Ting ting...

[WotEver]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

If the woman had walked out into the road with head down when the lights were green for traffic and been hit by a car doing 18 mph in 30 limits do you think the motorist would have had the book thrown at him in the same way?

The cyclist was an undoubted pillock, but he does look to have been more harshly treated than a car driver in similar circumstances would have been.

And therein I believe lays his biggest problem. Had his attitude been one of "Oh my God, what have I done? This is awful! I'm so sorry but I just couldn't avoid her," do you suppose the police would have pursued him with such gusto?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

5 hours ago, BruceinSanity said:

Murder used to be a Common Law offence, but is now prosecuted under the Homicide Act 1957, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_Act_1957, apparently.

No, Murder is still a Common Law Offence, all the 1957 Homicide Act did was to clarify certain defences (Diminished responsibility,suicide pacts, provocation etc).

54 minutes ago, David Mack said:

If the woman had walked out into the road with head down when the lights were green for traffic and been hit by a car doing 18 mph in 30 limits do you think the motorist would have had the book thrown at him in the same way?

The cyclist was an undoubted pillock, but he does look to have been more harshly treated than a car driver in similar circumstances would have been.

The problem with prosecuting car drivers, particularly before a jury, is that most people seem to be car drivers themselves so they will always have an affinity with the defendant with the view 'That could easily be me in the dock' so are often reluctant to convict unless the driving incident is so utterly atrocious  they cannot relate to it.  Yes I suppose that the cyclist has been treated more harshly than a motorist would have been although it depends upon what sentence he gets I suppose.  If a comparison is made with Gary Hart the land rover driver who caused the Selby Train crash that killed 10 people when he fell asleep at the wheel, he was effectively sentenced to 6 months for each person he killed of which he served half and was out in 30 months so the cyclist at worst, should be sentenced to 6 months and be out in 3, that'd give the Daily Wail something to complain about

[zenataomm]

2 hours ago, Canal321 said:

If you have no headphones in and are aware of your surroundings then you will hear the ting in plenty of time and can step to the side accordingly. The bell is used to avoid the shock. Unless you decide to ignore it by listening to loud music, then you will get the shock that you deserve. 

As for clearing the dog poop, look before you leap springs to mind.... problem solved

 

I refer you to my previous post where I stated I have tinnitus this doesn't give me the option to decide to ignore sounds due to loud music or any other reason.

I'm saddened you feel I deserve a shock.

Your flippancy concerning me doing my public duty concerning my dog whilst ignoring that of the cyclists which is that they should dismount and walk around pedestrians describes well the issues we are facing.

[Canal321]

I wasn't talking about people with tinnitus. Just people with headphones. I'm sorry to hear about your condition but I did NOT say people with tinnitus deserve a shock. 

Anyway that's just my point of view. Of courses there's always someone with a different opinion, I will just leave it there. Sorry if I caused any offence. 

ETA maybe I should have used 'they' and 'their' instead of 'you' and 'your' to avoid any confusion.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Canal321

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, WotEver said:

And therein I believe lays his biggest problem. Had his attitude been one of "Oh my God, what have I done? This is awful! I'm so sorry but I just couldn't avoid her," do you suppose the police would have pursued him with such gusto?

I'm sure this is true, however I think he was a bit misrepresented by the media. Yes he did post a comment indicating that it was her fault because she stepped out etc. That was before he knew how serious her injury was. When he knew she'd died, he deleted the comments. So it was a little crass but not heinous. I'm not sure that what one posts on social media should be a metric for police or CPS action. The crime is the crime, not what you say about it afterwards. That only becomes relevant when sentencing is being determined after a guilty verdict.

Of course I am not defending him riding a bike with no brakes, "furiously" or not!

i also wonder how many police have turned a blind eye to folk riding these brakeless track bikes - right up until there is a serious event!

[zenataomm]

9 minutes ago, Canal321 said:

I wasn't talking about people with tinnitus. Just people with headphones. I'm sorry to hear about your condition but I did NOT say people with tinnitus deserve a shock. 

Anyway that's just my point of view. Of courses there's always someone with a different opinion, I will just leave it there. Sorry if I caused any offence. 

ETA maybe I should have used 'they' and 'their' instead of 'you' and 'your' to avoid any confusion.

Thank you.

I accept your apology.

My final sentence still stands.

 

[cuthound]

11 hours ago, David Mack said:

If the woman had walked out into the road with head down when the lights were green for traffic and been hit by a car doing 18 mph in 30 limits do you think the motorist would have had the book thrown at him in the same way?

The cyclist was an undoubted pillock, but he does look to have been more harshly treated than a car driver in similar circumstances would have been.

I think what undid him was his admission that he could have stopped in time had his bike been fitted with a freewheel and front brakes.

A sad case, but hopefully one which will result in more young cyclists being aware of the dangers of using unsuitable bikes and a clarification of the law.

[Mike Todd]

13 hours ago, Canal321 said:

If you have no headphones in and are aware of your surroundings then you will hear the ting in plenty of time and can step to the side accordingly. The bell is used to avoid the shock. Unless you decide to ignore it by listening to loud music, then you will get the shock that you deserve. 

As for clearing the dog poop, look before you leap springs to mind.... problem solved

 

Are you therefore implying that anyone with hearing loss, whether complete or selective, should not be allowed anywhere in public where a cyclist might be riding, legally or otherwise?

I had not seen the latest post about tinnitus etc when I posted above. There are far more people with some degree of hearing impairment than is generally recognised. It is not just doddery old folk with an ear trumpet.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Mike Todd

[mross]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

I think what undid him was his admission that he could have stopped in time had his bike been fitted with a freewheel and front brakes.

But he said the opposite!

[cuthound]

2 minutes ago, mross said:

But he said the opposite!

I read it in a newspaper (not always the best source of reliable information), perhaps it was the prosecution that said it?

[Dharl]

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

I read it in a newspaper (not always the best source of reliable information), perhaps it was the prosecution that said it?

i believe that the police had completed tests which showed that if he had a bike fitted with front brake he could have stopped in time.  HOWEVER it when tests take place where you know you need to do a certain action they are slightly biased in the result as the action will take palce sooner then it could have done if un-planned.     An example, if you watch the film Miricle on the Hudson, where at the end during a number of tests are shown that if Capt "Sully" and his crew turned back as soon as they knew that they had engine failour then they would have landed safely, however when they added in just 20secs of "thinking time" then the aircraft crashed everytime which proved that in the end the safesty action was what happened, ie landing their aircraft on the Hudson.  

[cuthound]

Good point.

I knew I had read it somewhere.

Captain Sully probably chose the Hudson because of its long front deck 

[Dharl]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

Captain Sully probably chose the Hudson because of its long front deck 

oh very good sir!    I completly missed out on the NB connection, brain must be slipping!

[RLWP]

Not sure about the commentary, or the colour, otherwise the Dutch bicycle bell is a lovely thing:

Richard

[bizzard]

And mine.

[mross]

When I learnt to fly it was drummed into me that on engine failure after take-off you should immediately look for a landing site.  Turning round and trying to get back to the airfield was the worst thing to do.  When you are at X feet altitude, Y miles from the runway, why would you be able to glide back when you needed full power to have got where you were?  I'm surprised Harrisson Ford wasn't criticised for making this mistake.  If you turn round, you will be landing downwind, which is not good.