Hit and run by a cyclist! What can we do?

[neil_g]

Should the cyclist have stopped, yeah maybe from a moral view. However, as demonstrated by some comments on here, there is a lot of strong anti cyclist feeling so they may have fled before an onlooker decided to weigh in.

cyclists are a danger to other road users and pedestrians alike . and something need doing

Behave.

 

[andya700]

No they were wearing suits as I said above.

And you'll probably come across very few gang members, it's not like every other 15 year old could be a gang member. That probability is rather small.

If he was scared of others in the area I find that very much believable because there were indeed a lot of onlookers, the gang member possibility is simply ridiculous.

Some years ago, when I was working in London, I was severely delayed on the way home because some poor lad had been knifed to death in Victoria station by a gang of young lads in school uniform. In full view of thousands of commuters, they chased him outside, across roads, then into the station, down the underground, where several of them murdered him - they were not at all bothered that many, many people saw them doing it.
Sadly in London, the gang member possibility is very believable.
Why were 15 year old "school children" dressed in suits and not school uniform? I didn't even have a suit until I was 17 and started work.

 

[Gremlin]

Why were 15 year old "school children" dressed in suits and not school uniform? I didn't even have a suit until I was 17 and started work.

as said above post 81

. They have uniform till GCSEs and suits for A-level students. Some A-level colleges don't have any dress code. But they go to a grammar school which expect slightly more that others. it was the same for me also many years back.

 

[andya700]

[QUOTE="nandbytes, post: 8272412, member: 70436"

Being an irresponsible 15 year school kid he jumped on the road when the signals were green to quickly catch his school bus on the other side of the road. He quickly scanned for cars but didn't care to look for cyclists. So as soon as he jumped on the road a cyclist who was traveling at some speed ran into him. They both fell.

Only my brother broke both the bones in his leg (on the side of impact) and the bones were dislodged too. this kinda tells me the cyclist must have been traveling rather fast. The cyclist on the other hand simply got back on his bike and rode off.

[/QUOTE]

Your original post tells me all I need to know.

 

[bass_junkie83]

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists, in fact if you brake one I think you actually get a medal.

Cyclists can be done for cycling furiously amongst other things, especially if their speed is the cause of an accident, ie on shared space.

https://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycling-offences

However legalities aside, morally he shoukd have stopped whether it was his fault or not. Could it be that he didn't notice?

I normally have 2 or 3 phone zombies step out in front of me every day that I have to try and avoid, I have clipped a few before now and with other pedestrians around likely to do the same and traffic to look out for you dont always look back, especially when it has happened several times before and they are just standing their shouting at you like it's your fault they stepped out into the road.

 

[boyfalldown]

What dictates that, are cyclysts not limited to the road speed same as a car.

The police and the courts beg to disagree with you there where bylaws can & do restrict cyclists speed to the same as other transport

there is a lot of strong anti cyclist feeling so they may have fled before an onlooker decided to weigh in.

In which case they contacted the police, explained that was the reason they left the scene & offered to assist the police afterwards

 

[keef32]

I don't know what your idea of a slight "decline" is, but Tour de France cyclists average 25 - 28MPH on flat stages and they are not exactly hanging around.
On a flat road with no wind, an ordinary person on an ordinary bike would struggle to actually reach 30MPH, and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to hold that speed for more than a couple of seconds.
I used to do half mile intervals at 30 - 32MPH on a time trial bike, fitted with aero/tri bars, wearing proper kit and cycling shoes.
I think some people on here need a reality check as to what is and what is not possible with regard to speed on a bicycle.

s*** I must have been imagining things then... Thanks for knowing my childhood better than me.

According to "Bicycling Magazine,"
"On mountainous terrain, pros make climbing look effortless as they ascend at about 21 to 25 mph, or 2:51 to 2:24 minutes per mile."

I'm not saying bicycling magazine is a definitive source but 25 mph climbing kinda makes riding down a slight hill 30mph quite plausible...

