Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist

[WhyLikeThis]

Interesting that the ageist toss this thread has given rise to. also brush up on your reading and comprehension skills. Look at what I’ve written consider maybe where I’m coming from. or something middle-aged, Clarkson something Clarkson a lot easier isn’t it.

A rediculous travesty

 

[xenon]

scifisam: a rediculous travesty

Still does not demonstrate I hate cyclists. Because I don’t. You daft prick.

 

[xenon]

are you hammered again? To be fair, I’m having a drink too. But I do like to keep at least a tenuous grip on reality.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Still does not demonstrate I hate cyclists. Because I don’t. You daft prick.

daft prick

a rediculous travesty

completely fucking wrong

She was a 77 year old killed by nasty piece of work who you sympathise with. Have a word with yourself.

 

[xenon]

daft prick

a rediculous travesty

completely fucking wrong

She was a 77 year old killed by nasty piece of work who you sympathise with. Have a word with yourself.

I said she should not have gone to prison. In what way does this demonstrate I hate cyclists? answer the question.

 

[xenon]

As opposed to selectively quoting.

 

[xenon]

nasty piece of work. Clarkson. Cyclist hating. There’s a lot of reading into this what you want.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

I said she should not have gone to prison. In what way does this demonstrate I hate cyclists? answer the question.

I'm 46 and not that keen on cyclists on the pavement.

Obviously I wouldn't push one in the road but a bit of shouting is fair. Exceptions made for kids.

Exceptions made for kids - Fuck 77 year old grannies tho

I hope all this is the drink talking.

 

[campanula]

The photo I saw (from CCTV, I think) showed Grey walking much closer to the edge of this shared path leaving the cyclist nowhere to go except further towards the road.Never seemed to occur to her that she was putting this cyclist in danger. I was astonished at the severity of the sentence though. I am an old cyclist and would have taken out the pedestrian rather than being forced to veer into the road where a car was possibly coming up behind me. But that is because for the last half dozen years, despite 60 years of cycling, I have never felt so abused and endangered by drivers and dithery pedestrians who seem to have an innate belief that because they are on foot, they need never glance up from their fucking phones. I feel besieged on all sides.

 

[xenon]

Exceptions made for kids - Fuck 77 year old grannies tho

I hope all this is the drink talking.

What's your excuse for reading so poorly? Even your selective quotes don't demonstrate me hating cyclists. Never mind there's a context to my posts which is fucking obvious by you know, actually reading them. Did someone nick your bike today or something.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Did someone nick your bike today or something.

Look he’s one of them

 

[scifisam]

The photo I saw (from CCTV, I think) showed Grey walking much closer to the edge of this shared path leaving the cyclist nowhere to go except further towards the road.Never seemed to occur to her that she was putting this cyclist in danger. I was astonished at the severity of the sentence though. I am an old cyclist and would have taken out the pedestrian rather than being forced to veer into the road where a car was possibly coming up behind me. But that is because for the last half dozen years, despite 60 years of cycling, I have never felt so abused and endangered by drivers and dithery pedestrians who seem to have an innate belief that because they are on foot, they need never glance up from their fucking phones. I feel besieged on all sides.

I wonder if her cerebral palsy means she just isn't that capable of moving aside. Doesn't excuse her touching the cyclist - which was what caused the cyclist to go into the road, not the shouting - but it is a problem with shared paths that are as narrow as this one. You can't really expect pedestrians to move aside - I mean a solo pedestrian, not people walking in groups - because sometimes they aren't able to.

The judge said that her disability didn't play a part, but it seemed like he was talking about the touching, not the lack of dodging out of the way.

There was one time when I was cycling on a cycle path years ago that was next to a pedestrian path, all clearly marked (really clearly with the blue paint and cycle signs on the ground), but it was also the exact same path without any physical boundary. A pedestrian shouted at me, grabbed out at me and followed me to the crossing to shout some more, because they basically didn't give a shit that it was a cycle path. It was scary enough that I remember it years later and I'm not really a soft type.

