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

nandbytes said:
Yeah sure. Let's send everyone who has an accident to prison. Even the dead ones. That makes perfect sense. Very fair indeed.
Click to expand...

So, what do you think?

Should ANY road user, be subject to punishment if they cause injury though carelessness or dangerousness, or just cyclists and motorists? Surely if you cause injury then it doesn't really matter whether you are on foot, on a horse, in a car or on a bike? If not then why should pedestrians be 'above the law'?
 
Dave1 said:
Except the OP wants the police to take action, which is a nonsense, no offence was committed however heartless or bad mannered people perceive the cyclists actions were.
Click to expand...


From what I can understand all that is wanted is for the police to point out that it is bad etiquette to ride off from a person you have injured.
CCTV and enough witnesses to prove it was the pedestrian's own fault shouldn't make it a problem to at least see the person is getting
help
Sadly as I pointed it, it is incidents such as this that cause further legislation to be made, which will be unpopular
 
Gremlin said:
From what I can understand all that is wanted is for the police to point out that it is bad etiquette to ride off from a person you have injured.
CCTV and enough witnesses to prove it was the pedestrian's own fault shouldn't make it a problem to at least see the person is getting
help
Sadly as I pointed it, it is incidents such as this that cause further legislation to be made, which will be unpopular
Click to expand...

That's another point, should the police be using their time to point out bad etiquette, or actual crimes?
 
nandbytes said:
Yeah sure. Let's send everyone who has an accident to prison. Even the dead ones. That makes perfect sense. Very fair indeed.
Click to expand...

You’re being a bit hysterical now, a rational way of looking at it is the guilty or negligent party should pay.

If you trace the cyclist are you going to offer to compensate them for any possible damage, injury of stress your inconsiderate brother’s negligence has caused?
 
Last edited:
Gremlin said:
From what I can understand all that is wanted is for the police to point out that it is bad etiquette to ride off from a person you have injured.
CCTV and enough witnesses to prove it was the pedestrian's own fault shouldn't make it a problem to at least see the person is getting
help
Sadly as I pointed it, it is incidents such as this that cause further legislation to be made, which will be unpopular
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the police are already a bit busy dealing with actual crime to now start enforcing etiquette discretions.
 
Mr Bump said:
you accused the cyclist of speeding, by that very statement I personally think you are trying to assign some blame to him/her.
Click to expand...
FFS mate, do you not know what speeding up means, its nothing to do with breaking the speed limit!
 
Dave1 said:
You’re being a bit hysterical now, a rational way of looking at it is the guilty or negligent party should pay.

If you trace the cyclist are you going to offer to compensate them for any possible damage, injury of stress your inconsiderate brother’s negligence has caused?
Click to expand...

only inconsiderate person in this incident is the cyclist. if you can't see that, I don't have much else to discuss with you.

edit:

just to add as I said many replies before if the cyclist had the decency to not run off my parents would have probably reimbursed damages at least out of moral obligation if not legal obligations.
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
So, what do you think?

Should ANY road user, be subject to punishment if they cause injury though carelessness or dangerousness, or just cyclists and motorists? Surely if you cause injury then it doesn't really matter whether you are on foot, on a horse, in a car or on a bike? If not then why should pedestrians be 'above the law'?
Click to expand...

I am not sure why you insist on discussing the accident itself. it clearly was not the point of this thread.

Anyway to answer you no one is above the law. In general I think the punishment (and severity thereof) is fairly based on the intentions. In an accident which by definition is unexpected and unintentional both parties wouldn't be punished severely for the event for that reason. But it is reasonable to expect the party who caused to accident to reimburse reasonable damage that may have cost the other party.

In case of a hit and run it is very much intentional unlike the accident itself. If an accident involved two pedestrians the same would apply. I wouldn't run away leaving the other person on the ground. I'd help him up and offer any assistance needed (call the ambulance, police etc).
 
Last edited:
I'm really not sure why everyone insists on stating that the cyclist is innocent. He isn't, he is culpable.

The closest available case law is Charlie Alliston.

Substitute death for GBH and this is not far off.

Yes Alliston's bike was not road legal and one of the main reasons for the prosecution of the case was his lack of remorse and boasting on social media, but the core of the case reamins the same:

He ran down a pedestrian at 14 mph (slowed from 18mph). who was crossing the road under a green light (therefore J-Walking) having not seen his approach.

Given that, I'd say that there is every chance that the cyclist would, and might well be, found guilty of GBH in a court if this came to trial.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm really not sure why everyone insists on stating that the cyclist is innocent. He isn't, he is culpable.

