Cyclist who fractured pedestrian's skull while riding laps of Regent's Park fined £500 over group ride collision on wrong side of crossing

[Drago]

As aforementioned, Couldn't Persecute Stalin almost always treat going the wrong side of an island as dangerous driving. The round keep left signs are mandatory. Some of the ones I've put before a court (drifers, not signs) have been banned, even where no one has been injured.

While the laws are different for cyclists the prosecution and court treat the act itself as equally serious, for it is the same physjcal course of conduct.

Those mandatory keep left signs aren't there as some kind of job creation scheme for road workers - theyre there to protect life and limb, and having ignored one such sign and completed one such unlawful manoeuvre a person was seriously injured. Hes lucky he wasn't in a car as he could have been looking at a suspended jail term for serious injury by DD.

 

[Alex321]

As a genuine question with no loading / agenda, at what point are we actually ascribing wrongdoing to the cyclist?

He's passing / filtering past stationary traffic, which is perfectly legal.

He's doing so on the right hand side, which is adviseable in preference to the left as it reduces the chance of getting squashed against the kerb, clobbered by a car turning left or having nowhere to go if a pedestian steps out from behind a vehicle.

He's riding on the opposite side of the road, which presumably is acceptable since we're allowed to do this to overtake other vehicles as long as it's safe to do so.

He's passing on the other side of a pedestrian island; which granted would be a hard nope in a car (possibly because if passing other moving cars the speed involved would make it a lot more dangerous, and there would be little to no mandate for a car to pass other static cars under these circumstances unless they were very badly parked blocking the road). Personally I see no issue in filtering on a bike / motorbike on the other side of an island as long as it's sufficiently well-sighted and done with care - where does the law stand on this?

It seems he plead guilty to riding without due care and attention; which seems reasonable and suggests that intrinsically his actions were justifiable and his failing was his lack of observation / awareness / consideration for the pedestrian involved whist carrying them out; potentially including doing so at an inappropriate speed...?

Thinking about some similar situations on my commute it seems pretty difficult to hit a pedestian under these circumstances as long as you're right in the middle of the carriageway, visibility is good and they're not running at full tilt from behind an obstruction (such as a bus)...

Cyclists must obey traffic signs in general. And islands like that on two way streets almost always have arrows indicating you must pass on the left. So passing the wrong side of a traffic island is usually illegal.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I would have thought that being in a place where you would not normally be
in this case the opposite side of a central reservation
would require the vehicle (bike in this case) to take extra care and take responsibility for what happens and be aware of the increased possibility of making an emergency stop

and if there is a bus there or something then allowing for the possibility of someone coming out from behind it


this is basically what I was taught when learning to drive

the fact that it was a bike measn that chance of death are lower - but not zero or even close to it - but the responsibilities are the same

 

[Webbo2]

Cyclists must obey traffic signs in general. And islands like that on two way streets almost always have arrows indicating you must pass on the left. So passing the wrong side of a traffic island is usually illegal.

A pedestrian crossing a traffic island is probably only going to look left so a cyclist coming from the right is not going to be seen.

 

[wafter]

As aforementioned, Couldn't Persecute Stalin almost always treat going the wrong side of an island as dangerous driving. The round keep left signs are mandatory. Some of the ones I've put before a court (drifers, not signs) have been banned, even where no one has been injured.

While the laws are different for cyclists the prosecution and court treat the act itself as equally serious, for it is the same physjcal course of conduct.

Those mandatory keep left signs aren't there as some kind of job creation scheme for road workers - theyre there to protect life and limb, and having ignored one such sign and completed one such unlawful manoeuvre a person was seriously injured. Hes lucky he wasn't in a car as he could have been looking at a suspended jail term for serious injury by DD.

Cyclists must obey traffic signs in general. And islands like that on two way streets almost always have arrows indicating you must pass on the left. So passing the wrong side of a traffic island is usually illegal.

Cheers both - hadn't considered the signage.

