[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 💡

bakes is correct

I think you'll probably find that the arrest is due to a suspicion of either the rider riding without due care or the bicycle being unroadworthy. The involuntary manslaughter charge is probably used here because the charge of causing death by dangerous driving doesn't apply to cyclists.

A few months back, I was caning my road bike along a road with a 30mph limit. I was under the limit but approaching a pelecan crossing when a bloke walked up to the crossing, punched the button, looked both ways and started crossing. He couldn't see me for the traffic light pole on which the button was mounted. I'd been reading his body language and hasn't made eye contact with him so I was already hauling up hard and swerving to miss him and a bit of a surprise for him and a lot of speed scrubbed for me was all that happened. But I can imagine that, if I'd hit and killed him, there would've been a similar charge as he was on a pedestrian crossing. What I do know is that, if I'd hit him, it would've injured me too. I imagine the cyclist in question probably didn't stop of his or her own volition - you don't clobber somebody hard enough to knock them down and kill them without coming off yourself.

It's sad for all concerned.

I think the lesson to be learned here is that if you hit a pedestrian, get back up and ride off quick.

Further to my earlier comments. The highway code isn't statue law, it is merely a book of "best advice". So although the prosecution may say that he didn't have reflectors or a bell or whatever there is nothing in law that says you have to.

In terms of liability. Excuse the analogy but there is a " food chain" and pedestrians are always at the bottom. 1.Pedestrians - 2.Cyclists/Horse riders - 3.Cars - 4.Bus/trucks. In theory the group higher up the chain should always give way to the group lower down.... in theory....

This case has already been quoted at me by a swivel-eyed-loon on our [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/5066168.Cycling_campaigner_to_host_talk/ ]local newspaper's website's comments[/url] (4th comment) as a reason for cracking down on cyclists using the pedestrianised* town centre. The fact the accident happened on a road doesn't seem to concern said swivel-eyed-loon.

*It's actually a series of one way street on which motor vehicles are banned between 10am and 5pm and where cyclists have two-way access at all times.

that BBC link wasn't a [i]national[/i] story - it was regional to london. granted, some may think that something happening in london automatically makes it national news...

I like your last comment Mike (@12:15)
It is unfortunate that as something becomes more comman then it stops being new(s)such as people dieing in car chrashes. The was a 14 year old cyclist killed by in a RTA this weekend but it only made the local paper as a sub story compared to the main story of someone threating people with a knife.

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

rightplacerighttime, from your OP you never asked for National / International News just news which in this digital day and age covers any and everything. Getting your knickers in a twist over people answering is not a suitable vent for the anger you seem to feel regarding the particular incident.

I can recall several news stories of pedestrians dying after being hit by a car. One of which gathered a lot of momentum on the net demanding the driver be hung drawn and quartered. Until that is it turned out the driver suffered a large brain anurism (sp?) that led to them being unconscious prior to hitting the pedestrian. Oddly enough only a few people withdrew / corrected their initial statements calling for the driver's blood.

I suspect that the cyclist was arrested as a matter of course to ensure that should they have commited an offence they can be suitably prosecuted.

I second that pedestrians don't tend to pay sufficient attention prior to crossing the road.

Always remember that no matter what speed you are travelling at there is always a space infront of you in which you can do nothing to avoid a collision. If someone enters this space then collision is enevitable - and before the 'defensive driving, you never have to do an emergency stop' crowd pipe up - this cannot be avoided and is one of the risks we assume when out in Public.

vario_99 - Member

Further to my earlier comments. The highway code isn't statue law, it is merely a book of "best advice". So although the prosecution may say that he didn't have reflectors or a bell or whatever there is nothing in law that says you have to.

The pedal reflectors and rear red one required by law to be fitted at all times - the other reflectors and bell are required to be fitted when it is sold but not in use.

mk1fan - Member

...................
Always remember that no matter what speed you are travelling at there is always a space infront of you in which you can do nothing to avoid a collision. If someone enters this space then collision is enevitable ...............

If you are being fully observant and are riding far enough out into the road you always have the time it takes them to get from the kerb to your line - enough time to brake or take avoiding action.

 

fully observant and are riding far enough out into the road

which unfortunately isn't always possible, practical or preferable
.
today's comment was brought to you by the letter 'p'

Then you are not riding defensively and its your fault if you crash. Your preferred road positioning is your choice. Don't be bullied by cars. If there are pedestrians around or parked vehicles I cannot see over then I am a couple of metres out into the road always ( unless travelling very slowly) Otherwise I would be collecting tourists continuously riding thru Edinburgh.

