Crash in Bath

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Ian Walker, Feb 12, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ian Walker

    Ian Walker Guest

    Here's a story that appeared in the local paper yesterday:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?R1CD42F63

    Basically, a cyclist hit an OAP who stepped out in front of him as he came down a hill. From what
    the story says, it looks as if the pedestrian either misjudged the bike's speed or somehow thought
    that bikes 'don't count' and that you can cross in front of them. Certaintly, as long as the cyclist
    wasn't going over 30, it's hard to see that he really did anything wrong. However, he was convicted
    of careless cycling and fined*. This seems odd. I doubt that if a pensioner stepped in front of a
    car in the same circumstances the driver would be held responsible. The court would have simply said
    something like "everyone knows you don't step in front of cars as they're coming down hills".

    One sentence in particular struck me. "After lengthy deliberations, magistrates said Mr Brady was an
    experienced cyclist on a high-quality bike and could have avoided the accident." Would they have
    said the same to an experienced driver in a high-quality car?

    How do you lot read it?

    Ian

    * although interestingly the fine was of the same piddly magnitude that a driver would get in these
    circumstances.

    --
    Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath. Remove the yummy paste in my address to
    reply. Homepage: http://www.drianwalker.com
     
    Tags:


  2. Hmm.... methinks, on the article, the cyclist has possibly been unfairly dealt with. Seems like a
    case of SMIDSY from the pedestrian and this has been accepted. A cyclist on the road - whatever
    next. I wonder if the cyclist had the benefit of CTC/BC legal help?

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  3. "Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...

    > ......Certaintly, as long as the cyclist wasn't going over 30, it's hard to see that he really did
    > anything wrong. However, he was convicted of careless cycling and fined*.......

    So it sends a clear message that stopping to help suicidal peds you hit through no fault will get
    you a fine.

    Had he not stopped to help he would probably have not been fined.
     
  4. Sky Fly

    Sky Fly Guest

    Looks very much like a 'he-say-she-say' kind of story. The cyclist said the pedestrian stepped out
    in front of him; the pedestrian said she checked before stepping out. I guess who you believe
    depends on which group your sympathies lie with.

    But me - I'm an eternal pessimist. That's why I never exceed 25mph, even on the steepest,
    straightest hills.

    --
    Akin

    aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk
     
  5. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Hmm.... methinks, on the article, the cyclist has possibly been unfairly dealt with. Seems like a
    > case of SMIDSY from the pedestrian and this has been accepted. A cyclist on the road - whatever
    > next. I wonder if the cyclist had the benefit of CTC/BC legal help?
    >

    I'm not sure I agree. The article says there was no other traffic. How difficult is it to miss a
    pedestrian with a bicycle given the whole width of the road to play with? To me it appear from the
    article as if he was going at an inappropriately fast speed for the situation and someone was badly
    injured as a consequence - the judgement of not exercising due care seems reasonable.

    Tony

    --
    http://www.raven-family.com

    "I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
    their job."

    Samuel Goldwyn
     
  6. Ian Walker

    Ian Walker Guest

    On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:05:58 -0000, Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Looks very much like a 'he-say-she-say' kind of story. The cyclist said the pedestrian stepped out
    > in front of him; the pedestrian said she checked before stepping out. I guess who you believe
    > depends on which group your sympathies lie with.
    >

    Yes, but the fact she was hit by an oncoming cyclist suggests that she didn't check very well! He
    was definitely there...

    --
    Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath. Remove the yummy paste in my address to
    reply. Homepage: http://www.drianwalker.com
     
  7. Elyob

    Elyob Guest

    "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Hmm.... methinks, on the article, the cyclist has possibly been unfairly dealt with. Seems like
    > > a case of SMIDSY from the pedestrian and this has been accepted. A cyclist on the road -
    > > whatever next. I wonder if the cyclist had the benefit of CTC/BC legal help?
    > >
    >
    > I'm not sure I agree. The article says there was no other traffic. How difficult is it to miss a
    > pedestrian with a bicycle given the whole width
    of
    > the road to play with? To me it appear from the article as if he was going at an inappropriately
    > fast speed for the situation and someone was badly injured as a consequence - the judgement of not
    > exercising due care seems reasonable.
    >
    >

    Still doesn't cover the fact that they didn't use the 'green cross code'. He said he was riding
    defensively. Only problem I can see is that he may not have done a lifesaver over his shoulder
    before reaching the area. Therefore not realising the road was empty. They do mention excessive
    speed and Bathwick Hill looks steep, all the Google results call it 'infamous'.

    Seems to me that he was going 'too' fast for the conditions, I bet he loves hacking down hills like
    the rest of us.

    As cyclists don't need to be insured, how will he afford the damages she is supposed to be suing
    for? Can she not sue the Crown?
     
  8. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Looks very much like a 'he-say-she-say' kind of story. The cyclist said the pedestrian stepped out
    > in front of him; the pedestrian said she checked before stepping out. I guess who you believe
    > depends on which group your sympathies lie with.
    >

    He says she stepped out in front of him but her husband said he had reached the other pavement and
    heard the cyclist behind him. That implies that they were finishing crossing, not starting. If there
    are two people and one has made it across the road before you reach them it also implies you had a
    pretty good idea of what was going on up ahead. Bathwick Hill is steep and long (and reasonably
    wide, especially at the bottom where it is very wide). It would be very tempting to go fast but
    stopping quickly on it with normal bike brakes without going over the bars would be challenging.

    But since he is a cyclist I guess he must be in the right.

    Tony

    --
    http://www.raven-family.com

    "I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
    their job."

    Samuel Goldwyn
     
  9. "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:M%[email protected]...

