A dick on foot is a dick on a bike, a dick in a car, and a dick on the internet. One thing with dicks is they’re consistent.
Rule No.1 people. Rule No.1.
If they appeared at 20mph I would be surprised, whatever your age, if you could spot a hub or bb motor. Might just be the delivery riders in my area but most of them are riding illegal motorbikes not bicycles.
The age reference was you appeared to be questioning my sight and hearing. I kind of know what a motorbike is! Your English comprehension however.....
The dude appeared down a triple flight of steps. Probably a 40-50 foot drop. Think of that Redbull downhill Brazilian favella race! Very very much a pedals level kind of descent, with a side portion of significant balls. No motor, electrical or petrol was going to make you go any quicker when gravity is on your side like that!
The age reference was you appeared to be questioning my sight and hearing. I kind of know what a motorbike is!
Since you mention hearing then clearly you dont understand what it means, at least from a legal perspective. A motorbike can be virtually soundless (certainly less so than my bicycles freewheel) and for that matter have a virtually invisible motor.
Since you mention hearing then clearly you dont understand what it means, at least from a legal perspective.
Oh, it's your eyes that are ****ed. I thought you were talking about leccy assist. I can spot them at 50m. Can't you?
Whatever - you were wrong. This was a bike. Bite me.
I’d call that riding in a manner likely to cause death/injury to a third party. Yes, he wasn’t on a road, but (I think) same rules apply. To say no bike rider ever rides in a manner that might endanger another is quite frankly a deluded view with a very narrow mindset of what consistutes a cyclist.
Sure, it endangers another but the odds are that he isn't actually going to injure anyone.
First, there's a good chance there won't be any injury in the event of a collision.
Second, if he does collide with a pedestrian there's a 50/50 that he is going to come off worse.
Maybe once he recovers from his broken arm/broken neck/death he'll be back out on the road doing the exact same thing but I would assume it's unlikely.
Anyway, we seem to be getting very hung up on edge cases. It's like me saying there should be prosecutions for pedestrians killing and injuring cyclists because a teenager tried to happy slap a passing cyclist and accidentally clothes-lined them.
You can find edge cases to justify pretty much any law you want to make. It's better to rely on data and there is no data anywhere that says we need legislation to deal with the wave of murder-cyclists that is terrorising the nation.
As has been shown by the numerous cyclists who have been jailed for killing pedestrians and the total lack of convictions for pedestrians who kill cyclists we can show that there are already laws in place to punish the relatively tiny number of people who ride like dicks and kill someone.
IMO, this guy is a menace to the public and disproves your IMO.
That guy could be just as much of a menace on a scooter, or a skateboard, or even a pogo stick. It's got little to do with bikes really. Where I live you can observe people walking out in front of moving vehicles most weekends. You don't need any form of mechanical transport to be a menace.
If you genuinely care about reducing deaths and injuries, then there are 1001 other more dangerous things you can look at that would be guaranteed to reduce deaths and injuries more. But that that's not what it's about, it's a populist policy with which they know they can provoke a reaction to their own advantage. It's not based on any evidence.