A road local to me is potentially another great example of how the infrastructure screws us in a relevant context to this thread. It's long and straightish with cycle lanes to the inside of each side painted on the road which simply disappear at the pinch points created by the pedestrian islands. This inevitably invites conflict between cars and bikes; especially if a car happens to be mid-way through passing at the time and has to brake to pull back in behind the bike.

As such it feels safer to pass on the right - as is usually the case, since this is convention everywhere else on the roads. I can symapthise with drivers not checking their inside mirror before turning left; even if this was the cause of the only major off I've had on the bike.

Further to that the need to rejoin the traffic and squeeze back over to the left when approaching an island seemingly invites more danger than pushing out wider and passing on the opposite side of the island; assuming it's well-sighted and with no opposing traffic so you can position yourself right in the middle of the road.

I would have thought that being in a place where you would not normally be
in this case the opposite side of a central reservation
would require the vehicle (bike in this case) to take extra care and take responsibility for what happens and be aware of the increased possibility of making an emergency stop

and if there is a bus there or something then allowing for the possibility of someone coming out from behind it


this is basically what I was taught when learning to drive

the fact that it was a bike measn that chance of death are lower - but not zero or even close to it - but the responsibilities are the same

This was my thinking as well; however good points about signage above suggest that we shouldn't be there in the first place..

A pedestrian crossing a traffic island is probably only going to look left so a cyclist coming from the right is not going to be seen.

True; although it seems an increasing amount of peds round here look in neither direction before crossing the road

 

[Ming the Merciless]

This inevitably invites conflict between cars and bikes; especially if a car happens to be mid-way through passing at the time and has to brake to pull back in behind the bike.

Not really, the driver should have anticipated this and not tried to overtake at a constriction. It’s an example of dangerous driving.

 

[steveindenmark]

How can driving round an island on the wrong side of an island, because of a build up of traffic, be used as a defence?

Its like a car driving down the hard shoulder of a motorway because of a build up of traffic.

I am a little confused about the compensation she was given. For the injuries she revieved, the amount is pantry. I got more for a dislocated thumb.

It sounds like the court has really screwed her over. This is a perfect example why all cyclists should have 3rd party liability insurance.

 

[Alex321]

How can driving round an island on the wrong side of an island, because of a build up of traffic, be used as a defence?

Its like a car driving down the hard shoulder of a motorway because of a build up of traffic.

I am a little confused about the compensation she was given. For the injuries she revieved, the amount is pantry. I got more for a dislocated thumb.

It sounds like the court has really screwed her over. This is a perfect example why all cyclists should have 3rd party liability insurance.

"Compensation" awarded in criminal cases is rarely as much as would be awarded in a civil case - which can still be brought (the amount awarded in the criminal court will be deducted from the total award in a civil court). Partly because the criminal court must take into account the ability of the offender tro pay. Also because the criminal court cannot award compensation for some things, such as psychological injury.

And third party insurance generally won't cover you for payments ordered in a criminal case, but only for payments ordered in a civil case.

 

[wiggydiggy]

I am a little confused about the compensation she was given. For the injuries she revieved, the amount is pantry. I got more for a dislocated thumb.

It sounds like the court has really screwed her over. This is a perfect example why all cyclists should have 3rd party liability insurance.

"Compensation" awarded in criminal cases is rarely as much as would be awarded in a civil case - which can still be brought (the amount awarded in the criminal court will be deducted from the total award in a civil court). Partly because the criminal court must take into account the ability of the offender tro pay. Also because the criminal court cannot award compensation for some things, such as psychological injury.

And third party insurance generally won't cover you for payments ordered in a criminal case, but only for payments ordered in a civil case.

For the compenasation I'd imagine (without diving into it) the magistrates have set guidelines to abide by, and/or sentencing in the UK and victim awards is often critisized so maybe this is one of those times. I didn't know that regarding psychological injury BTW.

The cyclist having 3rd party liability wouldn't have helped her only him, but it won't help him either here as he broke the law and presumably made any insurance null and void when doing so. Its only of use to us when we ride as we are supposed to, unlike this idiot.

