Just a fine for cyclist that ran down a solicitor

On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:

Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece

Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.

I have never said that. Pedestrians are usually visible before they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he went

wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?

"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie, approaching a red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that pedestrians

There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.

You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red light.
The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a witness saw it and
provided that evidence.

All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with which
they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are confused) is not
evidence.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not stop. His

One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally got
to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife would
cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled crossing.

Why should one ask oneself that?

use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using it, at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was charged
with. The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. After all, a
rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.

Looks like a stitch up.

Does it?

JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:

Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down
at 26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or
prison time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece

Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right
in front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? You
and other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's
fault if they are hit by a car.

I have never said that. Pedestrians are usually visible before
they step into the road and astute road users know that and manage
to avoid them, certainly I do, as do millions of road users every
day All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road
users responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood
of that becoming a crash. In this case the cyclists speed was
excessive and he went

wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?

"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie,
approaching a red traffic light and not being able or prepared to
stop).
through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that
pedestrians

There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.

You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red
light. The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a
witness saw it and provided that evidence.

All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with
which they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are
confused) is not evidence.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not
stop. His

One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally
got to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife
would cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled
crossing.

Why should one ask oneself that?

use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using
it, at least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was
charged with. The tariff for this offence is too low for its
gravity. After all, a rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily
bonus, I am sure.

Looks like a stitch up.

Does it?

The CCTV shows the cyclist go through a red light and hit the victim in 'the
middle of the road' at high speed.

So the victim had NOT 'just stepped into the road' the cyclist did jump a
red light and was evidently travelling at high speed (in twelth gear out of
26 and the cctv backs it up) He was travelling too fast or could not be
bothered to attempt to brake or swerve in time to avoid the collision.
Since the average speed of London traffic is 8mph travelling at 26 is the
equivalent of riding at over 90 when the traffic moves at 30. He had time
to shout, but not to avoid the crash, which shows he was travelling too fast
for the conditions. He is a long time London rider, so is well aware of the
conditions at that point and generally.
So not just a single momentary lapse of concentration on a single point, but
a deliberate sequence of events leading to the permanent crippling of a man.
I am certain that if the vehicle and victim involved were different then
some rabid psycholists would be saying it was attempted murder.

On Jul 6, 11:20*am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:









"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece
Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? *You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.
I have never said that. *Pedestrians are usually visible before they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. *In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he went
wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?

"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie, approaching a red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).

The witness said he did not pass a red light.

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that pedestrians
There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.

You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red light.

On Jul 6, 11:41*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:

Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down
at 26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or
prison time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece

Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right
in front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? You
and other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's
fault if they are hit by a car.

I have never said that. *Pedestrians are usually visible before
they step into the road and astute road users know that and manage
to avoid them, certainly I do, as do millions of road users every
day All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road
users responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood
of that becoming a crash. *In this case the cyclists speed was
excessive and he went

wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?

"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie,
approaching a red traffic light and not being able or prepared to
stop).
through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that
pedestrians

There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.

You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red
light. The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a
witness saw it and provided that evidence.

All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with
which they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are
confused) is not evidence.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not
stop. *His

One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally
got to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife
would cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled
crossing.

Why should one ask oneself that?

use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using
it, at least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was
charged with. *The tariff for this offence is too low for its
gravity. *After all, a rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily
bonus, I am sure.

Looks like a stitch up.

Does it?

The CCTV shows the cyclist go through a red light and hit the victim in 'the
middle of the road' at high speed.

let me see.


So the victim had NOT 'just stepped into the road' *the cyclist did jump a
red light and was evidently travelling at high speed (in twelth gear out of
26 and the cctv backs it up)

Huh, where is this CCTV footage that shows which gear the cyclist was
in. 12th gear btw means f-all.

He was travelling too fast or could not be
bothered to attempt to brake or swerve in time to avoid the collision.

You better make up your mind if you have any hope of your story
gaining a better response than a smirk.

