On 14/09/2017 12:02, Nick wrote:
On 14/09/2017 07:08, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/09/2017 00:47, JNugent wrote:
On 13/09/2017 21:20, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 8:58:58 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

Happily a woman has the incident on camera, and there must be
plenty of
cameras in that area in any case, so the cyclist may be vindicated
yet,
but not on the other charges he faces.

So you agree the cyclist is innocent until proven guilty and the
pedestrian could have mitigated her head injury by wearing a helmet.

Mr C had failed to take account of a highly significant part of the
news report. The lady victim was crossing a road into which the turd
on a bike was turning.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you what that means.


I was giving the benefit of doubt to the planet saving cyclist, the
old lady might have sprinted into the road or, or been barged into his
path or he might have shouted 'get out of the way' twice, he might
have been in an important race, or strava event, delivering a pizza,
jumping a red light for safety, or something else important cyclists
do in London.

The old ones are normally much easier to avoid. But if you are 1 meter
from the pavement and a pedestrian steps out, without looking or giving
any warning there is little that can be done.

That is not what is reported as having happened, which was:

"Witnesses described seeing two cyclists turning on to Oxford Street,
with one striking the woman as she crossed the road."

Perhaps we should wait for some evidence before we execute the cyclist?

There's the evidence of at least two witnesses. Maybe more.

It may be enough to get a conviction of the cyclist (I am being
circumspect there, for obvious reasons). It's certainly enough to
deflect all the usual victim-blaming which happens whenever a pedestrian
is injured or killed by a cyclist.

Although the site of Tyburn Tree was just up the road.