Pyrotequila Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 https://www.aol.co.uk/news/cyclist-escapes-prosecution-fatal-collision-123347817.html Quote A speeding cyclist involved in a fatal collision with a pensioner could not be prosecuted because speed limits do not apply to bicycles, a court heard. I mean... really? The system is broken, it needs updating badly! How can the rules of the road not apply to a group of road users, especially when that group is increasing in numbers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m williamson Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 He and his companions were exceeding a speed limit which had been designated for that area because the general public had access. But because they were doing it on bicycles it was considered to be fine? What about reckless endangerment? They gave no thought to other peoples safety and as a result a woman was killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpable_and_reckless_conduct 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleNarrator Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 (edited) ............................................... Edited May 5 by HumbleNarrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, Pyrotequila said: https://www.aol.co.uk/news/cyclist-escapes-prosecution-fatal-collision-123347817.html I mean... really? The system is broken, it needs updating badly! How can the rules of the road not apply to a group of road users, especially when that group is increasing in numbers? Words fail me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 27 minutes ago, hackey lad said: Words fail me . And me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, m williamson said: He and his companions were exceeding a speed limit which had been designated for that area because the general public had access. But because they were doing it on bicycles it was considered to be fine? What about reckless endangerment? They gave no thought to other peoples safety and as a result a woman was killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpable_and_reckless_conduct There is no proof that the cyclist was speeding, its just a news item that suggests he was going "up to 29 mph" Edited May 5 by El Cid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 Most motorists are respectful of others on the road, most adult cyclists are also motorists, I wonder if the minority of bad motorists are also bad cyclists. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 3 hours ago, Pyrotequila said: https://www.aol.co.uk/news/cyclist-escapes-prosecution-fatal-collision-123347817.html I mean... really? The system is broken, it needs updating badly! How can the rules of the road not apply to a group of road users, especially when that group is increasing in numbers? That poor lady and her family. What the hell is wrong with our 'justice system'? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m williamson Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 25 minutes ago, El Cid said: There is no proof that the cyclist was speeding, its just a news item that suggests he was going "up to 29 mph" The man himself told the coroner that they were travelling at up to 29 MPH in aerodynamic ' paceline ' formation to maximise speed when he struck the lady. How much proof do you need? The point is that the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists because of an oversight, cyclists have killed pedestrians before and should be liable to the same restraint as any other person driving a potentially dangerous object, mechanically propelled or not. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 minute ago, m williamson said: The man himself told the coroner that they were travelling at up to 29 MPH in aerodynamic ' paceline ' formation to maximise speed when he struck the lady. How much proof do you need? The point is that the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists because of an oversight, cyclists have killed pedestrians before and should be liable to the same restraint as any other person driving a potentially dangerous object, mechanically propelled or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now