Cycling News (2)

JP08

Having carefully read the original post I think the fine was correct. The only crime was running the red light.

I'm assuming the road the pedestrian was crossing was not "one way" (legal direction approaching the lights) on the basis that the cyclist would have been prosecuted for that too.

In which case the pedestrian then getting hit was her own damn fault for not looking and then stepping out in front of a moving vehicle.

Traffic entering the junction from the green lighted approaches would have quite legally been able to enter the road - and would also have hit her if she'd carried out the same action in front of them. And 15 mph, whilst fairly fast on a pushbike, is not an excessive speed for the situation - a right turning motorbike with no oncoming traffic could have been travelling somewhat quicker quite easily.

Johno100

JP08 wrote: »

In which case the pedestrian then getting hit was her own damn fault for not looking and then stepping out in front of a moving vehicle.

Amazing! If you came out with that line (however true it was) where the most vulnerable road user involved was a cyclist, you'd be accused of 'victim blaming' in a heart beat.

Tilt

AndyBSG wrote: »

Uhhmm, did any of those who replied condemning the cyclist actually read the bit in bold on the OP's post or am I missing something?

Does that actually make a difference?

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Bournemouth/Poole area.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that.

brat wrote: »

...which would have put him in jail for significantly longer.

Quite, but not so had the girl have been killed while he was riding a bike.

AndyBSG

Tilt wrote: »

Does that actually make a difference?

Seems I definitely am missing something?

The OP says the cyclist hit a pedestrian who stepped out in front of the cyclist. The OP clarifies there were no pedestrian lights but the cyclist was fined for jumping ared light?

Or is the OP missing a bit of info in that there was a set of traffic lights but they were non pedestrian ones?

If that is the case and the cyclist did jump a red light then yes he should have been fined.

Can the OP clarify if

- It was a junction with no lights

OR

- It was a junction with lights but no pedestrian crossing

JP08

Johno100 wrote: »

Amazing! If you came out with that line (however true it was) where the most vulnerable road user involved was a cyclist, you'd be accused of 'victim blaming' in a heart beat.

It'd depend on circumstances. Just like in the OP's example, the pedestrian getting hit was her own fault, but the (possibly) Brighton example further down clearly the cyclist is (solely) at fault.

Sad to say, most motor vehicle collisions with cyclists are down to either the vehicle driver failing to see what is in front of him, poor observation when pulling out of a junction (or in the case of a fellow commuter, turning into a junction*), or sheer failure of the utterly basic mirrors, signal, manoeuvre - with the unwritten bits that some forget ... to not manoeuvre unless the mirror check says it is safe to, and to keep repeating the mirrors bit whilst carrying out the manoeuvre bit.

*the guy was turning right into the junction that my fellow traveller was waiting to turn right out of, decided to cut the corner at speed and just ploughed straight into him.

JP08

AndyBSG wrote: »

- It was a junction with no lights

Must have had lights or there wouldn't have been a fine for running them.

AndyBSG wrote: »

- It was a junction with lights but no pedestrian crossing

OP says in last line was normal junction with no pedestrian crossing.

Norman_Castle

AndyBSG wrote: »

Seems I definitely am missing something?

The OP says the cyclist hit a pedestrian who stepped out in front of the cyclist. The OP clarifies there were no pedestrian lights but the cyclist was fined for jumping ared light?

Presumably pedestrian lights are a red or green man visible to pedestrians intending to cross.

MacMickster

AndyBSG wrote: »

Uhhmm, did any of those who replied condemning the cyclist actually read the bit in bold on the OP's post or am I missing something?

Well there clearly were traffic lights - just not a pedestrian crossing.

I envisage pedestrian walking towards a crossroads junction and seeing the lights were green for north/south traffic. If she can see that nothing is coming from the north/south direction she should be free to step out without having to look east/west as those lights must be red - and then some a55hole cyclist who doesn't do red lights ploughs straight into her - but another cyclist watching out of a window hurries to defend the said a55hole.

brat

A pedestrian shouldn't be required to expect any vehicle to come through red traffic lights, although it would be sensible to have a look first, especially if it's 'normal' for cyclists to go through on red.
But there's little doubt the cyclist is both criminally and civilly responsible for this collision.