Complete moron on a bike

[PhilofCas]

There's alot of car drivers really don't like it, I've lost count the amount of times while filtering at very low speeds that I've had car drivers pull across to try to stop me.

Pricks.

 

[Woodface]

There's alot of car drivers really don't like it, I've lost count the amount of times while filtering at very low speeds that I've had car drivers pull across to try to stop me.

Yes, it has become something of a trope, if you filter left they drift inwards. I don’t understand this, hardly my fault they are stuck in traffic.

 

[Andrew C!]

& to add, there did seem to be a fair few on here quick to side with a drunk driver over someone riding an e-scooter. But it is only me that is biased?

Not me, m’lud.

The Police generally brief the press, I am struggling to come up with a scenario whereby a drunk driver on the wrong side of the road is not at fault? Perhaps the e-scooter rider threw himself under the car? Let’s be sensible here, everyone comments prior to trial & if it all comes out that the driver was not at fault then I will happily admit my grave error.

The press release given will/should have been very careful not to prejudice the case. The defence will seize upon any such suggestion, especially as this case is going to Crown Court (jury influence). Also any such release should have been cognisant of an ongoing investigation. Just because a suspect is charged does not mean the investigation is complete. It does mean that a threshold and full code test has been met, and the case has sufficient merit to proceed to court.

As you say, if you base opinion on the content of the article, the drunk driver has serious questions to answer.

Finally the ‘everyone comments’ bit is right, but it doesn’t mean it’s prudent to do so. Try being the SIO in this case, and having to maintain impartiality in investigating it. Not easy (I’ve investigated 14 fatal RTC’s, all in the 1990’s).

 

[Thorn]

Not me, m’lud.



The press release given will/should have been very careful not to prejudice the case. The defence will seize upon any such suggestion, especially as this case is going to Crown Court (jury influence). Also any such release should have been cognisant of an ongoing investigation. Just because a suspect is charged does not mean the investigation is complete. It does mean that a threshold and full code test has been met, and the case has sufficient merit to proceed to court.

As you say, if you base opinion on the content of the article, the drunk driver has serious questions to answer.

Finally the ‘everyone comments’ bit is right, but it doesn’t mean it’s prudent to do so. Try being the SIO in this case, and having to maintain impartiality in investigating it. Not easy (I’ve investigated 14 fatal RTC’s, all in the 1990’s).

I'd add to that, if the driver pleads not guilty the case will go before a jury. It's possible that a member of this forum, even Woodface, could find himself on that jury. So don't comment on cases before they are concluded.

 

[Andrew C!]

So don't comment on cases before they are concluded.

Hi @Thorn . You'll not stop comments on cases on here. It's just like life, really - some folk arrive at an opinion based on sufficient detail for them to be satisfied.

I'd bet you that this case goes to CC due to the aggravating circumstances, even if the suspect pleads guilty, as the magistrates would seek a more appropriate sentence than they can award.

 

[Woodface]

I'd add to that, if the driver pleads not guilty the case will go before a jury. It's possible that a member of this forum, even Woodface, could find himself on that jury. So don't comment on cases before they are concluded.

Load of crap. Highly unlikely any comments on here would prejudice a trial. If a case tried in London calls up jurors from Sheffield then I will gladly hop on the train.

Many things can prejudice a trial in theory, emotive coverage of tearful teenagers laying flowers etc.

In the end the evidence or otherwise will speak for itself.

On the flip side negative views about e-scooters & youths hanging around can also have an effect in the other direction.

Let’s be honest, if it was a little old lady who was run over we wouldn’t even be having a debate.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

If people aren’t to comment, speculate or form opinions before a case is tried, then there should be a media blackout on reporting cases pre-trial. The prospect of an unfair trial due to social media comment is pretty remote, in reality, and human nature is to talk about such things. I don’t think the sort of chat that has happened here is especially contentious. If somebody came on here and said something like ‘I know the driver, he’s always driving while out of his tree. He doesn’t give a ****. He’s a menace, and what’s more, he tortures kittens for a hobby’ that’d be different, but giving an opinion based on published information is not verboten, IMV.

 

[zarniwoop]

I don’t like shared paths for this reason, even when you have a walking lane & a cycle designation the two overlap. I’ve had pedestrians step across me on a cycle lane or wander in, I generally anticipate this & have yet to collide with anyone.

The solution?

 

[Woodface]

The solution?

Perfectly illustrates the issue, white painted lines don’t really work.

 

[Bob McC]

Load of crap. Highly unlikely any comments on here would prejudice a trial. If a case tried in London calls up jurors from Sheffield then I will gladly hop on the train.

Many things can prejudice a trial in theory, emotive coverage of tearful teenagers laying flowers etc.

In the end the evidence or otherwise will speak for itself.

On the flip side negative views about e-scooters & youths hanging around can also have an effect in the other direction.

Let’s be honest, if it was a little old lady who was run over we wouldn’t even be having a debate.

If she were illegally riding and scooter we would.

 

[awkwardbydesign]

The solution?

Whenever I have had a bicycle, I have always fitted a good loud bell. I'm amazed that cyclists rarely seem to consider this, as a loud ring generally shifts pedestrians rather rapidly, or at least wakes them up. Cyclists are frequently a danger to themselves, and doing 30mph downhill in traffic is another idiocy. No lights at night is another.
As for filtering on a motorbike, I do, but always assume someone will either be unaware or obstructive. So I ride accordingly, which many cyclists and bikers seem incapable of doing.

 

[darrenyeats]

a loud ring generally shifts pedestrians rather rapidly,

Maybe needs to be rephrased?

