In the news

I feel sorry for all directly involved, and don't know enough to have an opinion re the sentencing.
But what does piss me off/ scares me, is the that they used his forum posts as evidence. It took fucking years to get rid of the hook handed hate mongering prick, who spouted hate - yet a young bloke who was probably affected by the trauma is beaten around the head by his own words. Just seems wrong.

Try here: https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/128796/

It took fucking years to get rid of the hook handed hate mongering prick, who spouted hate

I dunno, the film timeline doesn't suggest that long had passed.

A pedestrian has right of way, should you run one over on the carriage way or worse still on the foot path the law in in there favour.

Should you make no attempt to avoid the collision & shout out at the a pedestrian to get out of your way, you not doing yourself any favours

Should your cycle or vehicle be found to be defective after being involved in collision it not going to turn out very well for you

Should after being involved in collision which causes death or serious injury you decide to shoot you mouth off, your not going to make it any better for yourself....

Charlie Alliston, was foolish enough to ensure he was getting a custodial sentence.

I find the childish what about xyz laughable, however mobility scooter basic competence & some basic insurance should be required

Should

The police will trawl your social messaging to add weight to a case, they are not your friends.

Challenging viewpoints is healthy. Shutting down debate by shouting 'Daily Mail troll' isn't.

That's exactly what a troll would say.

user81480 in reply to @MultiGrooves

A pedestrian has right of way, should you run one over on the carriage way or worse still on the foot path the law in in there favour.

Should you make no attempt to avoid the collision & shout out at the a pedestrian to get out of your way, you not doing yourself any favours

Should your cycle or vehicle be found to be defective after being involved in collision it not going to turn out very well for you

Should after being involved in collision which causes death or serious injury you decide to shoot you mouth off, your not going to make it any better for yourself....

Charlie Alliston, was foolish enough to ensure he was getting a custodial sentence.

I find the childish what about xyz laughable, however mobility scooter basic competence & some basic insurance should be required

You're repeating yourself. We both know peds have the ultimate priority.
I have no idea why you're bringing up the stuff you have. I mentioned nothing about not trying to avoid a collision, neither was that the case with Charlie. It appeared she stepped back into his path after he had avoided the victim. How is that relevant? I asked you about what you'd expect from a typical cyclist in very typical road situations with pedestrians crossing between high sided vehicles. Do I risk my life for some crossing where they do not look and where they cannot be seen?
It looks as though you have no any idea of what it is like to cycle in a city like London. If you cannot be bothered to address any of the points I made then lets end this here and keep it civil.

Why are you talking about defective bikes? That was nothing to do with what I asked and the overwhelming majority of bikes on London roads.

"Shooting your mouth off"? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with what I asked. If you bothered to read my post 2 pages back, you'd see that I don't back much of Charlie's position in this.

So far you do not comprehend well. It is also clear that you do not ride in London. Ask anyone here or any cyclist that you may know and they will tell you the scenarios I asked you about are not just "childish" or laughing matters. They are very common situations that we go through several times sometimes in single journeys. I'd just like to know your stance. If they are too taxing for you lets just leave it here and leave it civil.

I mentioned nothing about not trying to avoid a collision, neither was that the case with Charlie

The Judge said exactly that

"On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident. "

I suspect that the pedestrian was seen a lot earlier than has been mentioned on this forum. And I also suspect the CCTV supports this.

I wonder if that cctv footage is or will ever be available to see for ourselves.

For everyone's information, the concept of 'right of way' has a different meaning from the one you intend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way

What you mean to refer to is priority. Pedestrians have priority when they have started to cross the carriageway (at least) at junctions. See Highway Code Rules 8 and 170. I'm no legal expert and don't know on which legislation this is based (Road Traffic Act?) or if these rules apply generally and not only at junctions.

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/uploads/3/2/9/2/3292309/the-official-highway-code-with-annexes-uk-en-12-04.pdf

In whose house I'm confused...

Like I said I don't back the kid. What I have done is lifted elements of this incident and am asking what happens in regular scenarios where the rider isn't riding tarckbiek®...ou know...like most us go through daily. I saw little talk about the victim's actions that also contributed to this tragic outcome. There has been little talk about it. Yet if you step out in front of any of the commenters in the comment section they'll be the fist to blast their horns, yet cannot fathom the nuance here.

In a city you find pedestrians, they wander in-between & in front of traffic.

In the UK they have right of way & are not required to cross at a specified point.

If you travel at speed & you have to do so with the understanding that a pedestrian might just wander out in front of you.

If you unable to stop you are travelling too fast.

You may find this unfair, however are there members of the public with mental or physical disabilities, who may be unable to see, hear or comprehend the danger of wandering out into the road.

A British City will have also drunks, junkies & mongs with head phones.

If you are unable to cope with the extra responsibility of "wheeled transport" feel free to wander about on foot safe in the knowledge you have right of way.

Surely the husband is the cuckold!?

Question - Do you ever drive a car or cycle in a city?

If you do, the theoretical conclusion to your argument is that your vehicle would never move, for fear of having an accident. What if ... pops out from between a parked car, what if ... runs onto the road.

TLDR
I'm talking in general as was the person to whom I replied. Not about brakeless fixed riders. I'm confident in equal conditions, reaction time included, I can reach for my brakes that my hands are already covering and stop before a car driver can lift their foot, move it to another pedal and stop 2t of vehicle.

For the physics in the article that goes on beyond brakeless.

If you can't be arsed to read it then I can't help you.

Is your surname Dunning-Kruger?

In the UK they have right of way

Read Oliver's post.

I did read it, I was being facetious.
There are no sources for these figures, and does not take into account the reduced reaction time in applying the brakes which I mentioned.
So in reality it cannot be taken as a conclusion that a car with greater stopping power would take less time to stop overall than someone with less stopping power but more actual time on the brakes.
The original post I made also referred to a cyclist travelling at 18mph and a car travelling closer to 30 though I admit what I wrote implies stopping distance from the same speed

mongs

Really? Fuck off.

So the logical conclusion is that I could be at the edge of the road in this position:

and head into the road. Not look. Possibly be on my phone and it is the sole fault of any vehicle that collides?

Ah I see. Maybe this clears it...

1 Attachment

If you stop in the road and someone hits you outside of their braking distance, as decided by 2 police officers in a single test under random conditions, then I think yes it would be the driver/rider/pilot's fault.

If it's inside their braking distance then it's your fault.

Speaking out of my arse.

we can argue over use of "right of way" or "priority"

however should you end up in court:-

It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into her.