But then I also avoid canal paths in the same area totally because too many of the cyclists go way too fast and don't bother to ring bells, definitely do expect pedestrians to jump out of the way, and are really, really pissed off at pedestrians with visible mobility difficulties who can't move fast enough for them - I was clipped loads of times before giving up on them as unsafe. Shared paths shouldn't mean "fully able-bodied pedestrians only" but in practice that's what they are.

Just too many fucking arseholes out there in general really.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But then I also avoid canal paths in the same area totally because too many of the cyclists go way too fast and don't bother to ring bells, definitely do expect pedestrians to jump out of the way, and are really, really pissed off at pedestrians with visible mobility difficulties who can't move fast enough for them - I was clipped loads of times before giving up on them as unsafe. Shared paths shouldn't mean "fully able-bodied pedestrians only" but in practice that's what they are.

This is particularly irritating because there are signs on the canal paths. There's no excuse for cyclists not knowing that pedestrians have priority. Out of order for any cyclist to be pissed off at pedestrians along there.

 

[campanula]

I wonder if her cerebral palsy means she just isn't that capable of moving aside. Doesn't excuse her touching the cyclist - which was what caused the cyclist to go into the road, not the shouting - but it is a problem with shared paths that are as narrow as this one. You can't really expect pedestrians to move aside - I mean a solo pedestrian, not people walking in groups - because sometimes they aren't able to.

The judge said that her disability didn't play a part, but it seemed like he was talking about the touching, not the lack of dodging out of the way.

There was one time when I was cycling on a cycle path years ago that was next to a pedestrian path, all clearly marked (really clearly with the blue paint and cycle signs on the ground), but it was also the exact same path without any physical boundary. A pedestrian shouted at me, grabbed out at me and followed me to the crossing to shout some more, because they basically didn't give a shit that it was a cycle path. It was scary enough that I remember it years later and I'm not really a soft type.

But then I also avoid canal paths in the same area totally because too many of the cyclists go way too fast and don't bother to ring bells, definitely do expect pedestrians to jump out of the way, and are really, really pissed off at pedestrians with visible mobility difficulties who can't move fast enough for them - I was clipped loads of times before giving up on them as unsafe. Shared paths shouldn't mean "fully able-bodied pedestrians only" but in practice that's what they are.

Just too many fucking arseholes out there in general really.

It's a question of safety (for me) in that I am very unlikely to kill a pedestrian on my bike but a driver is likely to cause considerably greater damage to my aging bones. I have, at times, veered towards the river (on our many riverside shared routes) as while I don't fancy getting wet, it seems vaguely more civilised to avoid crashing into a walker...but I will never risk a road with traffic coming up behind me and bearing in mind which traveler was actually facing the moving vehicles, I have a fairly clear sense of safety priorities which I would have followed if an immovable pedestrian was shouting, gesturing and making no avoidance effort. I have never cycled on the pavement in my life and have a loud bell...since I also cannot bear mad cyclists roaring up behind me as I have a tendency to leap out of the way, with a 50% chance of getting the direction wrong.

 

[Hollis]

I do have a problem with it. Pavement cyclists regularly make me feel unsafe and I've twice been hit from behind by pavement cyclists. (I went over both times and while I had cuts and bruises, it could've obviously been much more serious if someone older/younger/less mobile etc. had been hit instead Neither cyclist even asked if I was okay BTW, both took off while I was still on the ground wondering what the hell had just happened.)

If roads are too dangerous for people to cycle on, that's bad. And of course I support better cycling infrastructure. But you really shouldn't make things less dangerous for cyclists by making them more dangerous for pedestrians.

Basically shared use paths for cyclists and pedestrians don't work. The canels in London are a case in point - as a pedestrian they're a nightmare to use when you have cyclists using them.

It would be better for everyone to advocate for a basic segregated three lane infrastructure - cars, cyclists/scooters and pedestrians.

I do think the sentence is harsh, but is also highlights how car culture has thrown the burden on peds v cyclilsts.

