[Closed] Anyone know the real story behind this cyclist kills pedestrian headline?

A sad story and something I'm surprised doesn't happen more often

Anyone think that a story about a person killed by a motorist whilst "crossing a road" would make the news?

Yes.

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2070605,STM-Steger-fatal-crash-Crete-woman-0225.article

Never get why cyclists get so defensive.

coogan that's the local news, bit different. Don't think a person killed by a motorist would make the national news, mainly because it happens so frequently.

I was wondering about this - trying to think of a likely scenario; must surely have broken a rule of some sort - went through a red light? But then a respected news provider would say right? Seems odd.

It's far less common for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian than a car, so no, the latter wouldn't make the news.

mudshark - if the guy's been arrested, there are limits on what the press can and cannot say before a trial. Alternatively, and possibly more likely here, the press simply might not know.

Tourist, probably looked the wrong way.

I wonder how many are knocked down by vehicles?

http://emj.bmj.com/content/25/12/843.abstract

It seems as a tourist you are 5 times more likely to be run over, than as a local.

The arrest is probably just a precaution, as somebody has died in a accident.

Time for a bit of good-old-fashioned speculation (with all due respect to the deceased of course):

Scenario 1: foreigner glimpses wrong way up the road, ie. to their left, before stepping into the path of the cyclist

Scenario 2: inattentive and law-breaking cyclist runs a red light at a ped Xing

The fact someone's been arrested suggests scenario 2???

EDIT: Damn my slow typing!

coogan that's the local news, bit different. Don't think a person killed by a motorist would make the national news, mainly because it happens so frequently.

OK, this fit the rules?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/8512705.stm

That's really sad for all involved. I wonder what happened?

Never get why cyclists get so defensive.

Because unfortunately, the general public reading this sort of stuff end up with a distorted view of the dangers posed by cyclists.

For example, my local PACT team (Partners and Communities Together) recently had a "crack down" on cycling on the pavement in my small town of Wareham. Now I don't advocate cycling on the pavement, BUT - other than the very occasional youth riding a bit of pavement up the busiest road (where there is no cycle lane) on their way to school, I have never seen anyone cycling on the pavement in Wareham, and yet the PACT team wasted their time and my money, putting signs up all round town, warning people not to do something that they clearly are not really doing, and at the same time creating the impression that "cyclists" are a problem.

That's why I get defensive.

coogan,

No it doesn't. That's an appeal by police for witnesses, and it's local.

You asked was about making the news, not specfic about it being local or not.

Tragic news.

Though, Im guessing it will be a SMIDSY ... strangely the cyclist seems to have come out the better this time..

Well now I'm spelling out what I thought was implicit in the question to anyone but a pedant.

I disagree with all the above points to an extent. The basis of an arrest is based on a scale. You have to SUSPECT that someone has committed an offence. Which if you imagine a number line between 1 - 10. Suspicion lies between 1 and 3. Owing to his presence on a cycle, that she suffered an injury/assault. Would lead me (as a police officer) to believe that it would not have happened had he not been present, therefore my suspicion is based on what has happened. However we must remember that suspicion is not guilt and would not be proven so until tried in a court - magistrates or crown.

However it could turn out that PERHAPS she had some underlying medical condition that was the catalyst. However only a post mortem will determine that.

Sad nonetheless for all parties.

Okay-do-kay mr grumpy pants.

coogan: cuddle?

There's a real problem with cyclists on pavements down my way, I'd love it if they had a crack down on it. Which, obviously being a cyclist (and something of a grumpy old man it seems too!), pains me to say.

Cheers Al [img] [/img]

Ah, vario-99, so nice to have an informed opinion on an internet forum! 🙂 So, to clarify, if you run someone down in any circumstance and they die, you will be arrested whether you were in the wrong or not?

I'll ask.
As someone was killed do you think his bike will have been given a good going over for roadworthiness?
Not sure what the score is on having working brakes i.e does a fixie meet this criteria?
The charge seems serious as if he has contributed to the accident in someway, rather than it being 'just an accident'

In a nutshell yes. When you are interviewed it is your opportunity to tell the police in YOUR own words what happened. The police then look at the evidence you have provided, along with any cctv, witness statements, post mortem reports e.t.c to then analyse all the information. Depending on the severity of the offence. It may have to go to the Crown Prosecution service (CPS) who will make a charging decision. Likelihood is that he will be interviewed and released on police 47/3 bail to return at a later date to be charged or No further actioned (NFA)

You don't have to be charged with the same offence your arrested for but we could go on and on about police processes....

He will be asked all that in interview, as far as i'm aware the police only have expert vehicle examiners not sure about bicycle examiners. Any report would have to be produced in court and the tester would have to be an expert witness - and i'm sure we have all heard about cases involving expert witness before....

Involuntary manslaughter - what would a motorist be charged with if they had run someone over and killed them in a similar circumstance

oldgit - Member
I'll ask.
As someone was killed do you think his bike will have been given a good going over for roadworthiness?
Not sure what the score is on having working brakes i.e does a fixie meet this criteria?

