Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Renault Zoe 50
Joined
·
17,804 Posts
Maybe now they’ll make pedestrians wear a helmet and pass a proficiency test before being allowed to cross the road?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,040 Posts
Agreed. It was the Jury that found him not guilty so we don't know why. His defence was that she just stepped out in front of him. It doesn't mention whether he is being prosecuted separately for the other "motoring" offences. If you remove the fact that he was riding an illegal vehicle he was potentially within the speed limit of 20mph (they made little of the over 30 mph estimate and whether it was reasonable of the victim to expect a bicycle to be doing that speed), but that doesn't excuse the rest.
I can't imagine many car drivers or motorcyclists getting off of the death by dangerous driving in such circumstances. :rolleyes:
Since when has it been necessary for pedestrians to demonstrate looking both ways by moving their heads? It's bad enough being expected to do that on a driving test for the benefit of the examiner, but what happened to peripheral vision?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,040 Posts
In general I'd agree, strange how that is only required for incidents involving cyclists. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
MG ZS EV Exclusive
Joined
·
118 Posts
Cyclist on illegal e-bike, travelling at 30mph, flees scene after colliding with pedestrian with both ending up on the floor. Pedestrian later dies. Jury clears him of causing her death and dangerous driving. Staggering.
E-bike rider Thomas Hanlon cries after being cleared of killing pedestrian
E-bike rider Thomas Hanlon cries after being cleared of killing pedestrian

In many other instances I can think of, the object with the greater power/speed is expected to give way to slower vehicles - eg. "steam over sail" or cyclists in parks on shared cycle/pedestrian routesSurelyRegardless of how careless (or not) the pedestrian is the onus is on the vehicle moving quicker to avoid her?
Surely he is at least guilty of careless driving?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Cyclists can do no wrong, guys.
There was a video released of this at the time. The woman did just run out into the road - not looking at all. I'm sure any motorist would have hit her and the verdict would have been the same.
Yes the guy on the bike should be punished for the illegal bike - but he could well have hit her anyway on an unpowered bike.

I don't believe cyclists get away with everything. In my cycling club we've had 2 riders killed in recent years. One hit by a driver doing 60 whilst blinded by the sun.
One hit on a roundabout by a driver on the phone. He got a couple of months. The blinded driver didnt even go to jail.

Try riding a bike and you'll really get a feel for just how dangerous the roads are out there.
 

·
Registered
Ioniq
Joined
·
698 Posts
I can't imagine many car drivers or motorcyclists getting off of the death by dangerous driving in such circumstances. :rolleyes:
Drivers get off charges like these all the time! The best way to kill someone is with a car; just say "the sun was in my eyes" or something and you'll be home in time for for tea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
969 Posts
There was a video released of this at the time. The woman did just run out into the road - not looking at all. I'm sure any motorist would have hit her and the verdict would have been the same.
Yes the guy on the bike should be punished for the illegal bike - but he could well have hit her anyway on an unpowered bike.

I don't believe cyclists get away with everything. In my cycling club we've had 2 riders killed in recent years. One hit by a driver doing 60 whilst blinded by the sun.
One hit on a roundabout by a driver on the phone. He got a couple of months. The blinded driver didnt even go to jail.

Try riding a bike and you'll really get a feel for just how dangerous the roads are out there.
I think you just proved my statement, didn't you?

Cyclists are so favoured by the law that they expect others to give way to them under all circumstances, and often come to grief as a result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,040 Posts
Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes it is very dangerous on the roads in this country and every injury and death is a tragedy. All parties need to be more careful. However, speeding in an area with hazards present is surely dangerous?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
You'd think he'd be punished for the illegal bike - but the motorist that killed FOUR cyclists from Rhyl CC had two bald tyres and got off with 6 points and £180 fine.

Don't you tell me that cyclists get treated favourably.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
969 Posts
You'd think he'd be punished for the illegal bike - but the motorist that killed FOUR cyclists from Rhyl CC had two bald tyres and got off with 6 points and £180 fine.

Don't you tell me that cyclists get treated favourably.
Once again proving my point.

