Journalism and cycling

RacoonQueen

This Morning running a piece on cyclists. This is painfully irritating to watch. 3 against 1 here, poor chap, dunno how he hasn't boxed any of them yet.

edit: please note, I do not normally watch this morning, just off work today and it was on when I turned tv on :pac:

RayCun

plodder wrote: »

I wouldn't get caught up on the exact offence, but it's highly likely a motorist would be charged with something. It happens all the time. Dangerous driving causing death, is an offence at the same level as manslaughter.

In this case, the pedestrian stepped onto the road 6 metres in front of the bike. He was travelling at 18mph at the time. It was incredibly unlucky that she was killed.

Would a motorist be charged with dangerous driving in the same circumstances - driving at under 20mph and a pedestrian steps out into the street in front of them?

rubadub

I was surprised to see there is no "jaywalking" type law in the UK. What she was doing would be illegal over here.

i.e.

The pedestrian was not using the crossing and the collision occurred approximately 30 feet after the crossing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6251431.stm

But there is no such offence in the UK, where it is considered a personal responsibility to cross the road safely (although London mayor Ken Livingstone last summer proposed making jaywalking illegal). The Highway Code recommends that all pedestrians abide by the Green Cross Code: "Where there is a crossing nearby, use it. Otherwise choose a place where you can see clearly in all directions."

Danbo!

Moflojo wrote: »

That article is really, really f**ked up! You'd swear 'Martin', the driver, was the victim of the collision! The real victim is barely given status as a human being in the entire article. I think it's genuinely outrageous to present a fatal collision entirely from the perspective of the person who did the killing.

I got that impression too - really as if he went out of his way to find who he had hit. Oh the other cars just drove off, and there I was alone trying to find a body. it was terrible.

Moflojo

The Guardian has an excellent piece on the Charlie Alliston case here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

Alliston could have been charged with one or more of the lesser offences of breaching the Construction and Use Regulations, of dangerous cycling or of careless cycling. Prosecutors appear to have wished to get around the fact that parliament has not legislated for causing death by careless or dangerous cycling offences.

On any objective view, 18mph is a cautious speed and on a busy London street matching the speed of other traffic, rather than going much slower, is a wise precaution. Any suggestion that it is too fast applies a peculiar double standard and would potentially criminalise many riders.

plodder

RayCun wrote: »

In this case, the pedestrian stepped onto the road 6 metres in front of the bike. He was travelling at 18mph at the time. It was incredibly unlucky that she was killed.

I think that depends on the exact circumstances. There seems to be some suggestion that he expected her to get out of his way, rather than him stopping or avoiding her. The prosecution seemed to make a case that he could have stopped if he had a front brake (and was prepared to use it).

Would a motorist be charged with dangerous driving in the same circumstances - driving at under 20mph and a pedestrian steps out into the street in front of them?

They might be if they didn't take action to avoid the pedestrian.

tomasrojo

Moflojo wrote: »

The Guardian has an excellent piece on the Charlie Alliston case here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

As acknowledged there, he really did himself no favours posting about it online afterwards.

It's bizarre that it's front page news in the UK, awful though it is. I guess it's a combination of Man Bites Dog reverse of the usual, and the usual loss of perspective when in-group/out-group bias sets in.

tomasrojo

plodder wrote: »

They might be if they didn't take action to avoid the pedestrian.

I haven't been following the case, as it's too depressing, but the Guardian article linked suggests he tried to go around the back of her to avoid her and she stepped backwards into his path.

tomasrojo

Incidentally, on in-group/out-group stuff, saw this yesterday, and thought it was good. Reminiscent of the found-a-flag-on-the-ground cartoon someone posted here a while ago.

In one study, Tajfel subjects were asked to watch a coin toss. They were then designated to a particular group based on whether the coin landed on heads or tails. The subjects placed in groups based on such meaningless associations between them have consistently been found to "act as if those sharing the meaningless labels were kin or close friends."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Granfalloon&action=edit&section=2

Moflojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Reminiscent of the found-a-flag-on-the-ground cartoon someone posted here a while ago.

That was me, and it's still my favourite cartoon.

plodder

tomasrojo wrote: »

I haven't been following the case, as it's too depressing, but the Guardian article linked suggests he tried to go around the back of her to avoid her and she stepped backwards into his path.

That should have helped his case I suppose, and is an "accidental" element to it then. The other thing is he wasn't actually convicted of manslaughter only causing bodily harm. The jury heard all the evidence and that's what they decided. So, unless he had a particularly incompetent lawyer, I'd be happy enough with it.

magicbastarder

Moflojo wrote: »

That was me, and it's still my favourite cartoon.