TJ,

You really are talking a load of tosh on this matter and you do each time it (defensive driving / riding) crops up on here.

You really need to read carefully what was written. You can never rule out that someone will do something stupid in the space right in front of you.

I recall one instance where I was riding down a road. A pedestrian approached the kerb ready to cross, they looked right at me, I made eye contact which they acknowledged and yet when I was three metres away they stepped right out in front of me.

Now I had carried out and satisfied all the 'defensive riding' techniques / checks whatever term you wish to use. I wasn't riding in the gutter or out of control and yet a collision still occured. Why? Because the pedestrian did something stupid in the space that is 'past the point of no return'. We're all guilty of moments of stupidity so intent / maliciousness is another issue. Now according to your application / interpretation of the use of defensive driving techniques I'm to blame for the collision.

The pedsetrian is to blame legally but you could have avoided him. When you were 3 m away he stepped out. did you shout at him? Brake? Swerve? Did you know the position of every vehicle around you? 3 m for you to travel and 2 m for him to travel - something does not add up. If you were 2 m from the kerb thats 3 steps for him and plenty of time to avoid. 3 m is nearly half a second at 20 mph. but 2 m takes 2 seconds walking

do you ride with your fingers on the brakes at all times> Drop bar bike?

I am sorry - as you describe I would be very upset with myself if I hit the pedestrian.

2M from the kerb? Are you saying that you ride 2M from the kerb side? That is far to far out into the road and an obstruction to other road users.

TJ you do speak complete rubbish sometimes.

Yes, I was aware of what was going on around me. It may come as a suprise to you but people other than yourself have competant skill levels when it comes to riding / driving / walking in public.

If there are parked cars or other hazards around including peds on the edge of the pavement or a line of parked cars yes - especially if I am going at speed. Certainly 1.5 m from the kerb. Only close to the kerb if there are no hazards around.

I notice you didn't answer the questions I asked. Hands on the brakes? shout at the ped etc. I always ride with flat bars and fingers on the brake levers.

The IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) has urged cyclists to make themselves seen and to “claim their lane”, moving out into the middle of the lane when approaching a junction or parked cars.

http://www.iam.org.uk/latest_news/cyclistsclaimyourlanesaysiam.html

Basic defensive riding - you do not hold up any other traffic at all as they will end up in the same place in the next traffic queue and anyway you have the right to be on the roads. Keep yourself safe.

When I ride in town, the nearest I am to the kerb is where the middle of a car would be...
... and it's usually me thats being held up, not OTHER, (please note)traffic.
It gives more time to react than the typical gutter-limpet, both to pedestrians and cars appearing from side roads.
btw, it doesn't surprise me that people other than myself know how to ride/ drive, it does surprise me a bit that you think you do, mk1fan

Bakes- the reason that example works is that the bald tyres weren't relevant at all to the crash, in the same way that reflectors on the bike weren't relevant.

I didn't answer your questions because they didn't need answering. Covering / using the brakes only works if there is space for them to work. As it happens I did call out, not that it served any purpose as again if there is no space to react then it's a pointless action. For the hattrick I also 'swerved' but again if there's no space etc...

Besides, swerving implies an emergency reaction to a situation that defensive drivers claim to never get into because they anticipate everything.

Perhaps reading carefully this sentence from my post;

Now I had carried out and satisfied all the 'defensive riding' techniques / checks whatever term you wish to use. I wasn't riding in the gutter or out of control and yet a collision still occured.

west kipper,
I agree with that position for a bike traveling with the flow of traffic but it wouldn't be my default position on a bicycle - it would be if I were on a motorbike.

People are reacting in the same way that all blinkered disciples of Defensive Driving do and that is to try and change what happened to suit their argument that you can anticipate every action of another human being. You just can't. You have to trust that the vast majority of the time people will act reasonably / sensibly.

It may as well been said that I shouldn't have riden my bike that day to avoid the potential hazard of another person doing something stupid. Now this is perfect defensive driving logic. Unfortunately it would mean that no one moved anywhere.

I really don't know why people end up so blinkered when they start to learn about defensive driving. The mere act of learning more about roadcraft (the act, not the book) would suggest that the person is open-minded and that there's more to learn about driving on the road. But then stop learing and become blinkered to the short comings of the techniques. They make statements like 'you should never have to perform an emergency stop' which is utter rubbish.

Could Defensive Driving be the next cult religion? Good job GWB is gone, I think he'd have loved to have fight the tyranny of the IAM.