I mean in the York Triathlon the year I did it the winner (not the fastest cyclist) averaged 22.37mph... That includes getting on, off amd traffic, and there is no downhill in that course really. So an extra 7.63mph on a downhill and in a burst is again quite plausible wouldn't you say?

But again, thanks for the reality check.

 

[viv1969]

.
if it was a younger child or older person it might even be a manslaughter case.. ..

As you yourself said, let's stop with the BS.
Could've, would've, should've is pointless.

 

[neil_g]

The police and the courts beg to disagree with you there where bylaws can & do restrict cyclists speed to the same as other transport



In which case they contacted the police, explained that was the reason they left the scene & offered to assist the police afterwards

There are no specific cycle speed laws. Only "wanton and furious cycling" which is generally applied in a similar way to careless/dangerous driving of a car would.

Maybe they did contact the police. Although, morals aside, if they were not at fault I don't believe they'd be obligated.

Personally if I stepped into traffic I'd take it on the chin as my own daft fault.

 

[Fuji Dave]

Wanton or Furious driving.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

 

[boyfalldown]

There are no specific cycle speed laws. Only "wanton and furious cycling" which is generally applied in a similar way to careless/dangerous driving of a car would..

Thats not true Neil. As my post clearly states bylaws can & do restrict the speed of cyclists. At least some (if not all) of the Royal Parks do this for example.

Maybe they did contact the police. Although, morals aside, if they were not at fault I don't believe they'd be obligated.

Personally if I stepped into traffic I'd take it on the chin as my own daft fault.

The legality of not stopping after an accident, regardless of fault, is debatable. I've no argument the cyclist isn't at fault.The question is should they have stopped

 

[nandbytes]

Some years ago, when I was working in London, I was severely delayed on the way home because some poor lad had been knifed to death in Victoria station by a gang of young lads in school uniform. In full view of thousands of commuters, they chased him outside, across roads, then into the station, down the underground, where several of them murdered him - they were not at all bothered that many, many people saw them doing it.
Sadly in London, the gang member possibility is very believable.
Why were 15 year old "school children" dressed in suits and not school uniform? I didn't even have a suit until I was 17 and started work.

Yes a very real threat. You never know when a kid with open fracture and broken leg would chase you down the tube station with a machete.

 

[cambsno]

Yes a very real threat. You never know when a kid with open fracture and broken leg would chase you down the tube station with a machete.

No but his mates could have done!

 

[nandbytes]

No but his mates could have done!

You mean all the invisible ones that were standing around him with big knives?
Or are you expecting a crying kid in pain to call them in with his telepathic powers?

Not to mention the police station is two minutes walk. Of course that doesnt matter since the gang have invisibility powers.

 

[cambsno]

Law isn't perfect but I think the idea is it should try to be fair. If I explain our side of argument and if it is indeed fair I am sure police would at least carry out some sort of investigation.
.

Why?

I am happy to be corrected but it appears that not stopping is not an offence for a cyclist. Maybe its should be but that is not a matter for the police, they cant charge someone if a law has not been broken. The other thing the police could do is excessive speed, but how can you prove that? Chances are he was not doing more than 30 anyway.

 

[nandbytes]

Why?

I am happy to be corrected but it appears that not stopping is not an offence for a cyclist. Maybe its should be but that is not a matter for the police, they cant charge someone if a law has not been broken. The other thing the police could do is excessive speed, but how can you prove that? Chances are he was not doing more than 30 anyway.

It may not be an offence but the question is should it be?
If it's not anyone can cause a lot of harm on a bike and as long as they run away that's perfectly fine? Don't you notice how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[cambsno]

You mean all the invisible ones that were standing around him with big knives?
Or are you expecting a crying kid in pain to call them in with his telepathic powers?

Not to mention the police station is two minutes walk. Of course that doesnt matter since the gang have invisibility powers.

Doesn't need to be big, a small knife or even blow to the head could be fatal. The cyclist acted on impulse, mad a (morally) bad call for whatever reason. Let it go. It is highly unlikely that he has legally done anything wrong so no point worrying over it.