*cough*
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103731005&postcount=1881

tomasrojo

plodder wrote: »

That should have helped his case I suppose, and is an "accidental" element to it then. The other thing is he wasn't actually convicted of manslaughter only causing bodily harm. The jury heard all the evidence and that's what they decided. So, unless he had a particularly incompetent lawyer, I'd be happy enough with it.

Very true. I don't think anyone is arguing that he got an unfair trial in the context of what he was charged for.

NyOmnishambles

RayCun wrote: »

When a motorist hits a bike or a pedestrian, does a mechanic check over their car to make sure it would pass the NCT?

They do
The Guards will seize the vehicle and check the brakes, tyres and maintenance and ensure the car is roadworthy
If not they will get charged with that

Moflojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

*cough*
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103731005&postcount=1881

Stop copying me.

ThisRegard

Moflojo wrote: »

Stop copying me.

Well you guys just disproved the theory anyway. You should have been best friends.

AndrewJRenko

RacoonQueen wrote: »

edit: please note, I do not normally watch this morning, just off work today and it was on when I turned tv on :pac:

Sure, we believe you. What did you think of yer one on Jeremy Kyle today?

Chuchote

plodder wrote: »

I think that depends on the exact circumstances. There seems to be some suggestion that he expected her to get out of his way, rather than him stopping or avoiding her. The prosecution seemed to make a case that he could have stopped if he had a front brake (and was prepared to use it).

They might be if they didn't take action to avoid the pedestrian.

He really had two choices - try and avoid her or throw himself off the bike.

The Indo article is revolting, but I feel great sympathy for the driver, as I'm sure others here do.

ford2600

Moflojo wrote: »

That article is really, really f**ked up! You'd swear 'Martin', the driver, was the victim of the collision! The real victim is barely given status as a human being in the entire article. I think it's genuinely outrageous to present a fatal collision entirely from the perspective of the person who did the killing.

The sight distance with full beam headlights of a non luminous body is 120m.

If Martin was doing 55km/h, he would have had about 7.8 secs to see Deceased.

Yet "he barely saw him" or "he knew he hit something". Which is it Martin.

That throw distance calculation is iffy with good data; can't see how they had an accurate impact point here.

What a crock of sh1t of an article. Free pass to mow someone down and put it all on a dead man.

*of course it's prudent to use torch on unlit roads but a motorist can't sidestep his duty of care; or maybe he can and did

Doeshedare

I commute by bike sometime, by car mostly and I leisure (or train) cycle at weekends. My non cycling family and friends complain that cyclists hold up traffic to which I reply cyclists are traffic. So the headline in this got going

"After Kim Briggs’s death, cyclists must realise that they are traffic too":https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/24/kim-briggs-cyclists-traffic-bike-charlie-alliston

Comments have gone mad but not much more than the usual mud slinging

magicbastarder

the grauniad staff has picked this as their top comment:

I've ridden a bike most of my life. I commuted by bike, in London, Yorkshire and the North East, for many years. At no time I have ever been in doubt that I am "traffic". My problem has been getting drivers to acknowledge that I am traffic, and entitled to the same consideration as they expect for themselves.

Of course cyclists need to obey the law and exercise due care. But cyclists kill roughly one pedestrian per year, it's exotically rare. Drivers kill over one hundred cyclists, and well over one thousand pedestrians, every year, and it is extremely difficult to secure a conviction. Cycling UK couldn't even get a woman convicted of dangerous driving after she had run into a cyclist from the rear, in broad daylight, with no defence other than that she hadn't noticed him. Charlie Alliston was certainly foolish to be riding a brakeless track bike, but does anyone imagine that had the unfortunate victim stepped out in front of a car travelling at 18 mph, the driver of that car would have been convicted of anything? No chance.

Pinch Flat

Caught the tail end of a radio piece on radio 1 this morning, around before 8am. The chief executive of the RSA going on about kids safety and encouraging cycling to school. Must listen back to the pod cast.

Anyway, the RSA will be given our free hi-vis to any school children if anyone's interested. They're some sort of magic shield if kids are cycling to school. I think I heard her say they'd given out 1,000,000 free hi-vis vests to date. Now that it would appear virtually every school kid in the country has one, maybe this phase of the operation is complete?

So perhaps they can now start on driver education - getting people to slow down, stop passing dangerously and irresponsibly. Rather than the gardai handing out hi-vis, do you think we'll see them stop motorists periodically and advise them they're approaching a school and perhaps slow down a bit?

Weepsie

There was a bit of veiled cyclist bashing too, stating the obvious as in they must obey the ROTR as if there are bandit cyclists out there causing grief to all road users. Not much of a mention on driver behaviour other than telling them to be careful. I imagine the RSA spokesperson (I think they said it was their head person) is handsomely paid.

Grassey

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So perhaps they can now start on driver education - getting people to slow down, stop passing dangerously and irresponsibly. Rather than the gardai handing out hi-vis, do you think we'll see them stop motorists periodically and advise them they're approaching a school and perhaps slow down a bit?

