Cyclist kills pedestrian

[Jaded]

I feel a little outraged when I hear of motorists getting away scot free with killing innocent people on the roads, on this occasion a cyclist has clearly behaved in an appalling way on the roads resulting in a young girls death, bringing shame and derision in the whole of the cycling fraternity and I feel a little outraged at the paltry sentence. You defend him if you wish, that is you and you probably wont change.

Your words.

Were you there? How can you be sure it is so clear?

Tabloid junkie.

 

[Jaded]

The reasons for the kids being in the road and the reasons for the cyclist not stopping do not seem to have been covered, this could be anything from manslaughter to self defence.

Unfortunately a possible lead up to the events that domtyler's blinkers make him unable to see.

 

[domtyler]

When this person was a couple of feet away from hitting the girl there is only one speed he should have been going and that is zero - a fact.

 

[domtyler]

Your words.

Were you there? How can you be sure it is so clear?

Tabloid junkie.

He killed an innocent person because he couldn't be fucked to slow down or alter his course. By most peoples definition that is appalling behaviour, by your definition killing people is clearly no big deal.

 

[jely]

Your words.

Were you there? How can you be sure it is so clear?

Tabloid junkie.

i don't think there's any need for name calling (as such)... everyone is allowed to have their opinion and feel how they want. I know that I feel sorry for all parties involved. Howard might be vile and arrogant, he might not be... but now he has to live with the knowledge of killing someone for the rest of his life. She might or might not have been a little angel, but we'll never know. We can all speculate but that's all we can do...

 

[Jaded]

jely, I agree, however my comments are entirely down to dom's assertion that the cyclist is a vile and arrogant man.

 

[marinyork]

I think the Court were more surprised that he did not moderate his speed when confronted with peds in the road.

Are you for real? We don't know that he didn't moderate his speed. Anyway if a car had been doing 20mph like I said before we'd all be saying how slow it was going and how careful they were unlike rhythym thief's claims otherwise.

A warning was shouted, that is not disputed. You can read this in two possible positive lights - that he meant the warning in good faith or that they were larking around and he felt threatened. Either way that's very different from the twisted use of the warning to depict him as a maniac. Something went wrong somewhere but I feel the warning actually decreases his responsibility. The speed issue on the road is really a red herring and being used to bamboozle the court who are not familiar with road cycling.

 

[magnatom]

Blimey! The last 7 pages seem to have appeared quickly. I'm not reading through all of that. Anyone care to save me time and summarise?

 

[Origamist]

Where is the evidence that he didn't moderate his speed?

Don't forget, a judge's summing up is his view of the case - not necessarily a recitation of fact.

Are you for real? We don't know that he didn't moderate his speed.

He shouted: "move, because I'm not stopping" - doesn't sound like he was too interested in slowing down. His speed, estimated at between 17mph - 23mph also suggest this.

What's more:

"The defendant admitted, when interviewed, that he could have braked or stopped when he first became aware of the pedestrians."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topsto...ist-killed-our-beautiful-girl-89520-20635650/

He chose to bisect a group of kids on the road at speed - it was the wrong choice, IMO.

 

[Disgruntled Goat]

He killed an innocent person because he couldn't be fucked to slow down or alter his course. By most peoples definition that is appalling behaviour, by your definition killing people is clearly no big deal.

That's how I read it.

 

[Origamist]

Are you for real? We don't know that he didn't moderate his speed. Anyway if a car had been doing 20mph like I said before we'd all be saying how slow it was going and how careful they were unlike rhythym thief's claims otherwise.

A warning was shouted, that is not disputed. You can read this in two possible positive lights - that he meant the warning in good faith or that they were larking around and he felt threatened. Either way that's very different from the twisted use of the warning to depict him as a maniac. Something went wrong somewhere but I feel the warning actually decreases his responsibility. The speed issue on the road is really a red herring and being used to bamboozle the court who are not familiar with road cycling.

You sound like a SafeSpeeder - do you not think impact speed is important in collisions?

 

[CopperBrompton]

And here's the proof of the stupidity of the recent CTC statement: it has now been linked to this case

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk?articleid=4268523

Ben

 

[marinyork]

You sound like a SafeSpeeder - do you not think impact speed is important in collisions?

Not really in this case. They could have been doing 10mph and killed them. Someone could have been jogging along and barged past and killed them. I've already said that perhaps the charge of careless cycling is appropriate as he may have done something wrong, just the way in which speed was described and used in this case and the same with the warning really gets my wick.

 

[Origamist]

Not really in this case. They could have been doing 10mph and killed them. Someone could have been jogging along and barged past and killed them. I've already said that perhaps the charge of careless cycling is appropriate as he may have done something wrong, just the way in which speed was described and used in this case and the same with the warning really gets my wick.

I'd rather collide with a cyclist doing 10mph, than 20mph.

Lower speed impacts are usually less serious - do you disagree?

 

[Riding in Circles]

And here's the proof of the stupidity of the recent CTC statement: it has now been linked to this case

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk?articleid=4268523

Ben

And so it begins.