Cyclist escapes prosecution after fatal collision with pensioner

[mjr]

Since you raise those two offences @mjr , share with us how many have, as a result of death caused in the course of cycling, been (a) charged and (b) convicted. No, didn't think so.

There are very few deaths caused in the course of cycling, so it's going to be few over many years. I know Alliston was charged with both and only convicted of GBH.

The amendment proposed seems a straightforward way to recognise this particular unacceptable conduct which has had a tragic effect, and the fatal incident in Regent's Park in the news (several years after the victim's death) has been the catalyst to a course of action long advocated.

I suspect it may have the same result as the similar motoring offences and almost no cyclists will even be charged with manslaughter any more, reducing their potential sentence. I doubt that's what the fools cheerleading for a new offence really want, but it's fine by me, even if I'd really prefer all the offences combined and reformed so it doesn't matter if you kill with a bike, a car, a truck, a sledgehammer or a chainsaw.

I recommend skim reading the article (<1 minute)

I read it before posting. Maybe you should and then you'd know the above questions were not answered in it.

The Government is backing this amdt: Harper said "Most cyclists, like most drivers, are responsible and considerate. But it's only right that the tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face the full weight of the law for doing so." Apart from the cliche of "full weight" can anyone demur?

Only that it incorrectly implies that they did not face the full weight of the law before.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I'm not playing this game.

Not a game. I am dealing with facts, which you find hard to deal with. Please don’t dismiss numbers based on real facts and science, by making up stuff. It doesn’t help any argument you are trying to make.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Not a game. I am dealing with facts, which you find hard to deal with. Please don’t dismiss numbers based on real facts and science, by making up stuff. It doesn’t help any argument you are trying to make.

Maybe you should stop making accusations that you have no evidence to support. Especially when it is detracting from the point being made which amounts to trolling.

 

[mjr]

So no pedestrians who would not anticipate a cyclist travelling at 40 will use it off-peak?

If they did, a cyclist riding roughly centrally (the lampposts prevent riding completely in the centre) could see a pedestrian a long way off and ease off, brake and/or pull over. The cyclist could see them long before being in conflict with even someone running directly across the route, which would itself be extremely strange because they'd be hurtling straight into a tree or fence beyond the verge.

The paper mill section may be a better example: visibility there is over 40m to one side of the track (the mill), about 200m across a river on the other and about 1km forwards, but lots of people walk their dogs along it, or take a stroll to the sluice and back. Is it "where they can expect to come into conflict with pedestrians" even when they can't see anyone?

 

[Dogtrousers]

This thread is getting a bit fractious. Never fear, Captain Tautology will resolve matters.

I think we can all agree that it's inappropriate for cyclists to ride at a speed that is not appropriate.

Happy now?

 

[Alex321]

I beg to differ. This route lies between a suburban street and a footway. There's a good gradient leading down to it. I'd evidence it but it's too close to my gaff. It's low hanging fruit.

Nice goalpost shift.

Youy didn't mention a specific route, you said
"I think cyclists riding on cycle ways which are shared with pedestrians should not be riding at high speeds, unless they are arrow straight, have perfect sight lines and don't involve any junctions or places from which pedestrians may emerge.

A pedestrian using or stepping onto such a cycle way is not going to anticipate cyclists riding along at 30+ mph. Neither are many other cyclists for that matter."

And FTR when I was at full fitness I could exceed 35 mph on the flat when the need arose.

So could I. For a very few seconds.

You are simply not going to get any significant number of cyclists traveling at over 30mph except on downhill stretches, or the run out at the bottom of a downhill.

 

[presta]

Closer to 770 Watts.

I get 786W.

Based on:
CdAp: 0.3 (an average of multiple references)
µ: 0.007 (ditto)
ρ: 1.2

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Nice goalpost shift.

You what?
I walk the dog along it every day. At the main road end, visibility isn't great - there's a high hedgerow on one side and fencing atop a dwarf wall on the other. Visibility for/of pedestrians at that end is poor. This is the low end of it altitude wise. It has never occured to me that anyone would ride a bike along there at the speeds I can see logged on Strava. Wouldn't even occur to me that it was a Strava segment. It is simply not appropriate.