I'm certain that if all drivers wore high vis and helmets there would be zero daily accidents on the m50. Surely lack of high vis must be the reason that with 3 lanes of cars travelling in the same direction at roughly the same speed rear endings occur as they couldn't possibly see the car in front?

plodder

Chuchote wrote: »

He really had two choices - try and avoid her or throw himself off the bike.

At the time yes, but the case was about more than that; like he had a choice about using a track bike on the public street.

The Indo article is revolting, but I feel great sympathy for the driver, as I'm sure others here do.

Revolting doesn't begin to describe that. Imagine how the family of the barely acknowledged deceased man must feel. I can't say exactly what I think of it, or I'd be getting into defamation territory unfortunately.

mr spuckler

ford2600 wrote: »

The sight distance with full beam headlights of a non luminous body is 120m.

I have automatic headlights, so they were on full lights when I was travelling on this part of the road, but they never picked up that gentleman

of the several cars i've driven which have had automatic lights, none of them turn on the full lights automatically. i'd definitely be questioning that statement from the driver.

ford2600

mr spuckler wrote: »

of the several cars i've driven which have had automatic lights, none of them turn on the full lights automatically. i'd definitely be questioning that statement from the driver.

That feature, is on my car but I've never used it; I usually read manual when I'm getting ready to sell car and learn all these wonderful things:rolleyes:

I read article again
*they don't mention Deceased by name.
*he saw him/didn't see him and yet knew he was crossing the road?
*It seems to be the N5 he was traveling on; at 30 odd mph and unlucky to kill someone.
*Throw distance calculations are very dependent on initial conditions at impact; the shape of the front of vehicle, pedestrian posture and movement, height and area of impact being key. No idea what model Garda used, or how much he could have known about initial conditions.Given all momentum was westward, any clothing, shoes, car debris would have moved that way on impact also. I'd loved to know where the 19m throw distance came from. The driver doesn't mentioning braking pre accident so brake marks would be off limited value (if they were present at all, given abs and wet night).
*the lack of empathy and blaming of Deceased is staggering

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

There was a bit of veiled cyclist bashing too, stating the obvious as in they must obey the ROTR as if there are bandit cyclists out there causing grief to all road users. Not much of a mention on driver behaviour other than telling them to be careful. I imagine the RSA spokesperson (I think they said it was their head person) is handsomely paid.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Caught the tail end of a radio piece on radio 1 this morning, around before 8am. The chief executive of the RSA going on about kids safety and encouraging cycling to school. Must listen back to the pod cast.

Anyway, the RSA will be given our free hi-vis to any school children if anyone's interested. They're some sort of magic shield if kids are cycling to school. I think I heard her say they'd given out 1,000,000 free hi-vis vests to date. Now that it would appear virtually every school kid in the country has one, maybe this phase of the operation is complete?

So perhaps they can now start on driver education - getting people to slow down, stop passing dangerously and irresponsibly. Rather than the gardai handing out hi-vis, do you think we'll see them stop motorists periodically and advise them they're approaching a school and perhaps slow down a bit?

Dreadfully dissapointing - pure victim-blaming by the RSA

Here's the download: http://www.rte.ie/cspodcasts/media.mp3?c1=2&c2=16951747&ns_site=test&ns_type=clickin&rte_vs_ct=aud&rte_vs_sc=pod&rte_mt_sec=radio&rte_mt_prg_name=morningireland&rte_vs_sn=radio1&rte_mt_pub_dt=2017-08-25&title=RSA%20makes%20safety%20a%20priority%20as%20children%20go%20back%20to%20school&c7=http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2017/0825/20170825_rteradio1-morningireland-rsamakessa_c21224124_21224139_232_/20170825_rteradio1-morningireland-rsamakessa_c21224124_21224139_232_.mp3&r=http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2017/0825/20170825_rteradio1-morningireland-rsamakessa_c21224124_21224139_232_/20170825_rteradio1-morningireland-rsamakessa_c21224124_21224139_232_.mp3

No mention of drivers on their phones or speeding or illegal parking

And she couldn't resist the temptation to throw in the 'respect traffic signals' canard which has zero impact on road deaths.

AndrewJRenko

mr spuckler wrote: »

of the several cars i've driven which have had automatic lights, none of them turn on the full lights automatically. i'd definitely be questioning that statement from the driver.

Dreadful article, but I interpreted that as meaning that the car would go from no lights to side lights to head lights automatically - not head lights to full beams.

Chips Lovell

Grassey wrote: »

Surely lack of high vis must be the reason that with 3 lanes of cars travelling in the same direction at roughly the same speed rear endings occur as they couldn't possibly see the car in front?

In fairness, it's tricky enough trying to send a text and keep an eye on the traffic in front of you.