The closest available case law is Charlie Alliston.

Substitute death for GBH and this is not far off.

Yes Alliston's bike was not road legal and one of the main reasons for the prosecution of the case was his lack of remorse and boasting on social media, but the core of the case reamins the same:

He ran down a pedestrian at 14 mph (slowed from 18mph). who was crossing the road under a green light (therefore J-Walking) having not seen his approach.

Given that, I'd say that there is every chance that the cyclist would, and might well be, found guilty of GBH in a court if this came to trial.
Click to expand...

The Alliston case isn’t really comparable as most of the prosecution case revolved around the fact that the bike was a fixed wheel track bike that was not legal for road use and that he had removed the front brake meaning he could not stop in a reasonable distance that a normal cyclist would have been able to.

The OP here even admits the brother stepped into the road directly into the path of the cyclist approaching a green light and was hit within 2 steps. The cyclist (or motorist, if it had been a car) wouldn’t have been culpable in those circumstances.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm really not sure why everyone insists on stating that the cyclist is innocent. He isn't, he is culpable.

The closest available case law is Charlie Alliston.

Substitute death for GBH and this is not far off.

Yes Alliston's bike was not road legal and one of the main reasons for the prosecution of the case was his lack of remorse and boasting on social media, but the core of the case reamins the same:

He ran down a pedestrian at 14 mph (slowed from 18mph). who was crossing the road under a green light (therefore J-Walking) having not seen his approach.

Given that, I'd say that there is every chance that the cyclist would, and might well be, found guilty of GBH in a court if this came to trial.
Click to expand...

I surmise that there would have to be substantial incontrovertible evidence that the cyclist "ran him down" i.e. CCTV not just witness statements. By this I mean, that the cyclist had both time & opportunity to avoid the collision. The stated situation so far seems to be that the cyclist may not have had such opportunity to avoid the collision,.......therefore on what grounds do you think GBH might stand up as a charge leading to court action?

Things can happen (even though ' came out of nowhere......' in regard to the client client has been said) in mere split seconds that based on witnesses can never truly IMO give an absolute and incontrovertible "truth" to what happened in regard to the speed, position, opportunity to take evasive action et al on the riders part!
 
nandbytes said:
In case of a hit and run it is very much intentional unlike the accident itself. If an accident involved two pedestrians the same would apply. I wouldn't run away leaving the other person on the ground. I'd help him up and offer any assistance needed (call the ambulance, police etc).
Click to expand...

Only the "run" part.
 
Dave1 said:
The OP here even admits the brother stepped into the road directly into the path of the cyclist approaching a green light and was hit within 2 steps. The cyclist (or motorist, if it had been a car) wouldn’t have been culpable in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

Definitely not within two steps. I believe I said few steps in my update to the incident. Otherwise why would he be lying in the road with road barricaded. The people would have moved him on the footpath.

I asked him just now, he was basically in the middle of the road (give or take a step either way)
 
nandbytes said:
Just but it's commonly referred to as hit and run if anything to give a bit of context.
Running on it's own isn't really an offence :D
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
nandbytes said:
Definitely not within two steps. I believe I said few steps in my update to the incident. Otherwise why would he be lying in the road with road barricaded. The people would have moved him on the footpath.

I asked him just now, he was basically in the middle of the road (give or take a step either way)
Click to expand...

Your distances and explanations change like it’s a game of “whispers”, I said 2 steps, you now say “a few” which is 3, I’d like to see any car or bicycle stop in the time it takes a 15 year old youth to run 3 steps into the road, especially as you’ve said he jumped into the road.

3 steps at pace is probably going to be a lanes width into the road.


Edit

I was right by saying your story changed, you didn’t say “few steps” originally.

nandbytes said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
@nandbytes

Has a street view link for the accident location been posted yet? I had a quick look through the pages and haven’t seen one. It might make it easier to understand the accident if the actual location can be viewed...
 
By referring to the Alliston case, I'm referring to the culpability of the cyclist in causing the collision.

Alliston:

A pedestrian stepped off the nearside pavement at a distance of 6.5 meters into the path of the cyclist.
The cyclist braked decreasing speed from 18 to 14 mph, gave a vocal warning and took evasive action. Sadly the pedestrian stepped into the path of the evasive manoeuver.

This case (as so far reported):
Multiple pedestrians stepped on to the road from the farside and attempted to cross. The cyclist hit the second pedestrian with sufficient speed to break (presumably) the tibia and fibia.