I don't think there's any such law as there is for cars - but you still have to control your bike!

sorry a bit off the original post but - involuntary manslaughter, does that suggest something like a car not having an mot, ie a brakeless bike and the police feel that charge suits due to negligence etc? not wanting to speculate but if anyone with legal knowledge can comment i'd be interested.

(we don't sell our ss bikes with fixed sprockets in the box due to liability concerns, not just ours, we want it to be an informed decision to ride fixed esp w/o 2 brakes. there are a lot of bikes in london that are cases waiting to happen imo, yet some brands picture brakeless bikes being ridden on roads and describe them as city use road bikes so maybe it's not an issue?)

Very sobering hey! I'm gonna run the risk of sounding a little callous here but I ride regularly in London where, quite frankly, people literally do throw themselves in to the middle of the road like lemmings ( 😉 ) and it's never occurred to me that I could be in the fault if my bike wasn't up to snuff. I suppose it should of done of course! You have to get your car M.O.T'd after all...

Just want to point out that I'm not pointing a finger at a particular type of bike. I was really refering to bikes without working brakes, no lights etc. Though does a fixed hub/freewheel count as a brake?

we don't sell our ss bikes with fixed sprockets in the box due to liability concerns, not just ours

I always thought you needed a working front brake to make it legal. There is other, slightly more worrying stuff, as well- like the amount of reflectors you're supposed to have! I think that's more to do with you getting hit rather than the other way round tho...

Interesting to note that when a car kills someone we are reassured that "The driver of the car was unhurt." as if it was likely that they might be, but there is no mention of whether the cyclist was injured or not.

[i]in London where, quite frankly, people literally do throw themselves in to the middle of the road like lemmings[/i]

Same in Bristol. Probably a couple of people every commute. They step a couple of feet into the road then look to see if it is safe. I ride defensively and well away from the kerb but I'm surprised there aren't more collisions.

I agree totally! I've slowed right down (probably as much to do with getting old as anything else! 😉 )

I'd have thought that, given the charges, the cyclist would have to either have run a light or hit the pedestrian on a zebra crossing.

From the most disturbing forum I have ever seen

[url= http://www.lfgss.com/thread38818.html ]look for the cambdeb gazette story down the thread[/url]

By a traffic light!

Camden!

in my opinion, as a cyclist, you have a responsibility for yourself and others around you, just as you do as a vehicle driver
everyday, on my cycle commute through London, there will be at least 2 people who will step onto the road infront of me. whilst they annoy the hell out of me, and I often shout like a lunatic at them, I tend not to hit most of them (I've hit 3 people in the last 3 years!) because I expect them to step out and I'm looking for them and their body language, whether they're on the phone, chatting with mates or running for a bus - you can spot the likely suspects
problem is, I concentrate more on the traffic than I do on pedestrians (metal hurts more than wool-blend), so if it's busy or if I'm filtering through traffic, it's harder to spot the rogue gutter-walker or blackberry-zombie or the mindless sheeps who assume it is safe to cross just because the person infront of them has
ninja skills are required
.
there's a very true statement from some Camden Cycling Campaign person on the lfgss forum...

pedestrians tend to rely a lot on listening when they cross the road. Unfortunately this means that they often won't hear a bicycle coming and will think they are free to cross

But this is just a local story isn't it? Here's the URL in full:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8577612.stm

See the /london/ bit?

If the cyclist was at fault, then its only correct that there should be a case to answer.
I think we all get defensive though, because any charges he will face are very likely to be more serious, and juries more likely to convict, than if he had killed while driving. I think those potential charges could result in a harsher sentence, if convicted, too.

After all, the 'there but for the grace of god' argument doesn't apply when you are on a bike.

Dog bites man - no story. Man bites dog - headlines. Thats all we see at work here.

porterclough,

It was on the BBC home page for a while.

Also, if you look on the right of the BBC site you'll see The Sun is carrying it as are the Press Association. It's bigger than a regular local only story.

"Fixed gear bike is legal - you won't be liable." Al, i also don't think we would be liable just based on the legality of a fixed gear bike and fixed has been proven legallly as a rear brake, you're right, but it's not just us i'm thinking of when i say liability reasons - a busy shop in a city sets up the bike with the wheel in fixed-way round, customer collects bike, falls off, compo lawyer says they have a case. our customer is then potentially in trouble whether there is a case to answer or not. it's more about potential hassle in a compo-happy society. I just don't have the legal info to say either way so we play it safe.

very sad
unfortunately the anti-cycling press will jump up and down on the poor womans grave

as to roadworthyness here is a quote from a recent court case well covered on here - this from the daily mail

The carbon fibre titanium bicycle was built to Howard's specifications.
Despite its cost, the court heard it did not comply with the Highway Code because it had no reflectors on the pedals or on the back.

i guess you could compare this with reporting that a car had a bald tyre

Robert Harris, 47, was driving with three bald tyres when he lost control on black ice and smashed into the group who were out on a Sunday morning training ride

all very sad cases

i guess you could compare this with reporting that a car had a bald tyre

you could, but you wouldn't, that would be daft
.
a fairer comparison would be that the car didn't have any reflectors at the back 💡