Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

uart
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby uart » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:10 pm

Scott_C wrote:
uart wrote:Are they opening themselves up to a potential jail sentence should a pedestrian step out in front of them after crossing? Do you think that they should be liable to a jail sentence for this?

As it appears to be a shared path then regardless of what you do before hand you are facing a potential jail sentence.

Yes it's a shared path and I know to watch out for pedestrians there. The point that making was that me crossing without pressing the button their should make no difference to the seriousness of the incident if I did subsequently hit a ped after crossing.

Put the boot on the other foot if you like. Say that a jogger had just crossed there without pressing the button and then 5 to 10 metres after crossing collided with me (before I reached the lights). Does the fact that he crossed without pressing the button make it all his fault?

I think that the way that the cyclist crossed the road here is largely irrelevant.

uart
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby uart » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:23 pm

fat and old wrote:The problem here Human is that the cyclist was clearly shown to have been so self absorbed in his task of getting across the road without being run over he didn’t look and see the ped who was on her own,.


Yes, perhaps in the first half of the road crossing his attention was drawn to what is coming along the road instead of what was ahead. But after that he seem to just put his head down and start accelerating. There is no reason that I can see why he couldn't have looked where he was going, but for some reason he didn't.

Like I say, he didn't otherwise look to be reckless to me. In the first few seconds of the video he looks to be quite cautious around pedestrians in the mall area. I know that you believe that he was only slowing down for the road, however I think he slowed well before strictly necessary for the road, and in an area that seemed to coincide exactly with high pedestrian traffic.

What made him take his eye off what was dead ahead I have no idea. Has anyone heard his account of the incident. I haven't but I would be interested to hear it. I know that once or twice I've been known to take my eye off the ball and look down at my derailleur or something if it's making a noise or not shifting properly or whatever - and subsequently nearly run off the path or hit something. Perhaps it was something like that.

human909
Posts: 8465
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby human909 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:27 pm

fat and old wrote:None of the incidents you linked indicated that the trucks were being driven dangerously prior to hitting the ped.

I would argue that in general if a vehicle is being driven SAFELY then the driver doesn't run over pedestrians. It generally takes two parties making mistakes to cause an accident, this is particularly the case in busy pedestrian areas.

As far as the cyclist in this case goes I see nothing beyond inattention that suggests he was riding dangerously. Yes inattention is damn dangerous but guess what, that is normally present in MOST incidents where pedestrians are hit. A sufficiently attentive driver should be able to avoid running over a pedestrian.

**(Sure there are some cases where a collision might be completely one parties fault. But in general both parties have ability to take action to avoid collisions.)

fat and old
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby fat and old » Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:46 pm

uart wrote:
Yes, perhaps in the first half of the road crossing his attention was drawn to what is coming along the road instead of what was ahead. But after that he seem to just put his head down and start accelerating. There is no reason that I can see why he couldn't have looked where he was going, but for some reason he didn't.

Like I say, he didn't otherwise look to be reckless to me. In the first few seconds of the video he looks to be quite cautious around pedestrians in the mall area. I know that you believe that he was only slowing down for the road, however I think he slowed well before strictly necessary for the road, and in an area that seemed to coincide exactly with high pedestrian traffic.



Nah mate, I agree that he was cautious and courteous in the mall. Yes he slowed further for the road.....he didn’t have a green and wanted to check the traffic before he just rode out.....but stomped the pedals once he thought he had a gap. That’s all good, normally I wouldn’t care in the least. Unfortunately he hit the girl hard. That’s what made his actions prior to the collision reckless in my eyes. They caused him to lose concentration on the task at hand, which is going about your business without putting other people at risk.

human909
Posts: 8465
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby human909 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:33 pm

fat and old wrote:That’s what made his actions prior to the collision reckless in my eyes. They caused him to lose concentration on the task at hand, which is going about your business without putting other people at risk.


Reread what you wrote there. And ask yourself how you came to that conclusion. If you can honestly give yourself an answer please share it with us. Afterall it seems that you are the only one here who knows why the rider was being inattentive.

He was looking down and not at the road. There are lots of reasons why this could have been the case. No particularly good ones given the circumstances, but regardless there are many.

Philistine
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby Philistine » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:46 pm

We have one fact only to work with - a cyclist ran into a pedestrian and injured her! In order to convict or exonerate him (or perhaps find some intermediate position) we have to establish why the accident occurred. I have an opinion, as does every other contributor to the thread, and they all have equal value as evidence - zero!

Opinions are not facts, and only facts can determine guilt or innocence. Unless there is evidence that has not been reported, I cannot see how the cyclist could have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which is the required standard of proof in a criminal proceeding.

uart
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby uart » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:58 pm

The other thing that I think was incorrect with the judge's assessment of this case, is the degree to which a bicycle is an effective weapon against a pedestrian. The judge very clearly places the "scale of weaponry" of a bicycle to a pedestrian as being compatible to a car vs a bicycle.

