Cyclist fined £430 after leaving pedestrian with brain injury

Simon E wrote:

Quote:

"Solicitors for Mr Ibbott have indicated that they plan to launch a civil action for damages and have called for cyclists to be required to have third party liability insurance."

Just like the 1,000,000+ drivers in this country that are uninsured despite laws requiring them to do so.

And should they also address the issue that there are 10,000 drivers with more than 12 points on their driving license who are free to continue driving?

26,624 people were killed or seriously injured on UK roads in 2017. How will compulsory insurance for cyclists help reduce that number?

Of course cyclists should be held responsible for their actions but FFS let's address the biggest threats first. According to Laura Laker, writing for Bikebiz earlier this month [source], "people driving motor vehicles are responsible for 99.4 per cent of all pedestrian deaths in the UK".

470 pedestrians died and 23,335 were injured in 2017, virtually all caused by drivers. And what about car occupant deaths, of which there were 787 last year?

The total number of car occupant casulties in 2017 was 100,082. The human and material costs of these incidents are enormous yet nothing ever changes.

Thank you.  Nail squarely hit on head.

You have to wonder why the government simply refuses to address this needless slaughter, which happens year after year, with no sign of significant reduction or cessation.  Surely the car lobby and the "war on motorists" reporters and Top Gear fans can't have that much influence can they?  Actually, given the overwhelming bias of the msm, they probably can.

All those deaths and injuries, almost always caused by bad driving, but what makes headlines?  When a cyclist hits a pedestrian, that's what.

Happy new year everyone, and let's all make a resolution to hassle our MPs, shout down the petrolheads and stop this insane slaughter.

brooksby wrote:

Part of me wonders if, the way that cars are driven in these modern times, whether zebra crossings are actually fit for purpose any more? Replace them all with light controlled crossings - would that work?

Probably not considering how many cars jump red lights. However, fit a camera at every set and they'll have paid for themselves in no time. 

brooksby wrote:

OT warning:

have a zebra crossing that I use at lunchtimes, just down the road from my office. It's next to a junction, just up from another junction, and on a hill.   I hate it.  Queues of motor traffic that approach it and wait all the way across it . Cars speeding up the hill, who have no intention of stopping for bl00dy pedestrians thank you very much. Horrible.

Part of me wonders if, the way that cars are driven in these modern times, whether zebra crossings are actually fit for purpose any more? Replace them all with light controlled crossings - would that work?

Trouble is they then set the timings such that pedestrians have to wait for an eternity for a green man.  So as a pedestrian you give up and rush across on a red.  Then the light turns green for you after you are long gone, and the drivers then have to stop even though there's now nobody there.  Hence both parties get delayed for no purpose!  All because drivers won't obey the rules of the otherwise sensible idea of a zebra crossing.

brooksby wrote:

OT warning:

have a zebra crossing that I use at lunchtimes, just down the road from my office. It's next to a junction, just up from another junction, and on a hill.   I hate it.  Queues of motor traffic that approach it and wait all the way across it . Cars speeding up the hill, who have no intention of stopping for bl00dy pedestrians thank you very much. Horrible.

Part of me wonders if, the way that cars are driven in these modern times, whether zebra crossings are actually fit for purpose any more? Replace them all with light controlled crossings - would that work?

Light controlled crossings give even more power to those in the big metal boxes. As is frequently used now, they have 'beg buttons' so you can ask (beg) to get across the road. Light controlled crossings are used instead of zebra's when a local authority want motorists held up as little as possible and want to control the pedestrians yet even further from using their lawful right to travel unimpeded and without fear of harm. Whilst we all need to give and take, the situation is at the moment all take by motorists and all give by people on bikes and foot!

 The way I see it it's a far worse option than a zebra and doesn't necessarily increase overall safety, not when you have amber gamblers/red light runners anyway. However I fully understand why people might think it's a safer way for people to cross but it's weak governance and police/CPS/jusges/and bias jurists that further weaken the safety of the vulnerable at virtually every avenue by allowing the tin canners to bully everyone else to change, despite those changes not having any or any significant change in safety and certainly less freedoms of movement.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 The way I see it it's a far worse option than a zebra and doesn't necessarily increase overall safety, not when you have amber gamblers/red light runners anyway. However I fully understand why people might think it's a safer way for people to cross but it's weak governance and police/CPS/jusges/and bias jurists that further weaken the safety of the vulnerable at virtually every avenue by allowing the tin canners to bully everyone else to change, despite those changes not having any or any significant change in safety and certainly less freedoms of movement.

