£850 fine for causing brain damage

[MrJamie]

As a part time pedestrian, and based on the figures, I'm rather inclined to take my chances with the cyclists rather than the motorists.
Which part of 452 pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists, versus 49740 pedestrians killed or injured by cars is that you don't understand? Oh how silly of me, cars do more miles, so that's alright then.

I was simply suprised that there were as many deaths and injuries by cyclists as there are, given the relative low popularity, speed of cycling and lack of momentum/energy in a bicycle impact. A quick google suggests that only 2% of journeys are made by bicycle and Sustrans suggests the majority of these are very short journeys (ie. less time and presence on the roads) and a large number of those would presumably be rather slow rides (ie. less kinetic energy), so for us to account for as much as 1% of what cars do suprised me.

I quoted your post, because I agreed with the sentiment that we need to slow down in town and around pedestrians. I wasnt trying to imply that cyclists/bicycles are inherently dangerous

 

[MrJamie]

Its not about the miles traveled when talking of criminal acts. Its about the numbers of acts per sub-population.

Remember.. most of those miles traveled will be on the motorways for motorists. That alone discounts mileage as a factor here.

These are the figures I have for the cycling related collisions: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1110_Cyclists-behaviour-and-law__4M__brf_rev_.pdf

Yeah I mentioned miles to whiskeywheels erroneously.. What I wanted to imply was a way of quantifying the relationship between the number of incidents and the relevant types of traffic that would reflect the amount of each type of vehicle use, since Id imagine a lot of the bike owning "cyclist" sub-population probably dont cycle very often compared to the amount of driving a motorist does.

 

[BSRU]

How else do you save precious seconds then?

By ignoring the laws of the road, many slow cyclists jump red lights in order to save a few seconds.

 

[Red Light]

No it hasn't. Marting Porter has done a good analysis of cases in this paper.

Did you read his paper. Try paragraph 8:

"8. Therefore failure to wear a helmet is contributory negligence justifying a reduction in the damages where injury would have been avoided or reduced by a helmet."​

​

 

[Red Light]

That is a facile statement.

Explain?

 

[Crankarm]

The solicitor was a partner at Rosenblatts which could mean the cyclist could be hit with a civil action for millions - PSLA and lost earnings, family to support. I hope he has 3rd party insurance. What an idiot.

I air zounded a RLJer today. They nearly fell off their bike with fright. Ha!

Last week on Milton Road I saw what looked like a male student ride through a red light at a busy junction, no hands on the handle bars with mobile phone glued to his ear.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The precedent has been set that if it can be shown that a helmet would have made a difference to the outcome, the cyclist would be contributory negligent ...

What is this precedent?

GC

 

[Red Light]

What is this precedent?

GC

Smith v Finch

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Did you read his paper. Try paragraph 8:

"8. Therefore failure to wear a helmet is contributory negligence justifying a reduction in the damages where injury would have been avoided or reduced by a helmet."​

​

Did you read his paper. Paragraph 8 is in the section headed: "The argument for". It is presenting the argument, not asserting that the argument is valid. The rest of the paper looks at previous cases to try to come to a view on whether "the argument for" is a valid one. Don't pick individual sentences completely out of context and attempt to twist them to suit your own purpose.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Smith v Finch

Smith v. Finch is unlikely to stand as a precedent. As it was not shown that wearing a helmet would have made any difference to the claimant's injuries, no reduction in damages was made. In that case, that part of the judgement would be unlikely to be challenged in any appeal as it would not be worth the cost, so it hasn't really been tested.

 

[benb]

It is not necessarily about speed more to do with saving precious seconds.

That's the same thing, isn't it?

 

[hoopdriver]

Explain?

Your pondering whether a pedestrian should have his/her compensatory damages reduced for not wearing a helmet. Facile.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Smith v Finch

That did not set a precedent for helmetless contributory negligence. The judges remarks in relation to the lack of a helmet were obiter dicta in that case and are not binding on any subsequent case.

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of precedent.


GC

 

[BSRU]

That's the same thing, isn't it?

Yes and no, I quite often see riders dawdling along who are not concerned with their speed but they still go through red lights in order to save a little time.

 

[hoopdriver]

That's the same thing, isn't it?

It's exactly the same thing.

To try to say that saving seconds is not about speed reminds me of the old joke where the defendent tells the judge he wasn't doing cocaine, he just liked the smell of it.