Since the average speed of London traffic is 8mph travelling at 26 is the
equivalent of riding at over 90 when the traffic moves at 30. *He had time

Ah I see. You are saying, in a round-a-bout way, it is expected that
cyclists should travel as slow as inconsiderate motorists are reported
as travelling at and so it's OK to wander in front of them..

to shout, but not to avoid the crash, which shows he was travelling too fast
for the conditions.

It shows he made an audible warning of approach in compliance with the
highway code.

*He is a long time London rider, so is well aware of the
conditions at that point and generally.

You mean that pedestrians in the legal district generally fail to
comply with the highway code because they consider themselves "above-
the-law" yet will use legislation to support false claims of tort?

So not just a single momentary lapse of concentration on a single point, but
a deliberate sequence of events leading to the permanent crippling of a man.

Bull****. If his wife can't look after him and bring him back to full
health in eight weeks, he should sack her.

I am certain that if the vehicle and victim involved were different then
some rabid psycholists would be saying it was attempted murder.

Why did the legal advisor not use a signalled crossing as advised in
the highway code?

On Jul 6, 11:41*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

The CCTV shows the cyclist go through a red light and hit the victim in 'the
middle of the road' at high speed.

Then it could be argued that, like the driver that was fined for
merely having bald tyres, he should be fined for going through a red
light. After all, people like Nugent keep saying that drivers should
be punished for the offense, not the consequences.

*the cyclist ... evidently travelling at high speed (in twelth gear out of
26 and the cctv backs it up)

The gear is just sensationalist reporting. Anyway, it said "12th out
of its 20 gears" (no bike has 26). So that is a double front and 10
rear and if numbered from small to large means big front and 2nd rear
were engaged. About 60 inch effective wheel diameter. 26mph, eh? This
would have required his legs to whizz around at 400rpm.

If you checked simple detaiols like that before bleating, we would be
spared some of your idiotic comments. But I suppose we have to put up
with your poor maths skills.

Since the average speed of London traffic is 8mph travelling at 26 is the
equivalent of riding at over 90 when the traffic moves at 30.

I hope your maths never gets near children. Are you really unaware of
the difference between speed when moving and average speed?

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...

On Jul 6, 11:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:









"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece
Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.
I have never said that. Pedestrians are usually visible before they
step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he
went
wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?

"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie, approaching a
red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).

The witness said he did not pass a red light.

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that
pedestrians
There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.

You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red
light.

It has been assumed.

The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a witness saw it
and
provided that evidence.

That has not occurred, as reported. It seems to me thet there has
been an assumption by those crossing at an unrecognised crossing point
(without signals) that vehicular traffic is interupted by lights
making it safe for them to cross without attention. No-one is
reported as a witness seeing a red light in the face of the cyclist.
Lemmings come to mind.


All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with which
they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are confused) is not
evidence.

There has been no evidence of a red light being seen, reported.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not stop.
His
One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally got
to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife would
cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled crossing.

Why should one ask oneself that?

I believe his wife wanted him to retire.


use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using it,
at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was
charged
with. The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. After
all, a
rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.
Looks like a stitch up.

Does it?

Initial thoughts question whether his wife is related to the
magistrate.

And that was your initial thought????
Sounds like you have an extremely twisted and criminal mind.

On 06/07/2012 14:05, thirty-six wrote:

On Jul 6, 11:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:

Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece

Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.

I have never said that. Pedestrians are usually visible before they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he went

wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?

"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie, approaching a red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).

The witness said he did not pass a red light.

"The witness"?

You mean "the defendant".

An independent witness (perhaps more than one) said that he did pass a red
light. Defendants are notoriously unreliable on their own guilt in cases
where independent witness accounts differ from theirs.

Did you now that the Great Train Robbers were all innocent (according to
their own accounts)? And James Hanratty? Apparently the DNA evidence must be
wrong on that one. And Peter Sutcliffe - he pleaded NG on some ground or
other. In fact, the prisons are full of people who deny having done anything
wrong. What's going on with British justice, eh?

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that pedestrians
There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.

You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red light.

It has been assumed.

Eye witnesses. The incident was also captured on video.

The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a witness saw it and
provided that evidence.