 

[cambsno]

It may not be an offence but the question is should it be?
If it's not anyone can cause a lot of harm on a bike and as long as they run away that's perfectly fine? Don't you notice how ridiculous that sounds?

That's fine, but chasing the cyclist down is not going to change that and has nothing to do with him or the police. Your views should be around the people who make the laws.

 

[nandbytes]

That's fine, but chasing the cyclist down is not going to change that and has nothing to do with him or the police. Your views should be around the people who make the laws.

I agree and it may well be

But at the same time I'd like to know what the police say. They obviously can't enforce a nonexistent law and I want them to tell me that so I can take it further with a different set of people.

 

[Dave *]

The reason for the accident is well established.

It's a grey area like and as @Gremlin said "why should mode of transport make any difference"

Because that’s what the law says?

Why were 15 year old "school children" dressed in suits and not school uniform? I didn't even have a suit until I was 17 and started work.

as said above post 81

I didn’t know a 15 year old could be in 6th form, wouldn’t that be even before their GCSE year?

When are GCSE subjects chosen?
During Year 9 (ages 13-14) your child will choose which subjects to study at Key Stage 4 (Years 10 to 11, ages 14-16). These will be the subjects they will take for GCSE exams.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/parents/gcse_choosing/

It may not be an offence but the question is should it be?
If it's not anyone can cause a lot of harm on a bike and as long as they run away that's perfectly fine? Don't you notice how ridiculous that sounds?

Have you asked your MP?

 

[viv1969]

I agree and it may well be

But at the same time I'd like to know what the police say. They obviously can't enforce a nonexistent law and I want them to tell me that so I can take it further with a different set of people.

Like who? Exactly what are you looking for as an end result here?

 

[neil_g]

Thats not true Neil. As my post clearly states bylaws can & do restrict the speed of cyclists. At least some (if not all) of the Royal Parks do this for example.



The legality of not stopping after an accident, regardless of fault, is debatable. I've no argument the cyclist isn't at fault.The question is should they have stopped

If I recall there was some legal debate whether they could actually enforce speeds for cycles and I think it came down to the fact the parks were private property and/or shared paths and not a carriageway?

Could you tell us what laws these are please that specifically relate to speed on the roads? Genuinely interested.

Like I said, morally the cyclist probably shouldve stopped. However I'd understand why they didn't.

 

[stupar]

Like who? Exactly what are you looking for as an end result here?

To the OP - If the police aren't going to pursue it further then neither is anyone else.
I am all for some some better laws for cyclists so that they are dealt with by the law in the same way as motorists. That is a monumental change though and your personal crusade will not change anything

 

[Graham W]

I feel ( as a cyclist) the same with people who own caravans.

Yes and I feel the same about photographers "Peedo's" and terrorists the lot of them!

 

[boyfalldown]

Could you tell us what laws these are please that specifically relate to speed on the roads? Genuinely interested.

I already had.

If I recall there was some legal debate whether they could actually enforce speeds for cycles and I think it came down to the fact the parks were private property and/or shared paths and not a carriageway?

I'm not sure of the reasons. I'd thought it was because the highway code and laws refer to motor vehicles, and the parks bylaws refer to vehicles on the carriage ways. On the shared paths there are specific speed limits for cyclists.

 

[Graham W]

I already had.





I'm not sure of the reasons. I'd thought it was because the highway code and laws refer to motor vehicles, and the parks bylaws refer to vehicles on the carriage ways. On the shared paths there are specific speed limits for cyclists.

I suspect it'll be because cyclist generally aren't (and are not required to be) equipped to know, with any accuracy, what speed they are doing.

 

[Byker28i]

I don't know what your idea of a slight "decline" is, but Tour de France cyclists average 25 - 28MPH on flat stages and they are not exactly hanging around.
.