    > As cyclists don't need to be insured, how will he afford the damages she is supposed to be suing
    > for? Can she not sue the Crown?

    I have always wondered about this. Could she force him to sell his home to pay damages?
     
  10. Ian Walker

    Ian Walker Guest

    On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:47:11 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > But since he is a cyclist I guess he must be in the right.

    Not at all. Indeed, your analysis sounds very plausible.

    --
    Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath. Remove the yummy paste in my address to
    reply. Homepage: http://www.drianwalker.com
     
  11. "Adrian Boliston" <[email protected]> writes:
    > "Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:eek:[email protected]...
    >
    > > ......Certaintly, as long as the cyclist wasn't going over 30, it's hard to see that he really
    > > did anything wrong. However, he was convicted of careless cycling and fined*.......
    >
    > So it sends a clear message that stopping to help suicidal peds you hit through no fault will get
    > you a fine.
    >
    > Had he not stopped to help he would probably have not been fined.

    But, like a hot and run driver, if he had later been identified as the person who failed to stop
    after an accident, he would have been fined more.
     
  12. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:

    >
    > I'm not sure I agree. The article says there was no other traffic. How difficult is it to miss a
    > pedestrian with a bicycle given the whole width of the road to play with? To me it appear from the
    > article as if he was going at an inappropriately fast speed for the situation and someone was
    > badly injured as a consequence - the judgement of not exercising due care seems reasonable.

    It's hard to be sure from the limited details but the damage to the bike and people certainly
    suggests a fair bit of speed. The only trouble is, if that makes the cyclist at fault then you've
    got to be prepared to criminalise basically every car driver too.

    James
     
  13. "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > But, like a hot and run driver, if he had later been identified as the person who failed to stop
    > after an accident, he would have been fined more.

    Car drivers are normally treated as innocent if a ped lemming steps straight into their path (unless
    they are speeding), so they can stop safe in the knowledge they will probably not be fined.

    Can the same be said now for a cyclist?
     
  14. Fortyeight16

    Fortyeight16 Guest

    "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > But, like a hot and run driver, if he had later been identified as the person who failed to stop
    > after an accident, he would have been fined more.

    You are joking, of course. My hit and run driver simply denied it. Bingo, case closed.
     
  15. Tim S

    Tim S Guest

    "Adrian Boliston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:M%[email protected]...
    >
    > > As cyclists don't need to be insured, how will he afford the damages she
    is
    > > supposed to be suing for? Can she not sue the Crown?
    >
    > I have always wondered about this. Could she force him to sell his home
    to pay
    > damages?
    >
    >
    Loks like she's going to try & is a bit miffed that the cyclist was uninsured

    Quote: "She said she is planning to sue Mr Brady for compensation through the civil courts, and is
    writing to Bath MP Don Foster calling for compulsory insurance for cyclists."

    He's an uninsured unemployed guy though, so comp will have to be minor or he'll just declare
    bankruptcy.

    Also, I was told recently by the IAM that once a pedestrian puts a foot on the road, the Ped has
    right of way (anyone confirm/deny this?) so hitting a ped is "automatically" the driver/cyclists
    fault ?!?!

    Tim S
     
  16. "Tim S" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > He's an uninsured unemployed guy though, so comp will have to be minor or he'll just declare
    > bankruptcy.

    I think it's £5/week statutory maximum compensation you can be made to pay if on benefit. Not sure
    if the number of weeks are capped though.
     
  17. It is always difficult and dangerous to make simplistic judgements based on newspaper reporting of
    an accident. However reading the whole article it does appear to give a reasonable overview of what
    happened and both sides account of it. Based on that, the decision seems right. He acknowledged
    having seen them. He admitted he was going fast. He said he was 'expecting' to be given his right of
    way. However, to exercise reasonable care he should have slowed and kept slowing enough to be able
    to stop in the distance to their crossing point until he was sure he had been seen, and was being
    given his right of way.

    A right of way doesn't relieve anyone of the responsibility to exercise due care and to take
    whatever steps are within their power to avoid an accident.

    I do actually doubt that particular court would have treated a motorist more leniently. If at all it
    would, there could be some justification in that there is less excuse for a pedestrian to not see a
    car than there is a bicycle and that does affect, if not the standard of care at least the
    expectation of being seen. This cyclist was also aware cyclists are often not seen.

    And no, she cannot sue the Crown, she can only take a civil claim for damages against him. If he was
    not insured he will be personally liable for any damages awarded. Of course, he can still try and
    allege contributory negligence to reduce the amount of any damages payable, but whatever
    compensation is awarded against him will have to be paid by him personally from any assets he has.
    He was a student.

    It's better to be insured.....

    Rich
     
  18. Sky Fly

    Sky Fly Guest

    Ian, is this *really* such a recent story? I was checking up more info on Bathwick Hill, and I came
    across this:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
    =off&threadm=acm66j%24oig%241%40newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fn
    um%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%
    3Doff%26q%3D%2522bathwick%2Bhill%2522%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg

    or this, if you like:

    http://tinyurl.com/5pps

    --
    Akin

    aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk
     
  19. Sky Fly

    Sky Fly Guest

    Whoops, I just realised that the second story was about the court case, not the accident
    itself. Sorry.
     
  20. Albert-Fish

    Albert-Fish Guest

    "Tim S" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Also, I was told recently by the IAM that once a pedestrian puts a foot on the road, the Ped has
    > right of way (anyone confirm/deny this?) so hitting a ped is "automatically" the driver/cyclists
    > fault ?!?!
    >
    > Tim S

    tell that to the copper that ran my girlfriends grandfather over, killing him.

    Albert
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...