Why is Alliston relevant? Because the pedestrian was J-Walking and yet the cyclist was found to have caused the collision due to cycling in a reckless fashion (furious in the legal wording).
And yet he had very little time to evade or break.

In this case the cyclist was on the opposite side of the road, heading towards a pedestrian crossing of sorts next to a significant pedestrian transport hub (bus stops and a tube station).

That implies to me that the cyclist was traveling too fast for the road conditions and was not in full control of his vehicle - in that he was not able to stop or avoid the collision and had either not spotted the hazard or was moving too fast to avoid it (as mentioned).


If the proof of culpability in the Alliston case found against him then surely given a far more avoidable situation then the same would apply here.


Again, to reiterate, it's about the culpability of causing the collision, not the outcome.

Given that the precedent is that a cyclist can be found culpable of creating a collision with a pedestrian that has stepped out in front of them, then a case of GBH would be appropriate and would almost certainly succeed.

And yes, that would equally apply to motor vehicles.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Why is Alliston relevant? Because the pedestrian was J-Walking and yet the cyclist was found to have caused the collision due to cycling in a reckless fashion (furious in the legal wording).
Click to expand...

And the recklessness was centred on the illegal track bike which had safety features (the front brakes) removed. If he had been on a normal bike with front and back brakes and had hit her he wouldn’t have been prosecuted.

The Met Police even submitted a video as evidence showing the bike would have stopped in the required distance had it been a normal bike that had front and back brakes.


Here’s the video the court saw

 
Last edited:
Oh and for the record, I personally believe that Alliston should not have been found guilty,. That no matter what breaking system he had on his bike, he would not have been able to safely stop in the given distance without injuring himself
and that the victim was negligent in the way that they crossed the road. The main reason that he was brought to trial by the CPS was his attitude on social media.

But precedent is precedent and my opinion of the verdict is irrelevant.
 
Dave1 said:
And the recklessness was centred on the illegal track bike which had safety features (the front brakes) removed. If he had been on a normal bike with front and back brakes and had hit her he wouldn’t have been prosecuted.
Click to expand...


The recklessness was cycling in a fashion that prevented him from avoiding the collision. The breaks were a symptom of the recklessness.
 
DemiLion said:
Oh and for the record, I personally believe that Alliston should not have been found guilty,. That no matter what breaking system he had on his bike, he would not have been able to safely stop in the given distance without injuring himself
and that the victim was negligent in the way that they crossed the road. The main reason that he was brought to trial by the CPS was his attitude on social media.

But precedent is precedent and my opinion of the verdict is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

If you check the video (I’ve edited my post to add it) it’s really no wonder he was found guilty when the apparent different stopping distances are shown. Even if his actions on the day weren’t specifically reckless, his use of that bike on the road and removing the brakes were.
 
DemiLion said:
Oh and for the record, I personally believe that Alliston should not have been found guilty,. That no matter what breaking system he had on his bike, he would not have been able to safely stop in the given distance without injuring himself
and that the victim was negligent in the way that they crossed the road. The main reason that he was brought to trial by the CPS was his attitude on social media.

But precedent is precedent and my opinion of the verdict is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I had a pedestrian step out from behind a parked van last year while riding down a hill on route home from work in the dark. Avoiding them saw me slide 15 feet down the road, ruin my clothing and off the bike for a couple of weeks while the cuts and bruises recovered....I am still on the fence with the Allison verdict as there was negligence in his decision to use that bike on the road, but the pedestrian had stepped out in front of him...
 
Mozthecat said:
I had a pedestrian step out from behind a parked van last year while riding down a hill on route home from work in the dark. Avoiding them saw me slide 15 feet down the road, ruin my clothing and off the bike for a couple of weeks while the cuts and bruises recovered....I am still on the fence with the Allison verdict as there was negligence in his decision to use that bike on the road, but the pedestrian had stepped out in front of him...
Click to expand...

Lets be honest, we have all done that - I have crossed when I shouldn't and my daughter the other year ran across a road where a car had to brake (not too hard but made the heart skip). Most of the time we get away with it but there are times when people don't and sadly it can cause serious injury or death. However, people do need to take responsibility and while he was riding an illegal bike and showed no remorse, it was slightly harsh as she had not been paying attention and was in the road when she shouldn't.

