Manslaughter... or not

diy_fun_uk said:
I SOooooo wish they could finish off such statements by saying something like ...

In summary sir, you are a complete and utter stupid c * * t
Click to expand...
I like the fact that she effectively said… and we are keeping your bike.
 
The default is Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. I find it rather ridiculous that nobody who should know, knows if it was shared use. I also find it ridiculous that the original judge said he "thinks" it's a shared use path, but it was just 2.4m wide, the requirement is 3m or more.

Someone at the council has f**d up, what a surprise.
 
motorbiking said:
The default is Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. I find it rather ridiculous that nobody who should know, knows if it was shared use. I also find it ridiculous that the original judge said he "thinks" it's a shared use path, but it was just 2.4m wide, the requirement is 3m or more.
Click to expand...
This is a joke right? Requirement? There's km and km of signed paths that aren't.
 
This is the original guidance, but it has since been replaced. It would very much appear that this path was non-compliant. The power the local authorities use to create them is https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/65. But it says nothing about shared use cycle tracks


There is no statutory minimum, but deviation from the above (and in this case substantial deviation) would likely cause a problem for the local authority. I suspect a law firm may have contacted the deceased's family already. While there is no duty of care from the pedestrian, that is not true of the local authority. The quashing of the criminal conviction leaves them wide open.

Good to see council employees performing at their best.. not.
 
Motorists are expected to give cyclist's a wide berth, even though said cyclist's may wander in front of you wearing headphones cycling one handed while drinking, but cyclist's rarely offer the same to pedestrians, riding on footpaths, racing round pedestrians, inc families with childeren, dogs on leads, horse riders etc, especially these food delivery riders in towns, they are an absolute menace.
 
Brigadier said:
Which is why I wouldn't bother with road cycling nowadays.
Click to expand...
Add to that the disgusting state of the roads due to the potholes that have been allowed to increase exponentially due to under investment in resurfacing...

But in this case the woman originally convicted had a learning disability and that should have been taken into account...

We all have to share an increasingly busy road/pavement system that can't really expand...

However, in general people seem to have lost common courtesy...

Cyclists should slow down, and pedestrians understand the danger of the roads to cyclists and maybe give a bit of consideration both ways?
 
algas said:
Motorists are expected to give cyclist's a wide berth, even though said cyclist's may wander in front of you wearing headphones cycling one handed while drinking, but cyclist's rarely offer the same to pedestrians, riding on footpaths, racing round pedestrians, inc families with childeren, dogs on leads, horse riders etc, especially these food delivery riders in towns, they are an absolute menace.
Click to expand...
And cars pass too close to cyclists, stop in the green cyclist's area at lights, making it difficult to wait at lights safely. Also get cars parking on cycle gutters.

Then when I use cycle paths that are off the road, I have pedestrians walking on them.

I used to be judgemental of other cyclists riding on the pavement, until I had a number of cars not seeing me until the last second as I was going round a series of roundabout at a reasonable speed (I don't go fast). This is in a quite area as well with speed bumps etc, not a busy road.

Cycling is a intermediate form of transport, and so has these issues, but compartmentalising people to these modes doesn't help, it just creates boundaries where there were none.

We just need better infrastructure to segregate the different modes of transport to give people the choice to feel safe doing any of the them, and thereby reduce congestion. We have a long to go.

This is the only way to tackle congestion and make our roads safer.
 
ellal said:
Add to that the disgusting state of the roads due to the potholes that have been allowed to increase exponentially due to under investment in resurfacing...

But in this case the woman originally convicted had a learning disability and that should have been taken into account...

We all have to share an increasingly busy road/pavement system that can't really expand...

However, in general people seem to have lost common courtesy...

Cyclists should slow down, and pedestrians understand the danger of the roads to cyclists and maybe give a bit of consideration both ways?
Click to expand...
She had various disabilities, but none of them change the fact the prosecution failed to establish an unlawful act.
 
wobs said:
And cars pass too close to cyclists, stop in the green cyclist's area at lights, making it difficult to wait at lights safely. Also get cars parking on cycle gutters.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that most on road cycle lanes are advisory and unless there is a parking restriction, no reason for a car not to park on the road blocking them. Also it's only an offence for a car/motorbike, to block/enter the advance stop if the lights are red. Not to mention that many are not painted correctly to be enforceable.
 
wobs said:
I had a number of cars not seeing me until the last secon
Click to expand...
Same problem for motorcyclists but add not really seeing them at all. Something most riders are aware of. They are looking for cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top