If you are being fully observant and are riding far enough out into the road you always have the time it takes them to get from the kerb to your line

Defensive riding ( not driving) involves anticipating and reacting to hazards. a part of it is road positioning. I did not say " you should never have to perform an emergency stop"

In the situatipon you describe if you had had the correct road position out from the kerb you would have had more time to react - simple as that. If you had been covering the brakes you could have hit the brakes quicker. If you had time to swerve you had time to brake.

One key thing with incidents is to learn from them - and the one you describe the lesson is don't ride in the gutter and cover the brakes.

al - if you are 2 m from the kerb you have well over a second nearer 2 from them stepping off the kerb to being in your line. That should be plenty to take avoiding action even at 20+mph. The time it takes them to get from the kerb to 2m out into the road is to do with their speed not yours.1-2 seconds is loads of time to react and avoid them

Mk1fan, you're explaining yourself using more measured language there, so I apologise for sounding a bit curt, although i still think you're wrong.
These sorts of incidents happen on city streets, areas that were mostly designed for pedestrian traffic, with cars a late arrival.
We all know that lots of people often react to city driving with increased aggression, greater risk-taking and over familiarity.
A pedestrian can make a stupid, as we all know, mistake but I believe the burden of care should lie with the person operating the dangerous machinery.
Its true that there is a zone in front of you that you can't control, but lower speed, on roads that were clearly designed for lower speed traffic is the key to making that area safer, or at least non-fatal.

Defensive driving / riding overall it's the same techniques just different machinary. It seems strange that you imply defensive driving involes not anticipating and reacting to hazards especially when you then link to the IAM.

Yes, you (and others) have made statements to that affect and no I'm not to trawl STW to find examples.

Again it seems I need to re-quote things;

Now I had carried out and satisfied all the 'defensive riding' techniques / checks whatever term you wish to use. I wasn't riding in the gutter or out of control and yet a collision still occured.

Even though I said that I was covering the brakes you still say 'If you had been covering the brakes you could have hit the brakes quicker'. As for swerving/braking comment it's not relevant in this case.

You're absolutely right about learning from incidents.

Your point about position is rubbish and will continue to be rubbish. Refer to my quote above.

You're being a typical disciple of the Church of Defensive Driving. You CAN do everything right and still be involved in an incident. You can never anticipate someone doing something stupid right in front of you.

west kipper,

Again, I agree the duty of care should reside on 'bigger' party but that does not indemnify people to act stupidly or burden people with responsibilities for things over which they have no control. Not sure why you're raising the issue of speed or aggression, neither were a contibuting factor in my example.

Slower traffic does not make safer traffic. Vehicles under control and raised drivers / riders / pedestrians awareness make safer traffic - regardless of speed (slow or fast).

So the IAM is wrong on road positioning then? And all the other data on defensive riding?

I clearly state

Defensive riding ( not driving) involves anticipating and reacting to hazards

The simple fact remains the further you are from the kerb the longer it take a pedestrian to walk into your path as they have more ground to cover so the longer you have to react and avoid them.

[img] [/img]

you're like a dog with a bone TJ, but less endearing 😉

I clearly state that I was correctly positioned on the road. The fact that a collision occured doesn't mean that I was incorrectly or poorly positioned.

The IAM gives great advice and tutoring but these are not blanket must do advice and applicable to all and every situation.

Have you actually read my post?

Yes, in this thread you have clearly stated

Defensive riding [u]( not driving)[/u] involves anticipating and reacting to hazards

You're right and I haven't disagreed that the further away from the kerb you are the further away you are from pedestrians. It's not relevant though. If I had been further into (regardless of the period of time or distance) traffic I would have put myself in harms way which is contrary to DDT/DRT. I was correctly positioned on the road. You may as well have said that I shouldn't have riden my bike that day.

If I'd a penny for every time that pic gets posted on a TJ thread...

Getting back to the original story (if that's allowed?) - what I want to know is where are the calls for helmets for pedestrians? After all it seems quite clear that in this case a helmet would have saved her life. If the cyclist does get taken to court, can he argue contributory negligence because she wasn't wearing one?

Sorry to join in on the OT stuff, but I am with mklfan on this one.

I used to regularly get pedestrians stepping off the kerb into my path on my commute along Southall high street.
I tried riding slower, shouting, using a bell, riding further into the road (which means you just end up with abuse from buses/cars/delivery vans etc.) but I'd still end up with a complete noggin running/walking/goose stepping (perhaps not) in front of me.

As for the pedestrian killed - it is very sad to hear & I bet the cyclist who was involved feels rotten at the moment.....whether he/she was at fault or not.