Crash in Bath

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
~~~~~~~~~~

"Ian Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

......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.

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

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter said:

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

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"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

Sky Fly said:

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: drianwalker.comdrianwalker.comOpen ↗

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Sky Fly said:

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

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"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

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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?

Tony Raven said:

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: drianwalker.comdrianwalker.comOpen ↗

Adrian Boliston said:

"Ian Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

......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.

Tony Raven said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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?

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

Quoted message said:

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.

"Adrian Boliston" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As cyclists don't need to be insured, how will he afford the damages she

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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.

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

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

groups.google.comgroupsOpen ↗
=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:

tinyurl.com5ppsOpen ↗

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

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

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

Quoted message said:

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