Daily Mail

naked_draughtsman said the following on 08/07/2008 18:38:

The cyclist could have stopped (in advance), but depends on how much time
there was to react to someone falling into the road in front of you.

In this case, the cyclist appeared to have no intention of stopping
whether he could have done so or not.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Jim wrote:
The Daily Mail has the following headline "Cyclist killed teenage girl on
pavement 'after refusing to swerve to avoid her'" but nowhere in the article
does anyone actually say they saw the cyclist on the pavement.

There's surprisingly little info on this case;
I can't find any reports of the original incident.

Here's the best I can find today, from the various newspaper
websites (courtesy google news search)

Howard was cycling on the road when he approached the group
but the court heard conflicting evidence about whether
he mounted the kerb at any point during the incident.

The court heard that Howard, of Western Avenue, Buckingham,
was travelling at between 23 mph and 17 mph down
the road and was captured on CCTV.

The teenager admitted that the group had been drinking in
the nearby skatepark prior to the incident but recalled
Rhiannon only having consumed two cans of Stella Artois
lager and told the court that she was not drunk and "absolutely fine".

Howard, of Buckingham, was cycling his £4,750 customised
bicycle when he came upon Rhiannon and her
friends on their way to the shops.

The carbon fibre titanium bicycle was built to Howard's specifications.

Despite its cost, the court heard it did not
comply with the Highway Code because it had no
reflectors on the pedals or on the back.

Howard, who has a previous conviction and
is well-known in his home town as a 'thrill-seeker',
was also ordered to pay £750 in costs.

I wonder what the "previous conviction" is for.

BugBear

Paul Boyd wrote:

PK said the following on 08/07/2008 16:11:

all kerbs local to me are dropped on all corners for disabled access,
such cutting of corners is perfectly possible

At "23mph" ???

depends on bike i guess, on a racer be dumb, a hybrid be okay if dry and
with some care, on a mountain bike not a problem.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Mark said the following on 09/07/2008 09:56:

It looks like the story has been "corrected" like last time.

Hmm...

"Despite its cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway
Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back."

Well, that makes all the difference to the outcome then, doesn't it?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Paul Boyd" wrote in message
...
naked_draughtsman said the following on 08/07/2008 18:38:

The cyclist could have stopped (in advance), but depends on how much time
there was to react to someone falling into the road in front of you.

In this case, the cyclist appeared to have no intention of stopping
whether he could have done so or not.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

The BBC web site has it that he was cycling through a gap in the group when
the girl stepped into the gap which sounds like it was very close to the
kerb. So it sounds like a very risky thing for the
cyclist to do rather than give them a very wide berth which seemed to have
been an option.
I guess it's the equivalent of a driver sounding their horn but not stopping
and hitting a pedestrian.

Jim J

J. Chisholm wrote:

One street in Cambridge can be legally used by cyclists outside
10:00-16:00, but the 'layout' has been redesigned with seats and bike
stands in the centre leaving the only clear path for cyclists next to
shop doorways.
It is always interesting when a push chair emerges from a shop doorway,
and totally blocks the path. It is almost as good as the Volvo bonnets
that block shared use paths.

Although cyclists shouldn't 'speed' pedestrians also have responsibilities

Certainly it makes sense for pedestrians to observe basic safety
precautions but anyone who cycles, runs, drives or otherwise controls a
vehicle close to shop doorways should do so such that they can 'stop
within the distance they can see to be clear' and should express no
surprise at all if some pedestrians have the temerity to walk out of
those shop doorways while not entirely paying attention.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:09:39 +0100
Paul Boyd wrote:

Mark said the following on 09/07/2008 09:56:

It looks like the story has been "corrected" like last time.

Hmm...

"Despite its cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway
Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back."

Well, that makes all the difference to the outcome then, doesn't it?

But was he wearing a helmet? And was she?

"!Speedy Gonzales!" wrote in
message m...
"Jim" wrote in message

I could see their motives were nothing more than to cause bother, and
perhaps for a few fleeting minutes look 'brave' in front of the 2 girls
that made up the rest of the compliment. I made a quick decision that I was
NOT stopping and if I was being made to stop, I was going to take out one
of their number. I shouted ahead I wasn't stopping and if they didn't clear
the way I would steam roller my way through, by this time my dander was up
and I was really annoyed that some young kids seem to take great enjoyment
out of causing distress to others.

Fairly similar thing with me a year ago on the "green way" out of Wakefield
to Horbury.
Naturally I also don't use this way any more, a pity since it's quiet and
traffic free.
Just the conditions these tw*ts might like.
John