Cyclists are so favoured by the law that they expect others to give way to them under all circumstances, and often come to grief as a result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
whoa, gents, can we leave aside the generalizations for a bit? Not all cyclists are insane, not all drivers are bad, each camp has it's own weeds. But I generally see two ways that the law can be interpreted, plus a moral point of view. First, you can follow the letter of the law. Second, you can follow the spirit of the law. Third, you can follow your moral compass.

1. Letter of the law
The offender seeks to have the letter of the law applied in punishment (I was only going 1 km over the speed limit). The victim wants to have the letter of the law applied to rewards (He should pay for everything).

2. Spirit of the law
This gets tricky for many, because the judge is supposed to upheld the spirit of the law. Yes, you were doing only 1 km over the speed limit, but you already knew this area is full of children and parents, and the speed limit is not recommended speed. Yes, he does deserve to be punished for damaging your bike, but buying you completely new gear is asking for a bit too much, especially when you want to upgrade to triathlon bike. (I'm exaggerating to make a point.)

3. Moral guidance
Be considerate of human life, not of being in the right by the letter of the law; killing someone will haunt you in life more than the 8 points and 200 euro/pound fine, as I'm sure the guy in the story will, so just slow down. We have nowadays wounded egos and seek to be respected and prioritized sometimes above respect for human life. Just watch dash cam videos on youtube and you'll see how many drivers would rather honk and enter an accident with seconds to spare before even trying to slow down; they'd rather shout (think of a 3-year old) "it's my effin right and you must wait because I have the right and you must wait because that's how it is so just stop, look what you have done".

Do we know why the lady ran over on the street? Maybe she just got news that her son got injured or beaten. Maybe she found out her husband is having an affair and that clouded her judgement. Maybe the cyclist just learnt his mother had a heart-attack and wanted to get to the hospital where she is as soon as possible. Maybe he just got fired from work and the anger and fear clouded his judgement. Yes, a lot of unknowns, but how many times did you do stupid shit because you were thinking of something else?
 

·
Zoe Devotee
Joined
·
9,263 Posts
Try riding a bike and you'll really get a feel for just how dangerous the roads are out there.
I ride a bike, to remove the risk of being killed I don't ride on roads generally, and when I do I aim to be back off the road as soon as it practicable.

I also teach kids Bikebility, and it staggers me how bad drivers are, even when they see adults in fluorescent jackets and 20 kids clearly being taught how to ride safely. Sooner we have UK wide roll out of dedicated cycle lanes the better. Fortunately in Scotland its not an offence to ride on paths, not unless you flatten someone or drive dangerously. I'd rather pull off a road and potter along a path and be prepared to get off my bike if I meant a pedestrian than ride on any UK road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mintee and Tandy0

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
LA rules are supposed to apply to pedestrians. They always have right of way.
There was a video released of this at the time. The woman did just run out into the road - not looking at all. I'm sure any motorist would have hit her and the verdict would have been the same.
Yes the guy on the bike should be punished for the illegal bike - but he could well have hit her anyway on an unpowered bike.

I don't believe cyclists get away with everything. In my cycling club we've had 2 riders killed in recent years. One hit by a driver doing 60 whilst blinded by the sun.
One hit on a roundabout by a driver on the phone. He got a couple of months. The blinded driver didnt even go to jail.

Try riding a bike and you'll really get a feel for just how dangerous the roads are out there.
Proven time and again - The severity of injury and likelihood of death is vastly reduced when a vehicle collides with a pedestrian at 20mph rather than 30mph.

The chances of one or both parties seeing each other and being able to take avoiding action are similarly increased.

The fact that this guy was knowingly riding a doctored e-bike that could travel in excess of the legal speed limit should have been the piece of evidence that impacted the verdict.

His being point blank cleared is bizarre.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Anyone on a doctored e-bike is a fool and deserves it crushing. But then again - how many untaxed/unlicenced cars are on the road ?

Being cleared may sound odd to us, but we haven't seen all of the evidence.
Van drivers running over kids on the pavement and getting away with it seems even more bizarre to me but it's happened.
 

·
Registered
Ioniq
Joined
·
698 Posts
Once again proving my point.
You are going to have to explain further how two examples of people on bikes being killed due to the faults of others somehow demonstrates that they are acting recklessly because the law is slanted towards them.

Are you trying to say that they should expect to meet dangerous idiots in cars and should therefore stay at home instead?
 
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
Top