You are reading a single comment by @skydancer and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
The UK doesn't have a system where the "stronger" road user is automatically at fault,
This is so true and so responsible for the inverse hierarchy we have on UK roads.
Due to the fear of some riders of impeding a drivers passage, due to intimidating behaviour from some drivers, riders ride near the kerb. So are more in conflict wth walkers. Leading to some riders intimidating pedestrians.
Upside down world
skydancer
IF the physical evidence indeed shows a front brake would have resulted in no collision (let's assume it did) I guess there's nothing else that could and should happen, as there is no ban from cycling or points system for cyclists. Somebody did die.
The UK doesn't have a system where the "stronger" road user is automatically at fault, so many motorists get sentenced with relaxed punishments because their vehicle is road worthy.
If cyclists that end up in an rtc and fatally wound a pedestrian have two working brakes don't get convicted, I guess it's sort of parity with motorists? But there are so few cases.
Now it's yet another opportunity to have people in a tonne of steel with quite often bit of wattage and momentum that regularly break road rules (I have one and witnesses the moronic behaviour when driving every day) to have a go at somebody in a tiny bit of steel with low wattage and no comfy roof cos "it's unfair cyclists break rules"...