On 06/12/2018 00:20, TMS320 wrote:

On 05/12/2018 15:25, JNugent wrote:
On 05/12/2018 08:29, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:32:10 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

****ed cyclist on an unlit footpath at midnight, no helmet.
Family try to blame the council for their ****wit's death
from head injuries.

Good luck trying to find a sign encouraging cyclists to negotiate a
flight of concrete stairs, up or down.

I don't need to find a sign encouraging cyclists to use it, the fact
there is no sign prohibiting cyclists from using it is enough.

"There's no sign prohibiting me from cycling down this concrete
staircase so I'm going to do it and it's the council's fault ifIÂ* am
fatally injured".

I expect the way an inquest works is that contributory and mitigating
factors have to mentioned. It doesn't mean that any one tries to "blame"
the council as Cheerless suggested above.

Well... I'm not so sure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-46433610

That URL has been edited out in later posts, but the story on the BBC
site runs like this:

QUOTE:
The family of a cyclist who died of serious brain injuries after
crashing down steep steps claimed he would still be alive if the steps
had been visible.

WD, 32, was cycling home in Norwich at 00:18 BST on 28 May when he
failed to see the steps ahead.

An inquest heard the path was poorly lit, overgrown and that the steps
could not be seen before their approach.

Coroner Yvonne Blake concluded a narrative verdict at Norwich Coroner's
Court.

She said the medical cause of death was multiple traumatic head
injuries, due to after falling down steps while on a bicycle and having
consumed alcohol.

Mr D had not been wearing a cycle helmet and was declared dead at the
scene by paramedics, having also had a cardiac arrest.

He had a blood alcohol level of 216mg per 100ml. The legal limit for
driving is 80mg.
ENDQUOTE

Come on, let's be honest about this... he was reportedly "cycling home"
after midnight along a route that will not be marked on maps as a road
and over which a satnav would not direct a cyclist (maybe a pedestrian).

It is vanishingly unlikely that he had never used the route before if he
was using it to "cycle home" at 2:15 am. It is reasonable to suppose
that he knew full well that this pedestrian access had at least two
flights of steps along its length (he'll have been at least as aware as
anyone else of the local changes in level and the need for steps or ramps).

One would expect that anybody attempting to get compensation would be
talked out of it before reaching court. But if it's a poorly designed
cycle facility...

Well, it certainly doesn't look like a cycling facility. Not with those
two (or more) flights of steps.

OK. But don't take anyone innocent with you while you're doing it.

That is one very important difference between a drunk cyclist and a
drunk driver.