That has not occurred, as reported. It seems to me thet there has
been an assumption by those crossing at an unrecognised crossing point
(without signals) that vehicular traffic is interupted by lights
making it safe for them to cross without attention. No-one is
reported as a witness seeing a red light in the face of the cyclist.
Lemmings come to mind.

Arrogant, self-centred, scofflaw cyclists come to everyone else's. It's not
as though a cyclist passing a red light as though it didn't exist isn't part
of everyone's daily experience in London, is it?

All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with which
they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are confused) is not
evidence.

There has been no evidence of a red light being seen, reported.

Au contraire. The evidence has been given and is even captured on video.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not stop. His
One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally got
to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife would
cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled crossing.

Why should one ask oneself that?

I believe his wife wanted him to retire.

And?

use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using it, at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was charged
with. The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. After all, a
rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.
Looks like a stitch up.

Does it?

Initial thoughts question whether his wife is related to the
magistrate.

Are you sure your irrational musings actually *count* as "thought"?

Partac wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message
...

On Jul 6, 11:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:









"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed
down at 26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road
or prison time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece
Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right
in front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? You
and other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's
fault if they are hit by a car.
I have never said that. Pedestrians are usually visible before
they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid
them, certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road
users responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood
of that becoming a crash. In this case the cyclists speed was
excessive and he went
wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised
vehicle?

"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie,
approaching a red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).

The witness said he did not pass a red light.

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that
pedestrians
There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.

You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red
light.

It has been assumed.

The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a witness
saw it and
provided that evidence.

That has not occurred, as reported. It seems to me thet there has
been an assumption by those crossing at an unrecognised crossing point
(without signals) that vehicular traffic is interupted by lights
making it safe for them to cross without attention. No-one is
reported as a witness seeing a red light in the face of the cyclist.
Lemmings come to mind.


All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with
which they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are
confused) is not evidence.

There has been no evidence of a red light being seen, reported.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not
stop. His
One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally
got to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife
would cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled
crossing.

Why should one ask oneself that?

I believe his wife wanted him to retire.


use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using
it, at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was
charged
with. The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. After
all, a
rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.
Looks like a stitch up.

Does it?

Initial thoughts question whether his wife is related to the
magistrate.

And that was your initial thought????
Sounds like you have an extremely twisted and criminal mind.

I think the cctv evidence was the definitive proof of the deed, along with
witnesses.

On Jul 6, 3:00*pm, DavidR wrote:

The gear is just sensationalist reporting. Anyway, it said "12th out
of its 20 gears" (no bike has 26). So that is a double front and 10
rear and if numbered from small to large means big front and 2nd rear
were engaged. About 60 inch effective wheel diameter. 26mph, eh? This
would have required his legs to whizz around at 400rpm.

Oh dear, foisted by my own comments. Let's try 146rpm. The basic
argument holds though.

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 03:07:10 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
wrote:

There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.

"Cyclist, Mr Schipka, denied the accident was caused by him going
through a red light on his bike. However, the City of London
Magistrates’ Court was played CCTV footage of him disregarding a red
light at the junction before hitting Mr Hyer. His bike was estimated
to be travelling at 26 mph, and eye witnesses recounted him shouting
“Oi, move!” at Mr Hyer before hitting him."

"City of London Magistrates’ Court saw CCTV footage of Schipka, having
ignored a red light, hitting Mr Hyer in the middle of the road at
Holborn Viaduct while travelling at about 26mph."

"Prosecutor Varinder Hayre said: “Mr Hyer was crossing and walking
from the north to the south side. A number of other pedestrians were
also crossing. ..When he was in the centre of the carriageway he was
struck and seriously injured, sustaining life-changing injuries, by
the cyclist Mr Schipka, who was travelling eastbound at 26 miles per
hour through red traffic lights"

"The court saw CCTV evidence of the cyclist going through a red light
at about 26mph as he rushed to work across Holborn Circus on 5 July
2011."

"There are several aggravating circumstances that would justify a
stronger charge: as well as going through a red light, the cyclist was
also travelling much too fast for an area with so many
pedestrians."(comment by LCC Campaigns Officer)