Little whinge about mobile cameras

SamsReturn

Stoke wrote: »

Yeah.... look, I'm not a big cyclist fan here, but let's not muddy the water. That guy was riding a highly modified 'racing bike' in the middle of London, where there's bloody pedestrians everywhere. His bike was essentially designed for a velodrome, and using it on the roads was both stupid and illegal.... hence the prosecution. I very much doubt any kind of new rules will be imposed off the back of him going down for it.

He's trying to say it was the womans fault 'cos she was on her phone.
People and their mobile phones annoy me, but that excuse is never going to stand up, when you think of the way he was riding and the bike he had.

Teapot55

golddustmedia wrote: »

. . . West Town Lane in Bristol. It's down hill and is now a 20mph road, despite being a main bus route and primary traffic route.

. . . a mobile camera parked at the bottom of the hill outside the primary school (closed for the summer holidays).

Young (primary school) children really do think they can keep safe from cars if they run fast. Crazy, but that is what they think, especially boys who are 'big & strong'.

If you hit them at 20mph they are less likely to die.

Hills, fuel consumption, cyclists going faster (boo hoo, it's not fair), wearing the gearbox out are all red herrings.

If a child runs out in front of you and you hit them at 20mph they are less likely to die.

giraffe69

From the reports thus far he isn't doing his best to get on the right side of the judge or any jury with his attitude. Even if she had her mobile phone out and was paying scant attention the death penalty seems a touch severe and then going on social media to describe how it was all her fault whilst knowing the bike you were riding was not legal seems more than slightly silly. It won't make any difference to his guilt or or not but it may make a difference to any sentence if he is found guilty

Stoke

SamsReturn wrote: »

He's trying to say it was the womans fault 'cos she was on her phone.
People and their mobile phones annoy me, but that excuse is never going to stand up, when you think of the way he was riding and the bike he had.

He's trying to blame her because he's a privileged rich kid who boasted online about his very expensive bike and the fact it was illegal.

Good luck pal. Enjoy jail. He deserves it.

Twopints

golddustmedia wrote: »

However the reason I had concluded it was ok was the 20mph signs they've fitted to the lamp posts face both directions! So when you're in the middle of the street and see both sides of the lamp post have speed signs surely you're going to conclude it's a 2 way street? If not why use twice as many 20mph signs are would be necessary!?

They are probably there for the cyclists to ignore when they are going the wrong way down the one-way street. :beer:

Hermione_Granger

Stoke wrote: »

He's trying to blame her because he's a privileged rich kid who boasted online about his very expensive bike and the fact it was illegal.

The cycle only cost him £470 which in bike terms isn't really a great deal of money for any sort of carbon track bike.

Stoke

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

The cycle only cost him £470 which in bike terms isn't really a great deal of money for any sort of carbon track bike.

It may not be a lot in bike terms, but for an 18 year old, being able to spend 500-quid on a bike....?

RichardD1970

Stoke wrote: »

It may not be a lot in bike terms, but for an 18 year old, being able to spend 500-quid on a bike....?

When I was 18 (nearly 30 years ago) I spent £1000 on a hi-fi system.

onomatopoeia99

Stoke wrote: »

It may not be a lot in bike terms, but for an 18 year old, being able to spend 500-quid on a bike....?

I spent £1200 on a computer in 1987 (you know, back when people were still saying "can't see the point of having one of them in the house"), when I was 18. Money I earned on trainee wages.

Stoke

You all earned too much as an 18 year old