Death cyclist fine angers family

[ChickenBurger]

This is so shocking.

Why would you ride straight into someone regardless as to whether you had right of way?

Years ago when I was studying law (dropped out so am no expert) 'I didn't think he'd be that badly hurt' was no defence against criminal negligence. There was this concept of an eggshell skull - if you punched someone and they died because they had a very thin skull, you were still negligent in criminal terms even though you didn't know about their weakness.

Someone was riding at her, full tilt - 17mph - and she tried to move out of the way. How can she be blamed for that? He aimed for the group of pedestrians, he shouted at them so he must have expected her to move. Maybe she didn't move quite in the direction he was anticipating - she was probably bloody scared and not an expert in risk assessment - but tough shit, he rode at her, he's as guilty as sin and should have been charged with manslaughter.

I mean, what did he and what do the courts think she should have done, stood still while someone was coming at her at 17mph and refusing to brake?

i would be seriously tempted to get the drop on him and do him away if he'd done that to my child.

i would.

i wouldn't care if i went to prison, either.

Edam, re: the eggshell skull I think you're right. Certainly there was a very high profile case in Brighton a while back where there was an altercation over a taxi, a man was punched, hit his head on the pavement and died. That would have been a manslaughter charge (had the police been capable fo securing one, which is another story) - doesn't matter that they didn't mean to kill him/didn't think he'd hit the pavement, they still caused his death.

Once you've cycled for a while (as this bloke plainly has) you do develop some ability to foresee what people are going to do.

If I saw a bunch of giggly teenagers crossing a road in dribs and drabs I would almost guarantee you that one of them is going to dash out at the last minute just as you approach them. Happens every time - they don't believe bikes are dangerous. You just have to slow down (and give them a concise lecture in road safety as you pass them )

But -if I'm reading this correctly- the inquest into the girl's death recorded a verdict of accidental death which rather goes against any action for manslaughter being taken against the cyclist doesn't it?

He sounds like a total git. And he deserved a much greater punishment.

I do think that sometimes pedestrians take stupid risks with regard to bikes that they don't with cars. They somehow seem to assume that cyclists will stop or not hurt them so badly if they do collide. (as gizmo says) And some car drivers treat cyclists appallingly too. I think it makes cyclists a bit more arsey from time to time with any other road user. There are quite a few intolerant cyclists around these days.

Well, the principle should be that the person who is most vulnerable should be given most consideration. So cyclists should avoid pedestrians and cars should avoid cyclists. Just because some drivers are arses does not give cyclists the right to bully pedestrians (or little old ladies in motorised scooters the right to ride at pedestrians - there's one near me who is a menace).

£2,200, bloody hell. This is near where I live, how bloody awful. Poor girl and poor family. I won't type what I think of cyclist.

I have no objections to small children with or without accompanying parents cycling on a footpath if they are going reasonably slowly and carefully.

However, I live on a main road. Yes, it is busy at times but I frequently see elderly women, parents with children in seats on the back, etc cycling ON THE ROAD. Why then do grown men/older teenagers (generally male) feel the need to cycle ON THE FOOTPATH??? Why are they so wimpish in comparison to the elderly ladies? Clearly the argument that the road is too dangerous doesn't hold.

The next man who nearly mows down my children, whilst cycling at speed with earphones in, better not do it when I have PMT!

(GM wonders what the legal consequences are for "accidentally" knocking a cyclist off his bike...)

AN totally agree re manslaughter.
When my son was about 2, a cyclist swerved to avoid another cyclist (on a PAVEMENT) and to save himself swerved towards my son
Even ifd the gorl was standing in the raos, he could -SHOULD - have braked.
I agree if it were my child I would kill him and do my time in jail.

DH has hit predestrians on his bike twice before because they stepped out onto the pavement without having checked for bikes, from between parked cars. And the problem with swerving to avoid them is that you then swerve into the path of traffic yourself.

He wouldn't deliberately ride into someone of course, and he wouldn't ride on the pavement either.

Stepped onto the road...

yes the "egg shell skull defence" is no defence in common law as you take your victim as you find them.
i was merely enquiring as to what mitigating circumstances may have surrouded the case for such a decision to be made by the courts as someone earlier suggested she may have stepped onto the road at the last minute which most certainly would have been a factor.

Wasn't he riding on the pavement? So stepping into the road would have been an instinctive reaction. I really don't think you can blame the victim for being hit by someone who didn't even brake.

Tragic. £2,200 fine for killing someone is shocking.

the way I read it, the cyclist was on the pavement, the girl on the road near the pavement and she stepped onto the pavement just before he hit her....

no and i wasn't trying to blame her. i'm just confused about the actual events which occurred, i am probably reading it wrong or mistaken somehow so clarification would be great.
did she actually step out on to the road?
if so how did he hit her if he was cycling on the path as suggested?
if he was cycling on the road and she stepped out onto the road at the last second and that is how the accident occurred then how can he be blamed as it would have been impossible to avoid her?

once again i'm not saying these things did happen,i'm admitting my confusion and looking for someone to clarrify/give a definitive account of what happened,as the comment about her stepping onto the road has confused me.

The road/pavement thing was unclear according to the story, but the police suspect she stepped onto the pavement. Trying to avoid him, presumably, as he was riding full tilt towards a group of people - her options will have been limited and her line of sight may not have been perfect.

So she made the wrong call under pressure in a tricky situation - he is still guilty. He created the situation, he rode on the pavement at 17mph, he shouted 'move, I"m not stopping', which makes it clear he is 100 per cent to blame. The shit.

actually I'm not too sure about this one I must say.

It is incredibly tragic. But should he really be charged with manslaughter? I think those who know all the details of the case decided on 'dangerous cycling' for a valid reason.

He was, as far as I can see, cycling on the road. He noticed a group of teenagers and shouted a warning (of course in retrospect the warning sounds harsh and terrible but at the time he was cycling quickly and shouting a warning). It seems from that report that the 17 year old stepped towards him (in the road?) or changed her position.

yes he was cycling dangerously, could he have forseen that crashing would hurt the pedestrian more than himself? As a cyclist I would always imagine I would come off worse in any collision.

Yes terribly tragic, yes shouldn't have happened. But I think the 'dangerous cycling' charge is possibly warranted

if that is what actually happened then it i'd find it hard to charge him with manslaughter.
he saw a group of teens, he shouted a warning (ok it sounds harsh but only because of what followed.if no crash had occurred no one would bat an eyelid at it). the girl then moved into his path at the last second.
now if he was on the road and the teens where on the path, i would find it hard to lay the blame squarely at his feet.in fact i would say that the girls stepping out onto the road would constitute a novus actus and break the chain of causation.
if however both sets of people were on the path,then it is clearly a ridiculous course of events he decided to take as he should not have been cycling on the pathn in the first place,and if he was it is up to him to move.

I am quite impressed the fine is so large tbh, though he should have gone to prison in my view, as normally it is a pittance.

He was on the pavement. And he steered straight at the group without braking. At 17mph. The girl moved because someone was heading at the group - tragically she misjudged the move but that is hardly her fault, she was under pressure in a group of people. He should not have been on the pavement at all, should not have been riding at 17mph, should have braked and should not have been steering at a group of people.

edam is right

and say he was a cyclist who'd gone onto the pavement but not seen the pedestrians until the last moment and shouted Sorry..well, I would have felt a little differently about this story. his actions sound v arrogant and agree he would have been dealt with differently if he'd been in a car/on a motorbike