I bet "A loud beep from my car horn shifts cyclists rather rapidly" wouldn't go down well! Balance of harm etc.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I have one of those little bells that gives a single ‘ting’ when you ping the little hammer. That, coupled with a cheery “ ‘scuse me!” is usually enough, but I’m usually on rural tracks and bridleways rather than urban shared footpaths.

 

[Thorn]

Hi @Thorn . You'll not stop comments on cases on here. It's just like life, really - some folk arrive at an opinion based on sufficient detail for them to be satisfied.

I'd bet you that this case goes to CC due to the aggravating circumstances, even if the suspect pleads guilty, as the magistrates would seek a more appropriate sentence than they can award.

If he pleads or is found guilty he's looking at several years.

 

[Andrew C!]

If people aren’t to comment, speculate or form opinions before a case is tried, then there should be a media blackout on reporting cases pre-trial. The prospect of an unfair trial due to social media comment is pretty remote, in reality, and human nature is to talk about such things. I don’t think the sort of chat that has happened here is especially contentious. If somebody came on here and said something like ‘I know the driver, he’s always driving while out of his tree. He doesn’t give a ****. He’s a menace, and what’s more, he tortures kittens for a hobby’ that’d be different, but giving an opinion based on published information is not verboten, IMV.

Agreed.

I guess I'm tarnished by due process, and being used to being careful regarding disclosure/opinion/procedure regarding ongoing cases.

i am consistent tho

 

[Woodface]

Whenever I have had a bicycle, I have always fitted a good loud bell. I'm amazed that cyclists rarely seem to consider this, as a loud ring generally shifts pedestrians rather rapidly, or at least wakes them up. Cyclists are frequently a danger to themselves, and doing 30mph downhill in traffic is another idiocy. No lights at night is another.
As for filtering on a motorbike, I do, but always assume someone will either be unaware or obstructive. So I ride accordingly, which many cyclists and bikers seem incapable of doing.

Can’t really win. Cyclists either go too fast or too slow, shouldn’t be on roads, shouldn’t be on footpath

I regularly do over 30 mph going down the A57 towards Ladybower (& several other hills in the Peaks, excessive braking has its own hazards). Bells have no effect whatsoever in traffic. I think some revert to air horns but that is a bit over the top IMHO.

 

[tiggers]

Can’t really win. Cyclists either go too fast or too slow, shouldn’t be on roads, shouldn’t be on footpath

I regularly do over 30 mph going down the A57 towards Ladybower (& several other hills in the Peaks, excessive breaking has its own hazards). Bells have no effect whatsoever in traffic. I think some revert to air horns but that is a bit over the top IMHO.

It's not really about too fast or too slow, it's about appropriate speed for the road and conditions. I know the A57 well and I would say you cycling down there at 30 plus is perfectly fine (traffic, weather etc. acting as variables obviously). However contrast that to A215 we were discussing yesterday... IMO 30 plus is madness on that road, but I used to see it occasionally (moved away from the ****hole that is London now thankfully). At the end of the day I hear a lot of drivers criticising cyclists for riding too fast, but, again IMO, that's driven by jealousy as they are usually stuck in traffic (that they have contributed to) and see the cyclists whizzing past It's the same as red light jumping... a lot of the time the cyclists I see doing it are perfectly safe to do so, but you ask drivers about cyclists and that is the first thing some of them will complain about. Yes it's against the law but so is doing 33 in a 30 and all drivers (myself included) do that from time to time. Then of course we get that minority of cyclists who RLJ at busy intersections or pedestrian crossings and that fuels the anti-cyclist drivers' fire. Same as the relatively small number of drivers who close pass cyclists get all drivers tarnished with the same brush by some cyclists. It would be so much better if everyone just worked together to be better on the roads, but it's clear it ain't going to happen!

 

[amazement]

If it's not already been said that new highway code rules coming soon giving cyclists and pedestrians right of way over cars, trucks etc. Will be very interesting.
It's one thing being in the right so to speak, quite another if your lying injured or dead under a vehicle.

 

[Woodface]

It's not really about too fast or too slow, it's about appropriate speed for the road and conditions. I know the A57 well and I would say you cycling down there at 30 plus is perfectly fine (traffic, weather etc. acting as variables obviously). However contrast that to A215 we were discussing yesterday... IMO 30 plus is madness on that road, but I used to see it occasionally (moved away from the ****hole that is London now thankfully). At the end of the day I hear a lot of drivers criticising cyclists for riding too fast, but, again IMO, that's driven by jealousy as they are usually stuck in traffic (that they have contributed to) and see the cyclists whizzing past It's the same as red light jumping... a lot of the time the cyclists I see doing it are perfectly safe to do so, but you ask drivers about cyclists and that is the first thing some of them will complain about. Yes it's against the law but so is doing 33 in a 30 and all drivers (myself included) do that from time to time. Then of course we get that minority of cyclists who RLJ at busy intersections or pedestrian crossings and that fuels the anti-cyclist drivers' fire. Same as the relatively small number of drivers who close pass cyclists get all drivers tarnished with the same brush by some cyclists. It would be so much better if everyone just worked together to be better on the roads, but it's clear it ain't going to happen!

Yep. Agree.

I get irate about close passes as I don’t think people realise just how scary & dangerous it is when it happens.

I get a bit annoyed with RLJ’s to be honest, it doesn’t help matters.

 

[Woodface]

If it's not already been said that new highway code rules coming soon giving cyclists and pedestrians right of way over cars, trucks etc. Will be very interesting.
It's one thing being in the right so to speak, quite another if your lying injured or dead under a vehicle.

I don’t think it will make any difference; presumed liability is probably better. It will take years, possibly decades for people’s attitudes to change.