Is it time to start calling out bad cyclists?

I'm curious how they define wanton/furious. Taking the lane on that bit of Old St is treacherous because the cars want to go faster than is wise given the narrowness of the road - it has been my route to work for over a decade and sometimes I take the longer quieter route just to escape the aggro. I remember the original thread, and whilst the rider was a bit off putting in his comments I could completely see why one could feel compelled to keep up with the traffic speed rather than slowing for a potential conflict. Some Addison Lee cunt was revving and beeping at me for taking the lane there just the other day.

From what I have seen any/all cycling that results in injury is wanton in a kinda "you are on a bicycle and something has happened that's wanton".

For driving being over the speed limit is "being careless and not noticing the speedo" running a red light is "being careless and not seeing the lights" and so on. At times it feels you would need to be in an OJ style televised chase before it was apparent your actions had been intentionally breaking a law.

Also if someone is wanton cycling at 15-20mph often in a 30mph zone how is a driver careless driving at 40mph+ in a 30mph zone? That might not be specific to the case mentioned but it's a recurring theme.

The harsh wording will have a huge impact, if those reading it aren't cyclists hearing that the cyclist was furious and wanton rather than just careless totally changes the emotions involved. If it was "death by clumsy cycling accident" it entirely changes it.

Yeah.

Obvs we don't know how wanton Charlie's cycling was, but it does seem that the relative lack of effort needed to make a car kill someone means people get away without taking responsibility. It probably ought to be the opposite. With great power etc.

I feel very sorry for both these unfortunate people.

Same. I remember when this happened and there were a lot of people giving their opinions and appropriating blame on the thread, going on a newspaper report and some words said by the guy just after it had happened. A lot of people were arguing that he didn't seem remorseful, or it could have been avoided, judging like they were there and saw the whole thing, or knew what was going on with him mentally after the incident. I don't know all the facts, but this hasn't turned out well for all involved.

It's a horrible situation for both rider and the family. I feel better about getting around on a bike because in an accident it is very unlikely to be fatal to anyone. This is a reminder to me that actions can have very serious consequences.

.

edited.

CTC/Cycling UK has been highlighting that for years: As the jury of their peers is a jury of drivers they usually go for "driving without due care and attention" rather than "dangerous driving" to at least get some conviction... :(

Even if the driver is breaking the law and playing with a phone or speeding. a deliberate, conscious act.

Is there more info as to what happened somewhere? The road.cc article is very thin on the details and people here commenting seem to know more about what happened.

I don't think reposting details on a public forum before a trial is a good idea.

-

.

Given the result of the last discussion on the incident, this is best left without public opinions until verdict.

-

edited... I don't think I should have said that, Sorry!

.

yeah we should probably shitcan this topic. do the right thing and 86 your posts.

Let me repeat something I said in a PM yesterday when I was asked about the closed conversation.

Anything said on a public forum that could be found by anyone related to the trial carries the risk of the trial being affected by it.

As soon as I learned this was going to be the case, I pruned the thread and locked it to ensure that LFGSS isn't responsible for anyone not getting justice.

The only place where the details should be discussed are now in the court room, and people on here would be well advised that they put themselves at risk (of many things, affecting the trial, contempt, getting the trial thrown out, etc) by making uninformed statements.

The best thing I can do to protect users on here from themselves (the trolls who like to speculate) as well as the family and friends of the victim (by limiting the chances that shit said on here may result in the case being thrown out) is to lock it all down.

That is what I said yesterday, and it definitely stands.

Can you say stuff? Sure, feel free. But realise that you both do so at your own liability and risk of a legal response to your comments, and you may also put the court case in jeopardy.

It is a good idea when a court case is ongoing, to know when to shut up. This is one of those times.

#rep

10/10 from RCC members today in full kit commute mode.
First chap clearly thinks that Forçats de la Route translates to "jump all the lights from Haringey to Camden".
Second man thinks that drafting a line of cars at 45kph a dicks-width from their bumper, is a great idea. That is until someone breaks even a tiny bit and you eat the tarmac. Thankfully RCC member #1 was at close hand to offer comfort. He was fine.

Some sort of charity ride from Cambridge to London today.

Apparently riding for a good cause gives you license to run all the reds, pavement hop, barge through pedestrian crossings and generally be a dick.

Surprise, surprise ... a story about people riding on the footway on Tower Bridge while the carriageway is closed.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/anger-as-cyclists-brazenly-flout-riding-ban-on-tower-bridge-while-road-is-shut-for-repairs-a3362081.html

Who could possibly have thought this would happen?

Ugh...they are not cyclists. They are belms on bikes.