an issue based on the words they use. I'm also not trying to dismiss his argument, given I'm not sure what his argument actually is.

digitalscream

tony99 said:

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

It is unseemly to make assertions about someone else's emotional state (which, in any case, you cannot know) in order to try to dismiss their argument. 

No I'd say it's very fair to opine whether someone is being emotive or descriptive around an issue based on the words they use. I'm also not trying to dismiss his argument, given I'm not sure what his argument actually is.

There was nothing emotive in the statements you responded to at all. You, on the other hand, are definitely trying to wind him up by using that as an excuse to dismiss what he's saying, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Moloch

There was no accident. The fact there there are people here who have evidently watched the video and are suggesting that there was no deliberate push really gives you an idea of the average age on the forum and the related level of macular degeneration.

tony99

digitalscream said:

tony99 said:

Sporky said:

tony99 said:

He's talking about cars getting rammed off cliffs. My point stands.
 

It is unseemly to make assertions about someone else's emotional state (which, in any case, you cannot know) in order to try to dismiss their argument. 

No I'd say it's very fair to opine whether someone is being emotive or descriptive around an issue based on the words they use. I'm also not trying to dismiss his argument, given I'm not sure what his argument actually is.

There was nothing emotive in the statements you responded to at all. You, on the other hand, are definitely trying to wind him up by using that as an excuse to dismiss what he's saying, despite your protestations to the contrary.

I'm not trying to wind anyone up

Devil#20

chillidoggy said:

Brio said:

This is tragic news; cyclists across the nation will be emboldened by it, and us poor old pedestrians will have to have rear-view mirrors fitted to our specs to detect stealth attacks from behind.

We have to have bells, so a fair trade off. :-)

So do cows.

Pull the other one. 

Sporky

tony99 said:

No I'd say it's very fair to opine whether someone is being emotive or descriptive around an issue based on the words they use. I'm also not trying to dismiss his argument, given I'm not sure what his argument actually is.

You're clearly getting desperate now. You don't - by your own admission - even understand the debate in which you're participating, so you're lashing out hysterically, trying to score points. If it's all beyond you - as you say in the bit I've quoted - maybe you should step away, calm down, and stop getting agitated about words on the Internet.

For clarity, that first paragraph is just a demonstration - I don't mean any of it. I'm just showing how going for the person - as you did - is harmful to grown-up discussion.