 

[KingstonGraham]

I don't understand why there isn't a claim for damages separate to the charged offence if she isn't happy with the amount she has got. Director of a seemingly successful architecture firm probably isn't going to be on the breadline.

 

[Alex321]

I don't understand why there isn't a claim for damages separate to the charged offence if she isn't happy with the amount she has got. Director of a seemingly successful architecture firm probably isn't going to be on the breadline.

She certainly can claim for damages.

And while she said he was "uninsured", there is a very good chance his household insurance covers him for liability for damage caused during his "leisure activities", including cycling.

 

[KingstonGraham]

She certainly can claim for damages.

And while she said he was "uninsured", there is a very good chance his household insurance covers him for liability for damage caused during his "leisure activities", including cycling.

If he has the money, his insurance status is his concern, not hers isn't it?

I would imagine that the victim will be receiving some advice on possible next steps currently from firms who see an opportunity for some easy fees.

 

[mjr]

A road local to me is potentially another great example of how the infrastructure screws us in a relevant context to this thread. It's long and straightish with cycle lanes to the inside of each side painted on the road which simply disappear at the pinch points created by the pedestrian islands. This inevitably invites conflict between cars and bikes; especially if a car happens to be mid-way through passing at the time and has to brake to pull back in behind the bike.

There should be no conflict. It's easily inevitable because the driver (not the car) should be looking far enough ahead to see the obstruction and not overtake if they can't see for sure that there's space to do so safely.

That said, I believe advisory (dashed) lanes simply disappearing at pinch points is no longer the current standard design... and even that was better than the previous common practice of painting a narrowed lane through the pinch point, directing cyclists to take up a dodgy position.

As such it feels safer to pass on the right - as is usually the case, since this is convention everywhere else on the roads. I can symapthise with drivers not checking their inside mirror before turning left; even if this was the cause of the only major off I've had on the bike.

I can't sympathise with it. We've always been meant to check the left shoulder and mirror before moving or turning left. It's a bad habit if some drivers weren't doing it and ideally they'd be caught before they hurt someone.

It has never been the convention to pass on the right of a central island, especially where it has a keep-left arrow, has it? Doing so would put you heading into oncoming 70mph traffic on some dual carriageways, for example.

[...] True; although it seems an increasing amount of peds round here look in neither direction before crossing the road

Doesn't matter. In Norwich 30 years ago, walkers used to look right at drivers as they stepped out. It's still up to other road users (except maybe cattle and wild animals) to avoid them and it's a bit sick that so many people seemed to forget this, or used their cars to bully people.

 

[mjr]

The cyclist having 3rd party liability wouldn't have helped her only him, but it won't help him either here as he broke the law and presumably made any insurance null and void when doing so. Its only of use to us when we ride as we are supposed to, unlike this idiot.

Steady on, he's only been convicted of careless cycling. I think he'd have to be convicted of deliberately committing a crime (which reckless or dangerous cycling might be) for the insurance to be even possible to be voided. Otherwise, it's a mistake and something he didn't forsee happening, and that's the sort of thing you insure against.

But I'm open to persuasion on this because I don't remember seeing insurance voided often. That may be because insurers think it cheaper to pay out than defend in court a denied claim.

 

[mjr]

Why isn't it what, theatre? You'll have to explain it better to me as I've obviously misunderstood what you mean.

Putting demands that riders have insurance and ride legally into the terms and conditions is "implementing security measures that are considered to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to achieve it" which is one definition of theatre. Most ride organisers have no viable way to check insurance (sure, they can demand uploads of documents but there's currently no way to check they're real) or to enforce traffic law (only police have some of the necessary powers).

It would probably be better reminding people of relevant laws during any pre-ride briefings and telling them to trust no-one, so don't ride so close you can't see someone crossing the road ahead... but Club Peloton probably won't do that because then it wouldn't be "the closest an amateur cyclist can get to riding like a professional".