But look closely at how those injuries occurred to the pedestrian, exactly the same as the Charlie Alliston case, a head clash. This same issue came up in the Alliston case and quite a few people here (probably including the judge too) had insufficient understanding of physics to even realize that the risk of injury is completely symmetric in this case**. I can absolutely guaranty you, that if the only way that a car or truck could injure a cyclist was through the driver going headlong through the windscreen and headbutting us, then the incidents of car on cyclist injuries/collisions would reduce by at least 99% overnight!

** Helmet not withstanding - however had the rider not been wear a helmet the court would have seen that as an aggravating circumstance rather than mitigating one anyway, so that point is completely moot.

the Judge wrote:Bicycles ride on the road and keep up with cars, so the suggestion that they can’t do harm and are somehow an innocuous instrument I find difficult to accept,” Judge Petrusa said.

Whilst there are occasions when you as the cyclist are the one in the disadvantaged position, in comparison to pedestrians it is cyclists that represent the danger.

“You are the person who was in control of the weapon on this occasion and you must, and should be, as concerned for the safety of pedestrians as you would want those driving cars and vehicles to be.

human909
Posts: 8465
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby human909 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:20 pm

Yep. The risks to both parties is pretty similar a fact not at all recognised by the Judge. What if it was the cyclist that had died. Would the pedestrian be similarly charged?

Here is such a case:
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... ies-436755

uart
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby uart » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:18 pm

human909 wrote:Yep. The risks to both parties is pretty similar a fact not at all recognised by the Judge. What if it was the cyclist that had died. Would the pedestrian be similarly charged?

Here is such a case:
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... ies-436755


Yes, there's not even a remote chance that a court outcome would be the same in the symmetrical situation where it was the cyclist killed. That would just be happenstance and bad luck.

TBH I had previosly heard a few vague details of this case, I knew that there was a cyclist facing serious charges similar to Alliston had in the UK. However I (and many other observers) thought that he must have been riding recklessly in the Mall (non traffic) area of that street in order to be attracting such serious charges. When the area of the incident was made known, everyone I knew thought he must have been going the other way, blasting the lights and riding high speed into the mall.

That's why I was so surprised to see the footage. To see him quite clearly riding safely through the mall area and only taking off once he was onto the roadway. It wasn't at all how I had envisaged it.

Meanwhile this guy, who seemingly chased down a pedestrian and mounted the footpath to nail him, then does the court's most favorite thing and shows absolutely zero remorse - well he stands to lose a few points and get a few hundred dollars in fines. (Where's the face-palm emoji when you need it).
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... ocid=ientp

Image

Philistine
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby Philistine » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:00 am

Are there any cyclists on the thread who suffer from epilepsy, and, if so, could we hear from them? I know nothing about epilepsy, but I am not totally devoid of logic (I hope). If someone cannot drive a car because of "condition X" (whatever condition X may be), I am inclined to wonder if "condition X" could potentially cause them a few problems on a bike.

human909
Posts: 8465
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby human909 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:27 pm

Philistine wrote:I am inclined to wonder if "condition X" could potentially cause them a few problems on a bike.


'X' conditions can clearly cause lots of problems. Some people even wear bicycle helmets while walking due to some medical conditions.

But the thing is that on a bike or as a pedestrian your risk to others is minimal and largely proportional to the risk to yourself. So sure plenty of conditions can be problems, but there isn't a need to regulate most activities walking/running/cycling. Self regulation makes sense.

Operating a motor vehicle is an entirely different affair.

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3176
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby Nate » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:31 pm

human909 wrote:I would argue that in general if a vehicle is being driven SAFELY then the driver doesn't run over pedestrians. It generally takes two parties making mistakes to cause an accident, this is particularly the case in busy pedestrian areas.

**(Sure there are some cases where a collision might be completely one parties fault. But in general both parties have ability to take action to avoid collisions.)


Remembering all the court stuff i read from my collision with a ped... "SAFELY" doesnt just mean to be at the speed & looking
You need to take into account anything thats reasonable - is it reasonable for a ped to cross without looking at that time? Then you should have taken that into account...

human909
Posts: 8465
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby human909 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:16 pm

Nate wrote:Remembering all the court stuff i read from my collision with a ped... "SAFELY" doesnt just mean to be at the speed & looking
You need to take into account anything thats reasonable - is it reasonable for a ped to cross without looking at that time? Then you should have taken that into account...

Agreed.

Incidentally, today I had a cyclist run a red in front of my car. I had a green light and my visibility was partially blocked by a truck. Lucky for all concerned that I was paying attention and braked. Otherwise there would have been a collision. I don't think the cyclist involved didn't even noticed. Though another cyclist waiting at the lights saw it all and was shaking his head at situation.

In the cyclist's defense though when you have cycle crossing lanterns that are timed to the same amount as pedestrian crossing lanterns it doesn't encourage compliance with flashing red cycle lanterns. Most cyclist I see ignore the start of the flashing red for this reason. This cyclist clearly stretched things and the opposing lights were green but the time she/he only halfway across.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users