To be fair they are pacing themselves due to the distance to travel. They hit 45-48mph in a sprint.
75kg person, plus 20mph? thats a fair force to hit at. I think the lad got off lightly

 

[nandbytes]

I didn’t know a 15 year old could be in 6th form, wouldn’t that be even before their GCSE year?

Have you asked your MP?

Any body can study anything as long as you can prove you can do it
Age is not (rightly so) and should not be a barrier to someone's progression and acquiring knowledge.

Because we traveled a few countries the systems were different and somehow they managed to skip a year and half. I too skipped a year and went to 6th form at 15 and went to uni at 17.
I wasn't particularly studious though but the one in hospital is a straight A* student (other one got a mixture of A and A*). So they had no problem getting into A-levels. No one even questioned which class they should be in unlike me, i had to fight a bit to get put into A-levels.

I'll ask my MP once I talk to the police.

 

[boyfalldown]

I suspect it'll be because cyclist generally aren't (and are not required to be) equipped to know, with any accuracy, what speed they are doing.

Most seem to carry gps don’t they? But no you’re not required to, although if you’re required to stick to a bylaw it’s your responsibility to do so.

 

[nandbytes]

I think the lad got off lightly

Very much so. In such cases there is a serious possibility of a second accident happening in case a car or bus didn't see him on the ground and/or was close behind. Luckily there were plenty of people around to help and barricade the road for a few minutes till the police came over to further secure the area.

 

[nandbytes]

Like who? Exactly what are you looking for as an end result here?

Well for a start like my MP.

End result I don't know really. Initially I had hoped police can catch the person and give him a caution or warning to notify him that his behaviour was bad post-accident. Just so that he knows that he can't get away in future whether he in on his bike or worst in his car.
If the police are not going to or can't investigate then I'll go to my MP and explain situation since I feel we need better laws. The MP has taken forward my previous concerns, and I suspect he'll help me with this one too.

To the OP - If the police aren't going to pursue it further then neither is anyone else.
I am all for some some better laws for cyclists so that they are dealt with by the law in the same way as motorists. That is a monumental change though and your personal crusade will not change anything

a lot of things starts as one person's crusade. If everyone thought this way things would never change. but they do and we live in a democracy which permits people to challenge laws if they find it falls short. so I'll at least have tried.

 

[andya700]

Well for a start like my MP.

End result I don't know really. Initially I had hoped police can catch the person and give him a caution or warning to notify him that his behaviour was bad post-accident. Just so that he knows that he can't get away in future whether he in on his bike or worst in his car.
If the police are not going to or can't investigate then I'll go to my MP and explain situation since I feel we need better laws. The MP has taken forward my previous concerns, and I suspect he'll help me with this one too.
a lot of things starts as one person's crusade. If everyone thought this way things would never change. but they do and we live in a democracy which permits people to challenge laws if they find it falls short. so I'll at least have tried.

Would you care to enlighten us about the previous times you have "bothered" your MP.
I also found your post #109 fascinating, concerning your travelling and your education.

 

[nandbytes]

Would you care to enlighten us about the previous times you have "bothered" your MP.
I also found your post #109 fascinating, concerning your travelling and your education.

I am going to tell you anything if you ask like that
Besides why does it matter, it's hardly relevant.

The traveling was because of my parents. Didn't have much choice in it really. I personally can't see anything fascinating in it. Just moved around few countries.

 

[cambsno]

Well for a start like my MP.

End result I don't know really. Initially I had hoped police can catch the person and give him a caution or warning to notify him that his behaviour was bad post-accident. Just so that he knows that he can't get away in future whether he in on his bike or worst in his car.
If the police are not going to or can't investigate then I'll go to my MP and explain situation since I feel we need better laws. The MP has taken forward my previous concerns, and I suspect he'll help me with this one too.



a lot of things starts as one person's crusade. If everyone thought this way things would never change. but they do and we live in a democracy which permits people to challenge laws if they find it falls short. so I'll at least have tried.