In our village there are often people moaning about cars going too fast and that one day a kid is going to get hit. They have a point, but we also need to educate our kids that they need to check, then double check before crossing. I still see many barely glance up from their phones before crossing, or, as I see on my bike to work, kids just moving off the kerb into the road without looking. I don't know whether its because people are de-sensitised around road safety, or just that I was like that at 14 and cant remember!!! Maybe its the view that its always that nasty car driver who is to blame, I dont know.
 
Dave1 said:
If you check the video (I’ve edited my post to add it) it’s really no wonder he was found guilty when the apparent different stopping distances are shown. Even if his actions on the day weren’t specifically reckless, his use of that bike on the road and removing the brakes were.
Click to expand...


Okay, so using the Met's logic, anyone cycling at around 15mph that hits a pedestrian further than 3 meters after sighting them would be using the road in a reckless fashion.

That just makes things worse for your argument. Not better.
 
Dave1 said:
Your distances and explanations change like it’s a game of “whispers”, I said 2 steps, you now say “a few” which is 3, I’d like to see any car or bicycle stop in the time it takes a 15 year old youth to run 3 steps into the road, especially as you’ve said he jumped into the road.

3 steps at pace is probably going to be a lanes width into the road.


Edit

I was right by saying your story changed, you didn’t say “few steps” originally.
Click to expand...

I gave an update to the incident after I found out more information. It's on the very first page. I haven't changed anything since.

Since when was few equal to three?

I said few because no body knows the exact number but it was more than two and enough steps to get him as far as middle of the road.

As for size of the road it's a two lane road, two cars can comfortably travel next to each other.
 
Dave1 said:
@nandbytes

Has a street view link for the accident location been posted yet? I had a quick look through the pages and haven’t seen one. It might make it easier to understand the accident if the actual location can be viewed...
Click to expand...

No I am not keen on posting where I live on a public forum
It was not relevant either for this thread since it was not about the accident itself. It was about what happened after the accident.

But if it helps I'll draw you a picture and post it here....
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
only inconsiderate person in this incident is the cyclist. if you can't see that, I don't have much else to discuss with you.

edit:

just to add as I said many replies before if the cyclist had the decency to not run off my parents would have probably reimbursed damages at least out of moral obligation if not legal obligations.
Click to expand...


Do you not consider your brother inconsiderate, because he decided to walk out in front of other traffic when not looking carefully?
I think that you are showing your true bias here.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm really not sure why everyone insists on stating that the cyclist is innocent. He isn't, he is culpable.

The closest available case law is Charlie Alliston.

Substitute death for GBH and this is not far off.

Yes Alliston's bike was not road legal and one of the main reasons for the prosecution of the case was his lack of remorse and boasting on social media, but the core of the case reamins the same:

He ran down a pedestrian at 14 mph (slowed from 18mph). who was crossing the road under a green light (therefore J-Walking) having not seen his approach.

Given that, I'd say that there is every chance that the cyclist would, and might well be, found guilty of GBH in a court if this came to trial.
Click to expand...

there is absolutely no comparison between the two cases - end of.
 
Dave1 said:
If you check the video (I’ve edited my post to add it) it’s really no wonder he was found guilty when the apparent different stopping distances are shown. Even if his actions on the day weren’t specifically reckless, his use of that bike on the road and removing the brakes were.
Click to expand...

Abosulutely right Dave, when I was racing, I sometimes used a fixed wheel bike on the road to train for track competition, and it was always road legal with a front brake fitted. If you watch track cyclists on an indoor track competing, it takes around a complete lap for them to sow down sufficiently to get off their bike after an event because they do not have at least one brake on their bike.
 
andy700 said:
Do you not consider your brother inconsiderate, because he decided to walk out in front of other traffic when not looking carefully?
I think that you are showing your true bias here.
Click to expand...

So biased that I categorically put the fault on my brother from the beginning. Yes very biased indeed.

And as I said to the other person I am not going to discuss this much further with you if that's what you think
 
Last edited:
Setting aside the wider aspects e.g. do we need more legislation to cover cyclists (and pedestrians!!) behaviour on the road

I hope your brother, now home I think you said, makes a full & speedy recovery.....he is young enough for bones etc to heal quickly and all being well without any lasting after effects.
 
:plus1: to both points in Box Brownie's post.
 
Box Brownie said:
Setting aside the wider aspects e.g. do we need more legislation to cover cyclists (and pedestrians!!) behaviour on the road

I hope your brother, now home I think you said, makes a full & speedy recovery.....he is young enough for bones etc to heal quickly and all being well without any lasting after effects.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the best wishes :)
Hopefully he will going to school in a couple weeks. He misses that the most I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top