In the news

Thanks for your input. Off you pop now.

18mph though busy London Street's sometimes it inappropriate as your may not be able to stop in time to avoid a collision.

Its a 30mph zone, the impact happened in less than the highway code's stopping distance.
How is it more appropriate for a car to go faster when it can stop slower and causes more damage in a collision?

No further questions your honour

Friendliest forum on the internet or being a dick to a newcomer for no reason?

a pedestrian has the right of way, should they step into the road you should do your up-most to avoid a collision regardless of whether your a cyclist, motorist or in charge of a horse.

Is correct. And similarly drivers should do their utmost to avoid a collisions whatever a pedestrian or cyclists does. It a hierarchy based on those who can do more harm have more responsibility. If we all kept to this guidance then the roads would be so much more pleasant.

Problem is that because many drivers behave riskily and aggressively towards anyone who they construe as in their way/slowing them down (apart from other drivers). This approach, this road culture has passed on to many riders who behave similarly towards pedestrians and in some instances, slower cyclists.

Worth remembering that if a pedestrian walks out onto the middle of the road, in front of a moving vehicle going at 18mph with the same stopping distance as in this case, is likely to have the same outcome but different conviction.

Because society hates cyclists and gets a hard on for one tonne death traps.
(See articles posted on this thread where drivers kill cyclists for poor driving and get less than a slap on the wrist)

IMO the conviction was correct but motorists need harsher sentencing.

Of course cyclists must do everything they can to avoid collisions. What many here are pointing out is that pedestrians also have a responsibility to cross carefully, and avoid stepping in front of moving vehicles within their stopping distance.

If this vehicle was illigally parked near a crossing and driver or company had received an enforcement notice for that event in the past I'd say said driver or company should be facing manslaughter charges. Defence said nowt about this..?<

This makes sense but my understanding is illegally parked vehicles have no come back to other incidents.

But, the speed limit is the limit, and does not determine the appropriate speed for the conditions. Many high streets have a 30mph limit, but drive down one at 30mph on a busy Saturday afternoon, hit a pedestrian and expect to be done for driving without due care and attention.

A busy lunchtime, with loads of pedestrians around would not be the time to be driving or cycling to the speed limit.

These days I ride and drive trying to take into consideration is my speed appropriate. Out here in the countryside many lanes have a limit of 60mph, but given the number of people on bikes/horseback, livestock being moved across roads, tractors and blind corners 60mph would not be appropriate or considerate.

From the police Roadcraft book "Always drive so that you can stop safely within the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road." But if there are loads of pedestrians milling around and likely to be stepping out it would then be clear that you would need to proceed with greater caution and lower speed.

Not sure whether that's a legal or moral argument, but I completely agree with the sentiment.

Unfortunately not a legal argument in most cases in this country. Though peds have right of way when crossing roads at junctions and drivers are meant to overtake only if it's necessary, safe and legal, and overtaking at junctions isn't legal

'Strict liability' helps towards this in other places

I'm just sick of condescending twats, who by trying to 'educate' this forum are implying that it's full of problem cyclists.

pedestrians also have a responsibility to cross carefully,

Is their responsibility equal to a driver/rider's not to hit them if they get it wrong?
I think not. As i said above, the more you can harm the bigger responsibility you have

But of course cyclists are the problem, killing so many more pedestrians than motor vehicle drivers. Oh, wait...

Fat shaming/sizeist. So fat fuckers like me and @hippy have greater responsibility?

up-most

this made me very sad

If they brag about it on some forum and say they like to drive like Vin then it might bite them on the arse at court later.

It's reassuring know that there's a crack squad of police officers looking to social media habits of the drivers that are responsible for the 5 deaths and 60 serious injuries a day on the roads of Britain.

Fat shaming/sizeist.

Yes that would be good. Instead of strict liability, a momentum law, the more you have the more responsible you are to look out for people

Problem is that because many drivers behave riskily and aggressively towards anyone who they construe as in their way/slowing them down (apart from other drivers). This approach, this road culture has passed on to many riders who behave similarly towards pedestrians and in some instances, slower cyclists.

So much this.

Guys, guys, you're being too friendly. Go suck a fat one you condescending cunt.

Dear LFGSS users,

There appears to be a number of you which fail to understand that a pedestrian has the right of way, should they step into the road you should do your up-most to avoid a collision regardless of whether your a cyclist, motorist or in charge of a horse.

Whilst you may be able to cycle at 18mph though busy London Street's sometimes it inappropriate as your may not be able to stop in time to avoid a collision.

Should you be involved in a collision, the condition of your cycle or comments made online may be called into question....

Correct but do pedestrians have no responsibility as to where and how they cross the road?
Is it sensible to cross close to high sided vehicles where vision is completely blocked until the last split second- despite there being pedestrian controlled lights being 10 yards away unused?
Is it acceptable to cross and have your face lit up by your mobile device?
How about adults that get to the lights, look up, see the man is red but they still precede to cross without looking and wearing headphones, thus causing an accident when oncoming vehicle has the green light?

Assuming someone steps out in front of you where they cannot be seen clearly, do I slam on my brake and potentially go over my handlebars and risk my life for someone in the middle of liking a Facebook post whilst crossing (who will leave the scene of the accident they caused. They have no legal compulsion to stop if there is no contact afaik)? Or do I swerve into oncoming vehicles and risk my life (again they will leave the scene having posted their immaculately arranged breakfast to Instagram)? Or do I slam on the brake and fly into said pedestrian headfirst? Would I still be deemed in the wrong for matching the speed of vehicles around me- which is the safest way to travel, especially if the is an HGV parked on the left forcing me into the traffic stream?

It seems the logical conclusion of this is pedestrians being allowed to blindfold themselves and wander into any stretch of road with all safety consideration placed into the hands of others, as it is their right. Do you think this is right?

There are numerous cases like those above where pedestrians have been unfortunately killed and seriously injured. Why do you think the legal outcome for the 'killer drivers' is so different to that seen here? Also why do you think in many cases they do not get a single line of media coverage? I think a pedestrian was killed by a mobility scooter in the same week as this trial, many didn't hear a blink. The killer left the scene.

Old bill went sniffing through a year of his Twitter output but when a drunk driver set up a petition blaming the bloke she killed it wasn't even mentioned in sentencing:

http://road.cc/content/news/186698-drunk-driver-who-killed-cyclist-launched-petition-calling-compulsory-cycle

I assume you've posted the same on pistonheads, seeing as motorists are responsible for the vast majority of pedestrians deaths.

That's not my point. The point is that it is under 2/3 of the speed limit for that road. The motorised traffic would certainly have been travelling closer to that than 18 and yet would stop in more distance than the cyclist. So how is it the cyclist that is being inappropriate with their speed?

Dunno where you get this idea that cars require more distance to stop than bikes. The opposite is true, by quite a large margin.

The highway code isn't a good source for this. It claims 14m braking distance from 30mph but for a modern car it's typically less than 10m.

The opposite is true, by quite a large margin.

I'd also like to see where you get this from