 

[scifisam]

It's a question of safety (for me) in that I am very unlikely to kill a pedestrian on my bike but a driver is likely to cause considerably greater damage to my aging bones. I have, at times, veered towards the river (on our many riverside shared routes) as while I don't fancy getting wet, it seems vaguely more civilised to avoid crashing into a walker...but I will never risk a road with traffic coming up behind me and bearing in mind which traveler was actually facing the moving vehicles, I have a fairly clear sense of safety priorities which I would have followed if an immovable pedestrian was shouting, gesturing and making no avoidance effort. I have never cycled on the pavement in my life and have a loud bell...since I also cannot bear mad cyclists roaring up behind me as I have a tendency to leap out of the way, with a 50% chance of getting the direction wrong.

Oh yeah, I don't expect cyclists to veer into the road. But if it's a shared path then cyclists should be going at a speed where they can safely brake. Not totally relevant to this case, because the pedestrian made it impossible to go round either way by waving her arms and then unbalanced the cyclist by touching her - not intending to cause serious injury, but it's reasonable to think she'd know it was a possibility.

Just responding to the idea that pedestrians should always be able to quickly move out of the way (which a couple of other people have said, and the judge implied was expected).

This is particularly irritating because there are signs on the canal paths. There's no excuse for cyclists not knowing that pedestrians have priority. Out of order for any cyclist to be pissed off at pedestrians along there.

TBF I didn't like them as a cyclist either - more stressful than careful road cycling.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

”unbalanced the cyclist by touching her” come on, you can do better than that.

Your honour I merely unbalanced the plaintiff by adjusting his testes.

 

[Raheem]

So, is it fair to say that the jail sentence wasn't actually for shouting?

 

[scifisam]

”unbalanced the cyclist by touching her” come on, you can do better than that.

Your honour I merely unbalanced the plaintiff by adjusting his testes.

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[WhyLikeThis]

WTF is wrong with you?

I’m just that keen on killing people because they mildly inconvenienced me.

 

[scifisam]

I’m just that keen on killing people because they mildly inconvenienced me.

And I'm not keen on selective quotes to try to make it look like anyone disagrees with that. You're being an arsehole here.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

You're being an arsehole here.

Killing someone because they’ve mildly inconvenienced you makes you an arsehole.

 

[BigTom]

That should be changed, and xenon has acknowledged that, but it's really not frothing at the mouth or hating cyclists. Some people on here do hate cyclists (or pretend to) but xenon isn't one of them

Thread titles can be edited, if not by xenon then by editor

I would suggest:

"Pedestrian jailed for causing death of cyclist" as a neutral title.

Though i would go for

Pedestrian jailed for killing law abiding elderly cyclist and beloved wife, 77, and traumatising innocent driver and child in vicious and unnecessary "pavement rage" incident



As far as the actual incident goes shared pavements are shit. Either they are too narrow to work or they are wide enough to make it a proper segregated cycle lane and separate pavement instead.

Shared pavements simply have no place in any sensible infrastructure scheme.

From what I've read I've no issue with the sentence, but this whole thing could have just simply never happened if they made actual space for cycling instead of shit like this.

And it would help if the media and people on social media stopped with the cyclist hatred, even the supposed jokes all add up in a drip drip drip fashion and plays a part in people acting like this towards cyclists. This time someone has died which is very rare but this kind of abuse is not so please stfu next time you feel like joking about attacking a cyclist you think is doing something wrong.

 

[bimble]

very dodgy title, this thread. eta sorry i see this has already been said probably more than once

 

[Magnus McGinty]

very dodgy title, this thread. eta sorry i see this has already been said probably more than once

That’s literally how the press were reporting it. No mention of causing the cyclist to swerve.

 

[Pickman's model]

As opposed to selectively quoting.

All quotes by definition selective

 

[xenon]

I’m not changing the title. The reports did not mention she touched the cyclist as well.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I’m not changing the title. The reports did not mention she touched the cyclist as well.

Where is the report that she did touch the cyclist out of interest

 

[xenon]

Look he’s one of them

still failed to demonstrate that I hate cyclists then. you can take that back you know.

 

[xenon]

Where is the report that she did touch the cyclist out of interest

People are saying it’s obvious from the video or photo.