Serously??? Why would the police give a caution if no offence has been committed? A caution is an alternative to prosecution. Police are not there to notify him about bad behaviour - bad behaviour is largely subjective. What about the bad behaviour of your brother, he could have caused serious injury to the cyclist himself, should he receive or caution or something stronger?

 

[nandbytes]

Serously??? Why would the police give a caution if no offence has been committed? A caution is an alternative to prosecution. Police are not there to notify him about bad behaviour - bad behaviour is largely subjective. What about the bad behaviour of your brother, he could have caused serious injury to the cyclist himself, should he receive or caution or something stronger?

can a 15 year old be cautioned?
If someone is purposefully trying to harm themselves I think they can be put under watch. The cyclist purposefully ran away.

Anyway I think you are slightly confusing matters here (just because of the way conversation had turned not blaming you)

To be clear there are two possibilities:
1 - as you say the cyclist fleeing an incident is legally not an offence (unlike in case of other motor vehicles) so the police can't do anything. In which case I feel the law needs updating and I'll talk to my MP to see what he says.
2 - there is a possibility that under the law It's possible to carry out an investigation in which case the police will do something about it.

Either way I need to contact the police first to see where we stand.

 

[B1ts]

2 - there is a possibility that under the law It's possible to carry out an investigation in which case the police will do something about it.

Either way I need to contact the police first to see where we stand.

Good idea, that way if they discover the cyclist also sustained injury (just because he cycled off does not preclude this) perhaps your brother can be charged with assault or something or maybe there is expensive damage done to the cycle? Who knows but....... seriously, you may be poking a sleeping bear here.... as you say it was your brothers fault and morally wrong as it may have been to leave, legally your brother may be on the wrong side of the argument for you to kicking off about it.....

 

[nandbytes]

Good idea, that way if they discover the cyclist also sustained injury (just because he cycled off does not preclude this) perhaps your brother can be charged with assault or something or maybe there is expensive damage done to the cycle? Who knows but....... seriously, you may be poking a sleeping bear here.... as you say it was your brothers fault and morally wrong as it may have been to leave, legally your brother may be on the wrong side of the argument for you to kicking off about it.....

Charge a 15 year old with assault for poor crossing?
Sure that sounds very plausible doesn't it.

If there is damage done to the bike don't you think the they would first enquire why he didn't stop to gather details. He has lost any reasonable grounds he had for claiming charges. Besides how would a 15 year old pay? With his free bus pass?

If he had been decent my parents would have paid reasonable costs out of moral obligation. Now that's gone out of the window.

I am sure just talking to the police won't do any harm. It'll simply inform me where we stand.

 

[Gremlin]

Some of you should read this from Cycling UK

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

It seems none of us totally know the law
Much of it dates back to Victorian times and let's be honest things have moved on a lot since then
So, I agree the laws on cycling do need updating, I get fed of hearing it's always someone else's fault when
something happens,.
I drive around most of the day, on a local road that is heavily used by cyclist and most weekends for races,
the behaviour of some of the cyclist and their lack of anything bright to help us mere mortal drivers see them
is astounding.
A couple months back I saw quite a few near misses when crossed the path of vehicles instead of slowing down.
As to speed, I can also confirm that these guys can definitely do in excess of 30mph on a flat road

 

[B1ts]

Charge a 15 year old with assault for poor crossing?
Sure that sounds very plausible doesn't it.

If there is damage done to the bike don't you think the they would first enquire why he didn't stop to gather details. He has lost any reasonable grounds he had for claiming charges. Besides how would a 15 year old pay? With his free bus pass?

If he had been decent my parents would have paid reasonable costs out of moral obligation. Now that's gone out of the window.

I am sure just talking to the police won't do any harm. It'll simply inform me where we stand.

Please yourself, good luck.

 

[keef32]

As to speed, I can also confirm that these guys can definitely do in excess of 30mph on a flat road

You're as delusional as me... .

Thinking about it, I've been overtaken on a 30mph road before by a cyclist (Rivlin Valley Road for anyone who knows Sheffield)