So could I. For a very few seconds.

You are simply not going to get any significant number of cyclists traveling at over 30mph except on downhill stretches, or the run out at the bottom of a downhill.

Evidently, there are some of Strava cyclists who can do this and are willing to do this to get on the leaderboard. I don't think it is necessarily a numbers game. It's about the risks a minority are willing to take and how, if those risks unfold the wrong way, we will see more campaigning for restrictions.

If I'm using a cycle way that is likely to have pedestrians in the vicinity, which is all the ones I can think of here, I slow down. It just seems like common sense.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I get 786W.

Based on:
CdAp: 0.3 (an average of multiple references)
µ: 0.007 (ditto)
ρ: 1.2

Which online calculator? You are clearly missing a few variables and no equation in your fag packet variables above.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Looking at some of the segments in and around Regent's Park.
https://www.strava.com/segments/14463965
This year's leaderboard for this segment has average speeds recorded that are a lot lower (~20km/h less) than the all time leaderboard but it shows riders acheiving average speeds of 54.2 km/h (33 mph) on this short segment this year and 65.6 km/h (41 mph) on the all time leaderboard. Note, none of them are recording 900 Watts .. although the power figures are all over the place.

I'm not intimately familiar with Regent's Park so I'm not commenting on whether it is safe or not, save to say I do suspect it is putting pedestrians and other park users at unnecessary risk. I've no idea whether or not theses times were recorded during marshalled events or what the arrangements were.

 

[Alex321]

You what?

I was responding to a post where you were talking generically, and you moved to talking about one specific path.

I walk the dog along it every day. At the main road end, visibility isn't great - there's a high hedgerow on one side and fencing atop a dwarf wall on the other. Visibility for/of pedestrians at that end is poor. This is the low end of it altitude wise. It has never occured to me that anyone would ride a bike along there at the speeds I can see logged on Strava. Wouldn't even occur to me that it was a Strava segment. It is simply not appropriate.

Anything that gets ridden regularly is likely to be a strava segment. They aren't just for people riding particulrly fast.

But yes, there are cyclists who ride stupidly fast on some of these segments. And I am sure the fastest speeds are likely to have been set when they knew it was clear.

Evidently, there are some of Strava cyclists who can do this and are willing to do this to get on the leaderboard. I don't think it is necessarily a numbers game. It's about the risks a minority are willing to take and how, if those risks unfold the wrong way, we will see more campaigning for restrictions.

If I'm using a cycle way that is likely to have pedestrians in the vicinity, which is all the ones I can think of here, I slow down. It just seems like common sense.

Indeed.

 

[presta]

Which online calculator? You are clearly missing a few variables and no equation in your fag packet variables above.

The power is 0.5ρCdApv^3+mgµv.

The only assumption I didn't list is mass (90kg).

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The power is 0.5ρCdApv^3+mgµv.

The only assumption I didn't list is mass (90kg).

i think your numbers are too idealised, but still the guy above is talking about putting these numbers out for a few minutes at a time and he’s not a pro.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

i think your numbers are too idealised, but still the guy above is talking about putting these numbers out for a few minutes at a time and he’s not a pro.

Not really inconceivable for someone in their late twenties (at the time) who started cycling long distances in their early teens, enjoyed climbing, enjoyed sprinting and rode a bike every single day, is it?

Not claiming I can do that now, but positively I don't struggle buying jeans that will fit over my thighs anymore.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Not really inconceivable for someone in their late twenties (at the time) who started cycling long distances in their early teens, enjoyed climbing, enjoyed sprinting and rode a bike every single day, is it?

It is somewhat off the curve, and they didn’t even say they were struggling to hold it.

Power duration curve for someone with an FTP of 342W, can hold 600W barely 20 seconds not the much longer period required to accelerate to and hold 56.33 km/h for a few minutes.