I remember reading a report some time ago, which said that light controlled crossings are not safer that zebras, for the reasons you give.  They also cost probably ten times as much to install and have significant ongoing maintenance costs.  So why do some authorities see them as the preferred answer to the problem of pedestrians wanting to cross the road, which is their right?

burtthebike wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 The way I see it it's a far worse option than a zebra and doesn't necessarily increase overall safety, not when you have amber gamblers/red light runners anyway. However I fully understand why people might think it's a safer way for people to cross but it's weak governance and police/CPS/jusges/and bias jurists that further weaken the safety of the vulnerable at virtually every avenue by allowing the tin canners to bully everyone else to change, despite those changes not having any or any significant change in safety and certainly less freedoms of movement.

I remember reading a report some time ago, which said that light controlled crossings are not safer that zebras, for the reasons you give.  They also cost probably ten times as much to install and have significant ongoing maintenance costs.  So why do some authorities see them as the preferred answer to the problem of pedestrians wanting to cross the road, which is their right?

It should be possible to improve crossings and save money by replacing light controlled crossings with zebra crossings and enforcement cameras. Fitting all traffic lights with crossing lights for pedestrians would also be a boon, but above all I'd like to see a huge increase in enforcement cameras - much better than relying on people to carry video cameras.

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

This particular rider doesn't appear to be a very pleasant character and probably does deserve harsher punishment but at least he has been found guilty unlike the young lawyer in the link below.  She killed a 91 year old pedestrian in very similar circumstances on a zebra crossing but used a car and was inexplicably was found not guilty of careless driving.

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/15578460.lawyer-walks-free-from-c...

 

She used the classic defence of the 91 year old pedestrian coming out of knowhere. Plus, was remorseful.

How this can be anything other than careless escapes me. She had just turned left into the road from a side street. I bet it was a glance to the right for traffic before pulling out, but not checking that the road she was turning into was clear.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

it's still not lenient when compared to other far worse cases, what have I said that is 'stupid' aside from the obvious sarcasm  re helmets and hi-vis, but is actually used by police and defenders of criminals all the time when it comes to victim blaming seriously injured or killed cyclists!

If we are to have a fair and non discriminatory system then we must apply the same rules for everyone should we not?

I would also call out some far worse cases as unduly lenient. This one in particular, an even more extreme example of leniency...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525561/Driver-fined-180-for-defective-...

Sure, we don’t have all the facts (do we ever?), but the guy admitted to seeing people on the crossing - it’s a legal requirement to stop if someone is on the crossing.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

lenient when compared to other similar and worse crimes by motorists and pedestrians ... I don't think so! This is in line with how others are treated/punished. How many pedestrians are punished in this manner when they seriously hurt people on bikes, have you ever heard of one?

Do we have the facts for the actual case, how long did the cyclist have to react, what way did the convicted 'approach' the crossing and is this any different to how most motorists do so?

There's not enough detail here to make a prudent assessment.of the case, but the charge is is careless cycling, and given the way police treat cyclists as a whole would give an indication as to how the actions are not considered to be that threatening, outcome of injury should never be the deciding factor.

Do we also know if the pedestrian was wearing hi-vis and a helmet, if not, why not, surely everyone knows how a helmet would have saved him from the injury and the cyclist would have seen him if he was wearing the correct garments #sarcasm

Even you say there are not enough facts in thos report, so before making stupid comments like this which doesn't do anybody any good do some research, perhaps you will find out that the cyclist saw 3 others on the crossing yet still decided to cycle across it hitting this poor guy.

bigbiker101 wrote:

Even you say there are not enough facts in thos report, so before making stupid comments like this which doesn't do anybody any good do some research, perhaps you will find out that the cyclist saw 3 others on the crossing yet still decided to cycle across it hitting this poor guy.

 

I think the point is more the facts in all the other reports of killer drivers getting absurdly lenient sentences.  Happens regularly.  By that standard, though it certainly appears lenient, this case does not appear unusual.

Two wrongs don't make a right, of course.  But some wrongs do seem to attract more attention than others.