A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them to slowdown"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 6th 18, 02:51 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default "councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them toslow down"

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 ifIĀ* 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.

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...

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.


All they need to be doing is walking up those steps with an armful of
shopping or infant child.
Ads
  #12  
Old December 6th 18, 03:01 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default "councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them toslow down"

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 ifIĀ* 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.


  #13  
Old December 6th 18, 10:49 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default "councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them to slow down"

On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 01:51:21 GMT, JNugent wrote:

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 ifIĀ*
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.

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...

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.


All they need to be doing is walking up those steps with an armful of
shopping or infant child.


Will no-one think of the children?

Let's look again at the (UK) Death-toll; ah, we can't; they're mere Road
Traffic "Accidents", no blame apportioned.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
  #14  
Old December 6th 18, 12:00 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default "councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them toslow down"

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 12:20:39 AM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

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


Indeed - Tom Crispin of this parish once used the wriggle in court that he could not possibly have been drunk and capable of riding a bike as well.

He left the court a free man.
  #15  
Old December 6th 18, 12:05 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,385
Default "councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them toslow down"

On 06/12/2018 02:01, JNugent wrote:
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 ifIĀ* 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.


Exactly.

QUOTE:


...

ENDQUOTE


You're quoting a reporter's version.

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).


I don't think it is "vanishingly unlikely" that a person can know about
a route but has no reason to use it normally. It was the middle of May
and a warm night, after all, and probably no rush to get home. It's a
nice time to be out exploring.

When they refurbished M4 junction 11 they also provided a maze of
foot/cycle bridges. In one direction one rides up a ramp up where it is
necessary to turn sharp right. Directly straight on, steps go down.

https://goo.gl/maps/JbFGrfxVES52

It cannot be seen until the platform is reached and there is nothing
except a little sign attached to the railing (the back of which can be
seen in the picture). I know this trap exists somewhere in the maze but
no matter how many times I have used it, I still have to think about it.
Things also look different in the dark (even when well lit) compared to day.

  #16  
Old December 6th 18, 02:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default "councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them toslow down"

On 06/12/2018 11:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/12/2018 02:01, JNugent wrote:
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 ifIĀ* 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.


Exactly.

QUOTE:


...

ENDQUOTE


You're quoting a reporter's version.

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).


I don't think it is "vanishingly unlikely" that a person can know about
a route but has no reason to use it normally. It was the middle of May
and a warm night, after all, and probably no rush to get home. It's a
nice time to be out exploring...


....whilst around three times over the alcohol limit (for driving). Yes -
what could be more natural or normal than exploring in the dark (which
is exactly the point) whilst ...er ... inebriated?

When they refurbished M4 junction 11 they also provided a maze of
foot/cycle bridges. In one direction one rides up a ramp up where it is
necessary to turn sharp right. Directly straight on, steps go down.

https://goo.gl/maps/JbFGrfxVES52

It cannot be seen until the platform is reached and there is nothing
except a little sign attached to the railing (the back of which can be
seen in the picture). I know this trap exists somewhere in the maze but
no matter how many times I have used it, I still have to think about it.
Things also look different in the dark (even when well lit) compared to
day.




  #17  
Old December 6th 18, 02:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default "councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them toslow down"

On 06/12/2018 09:49, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 01:51:21 GMT, JNugent wrote:

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 ifIƂ
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.

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...

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.


All they need to be doing is walking up those steps with an armful of
shopping or infant child.


Will no-one think of the children?


Not cycliusts on footways, that much is certain.

Let's look again at the (UK) Death-toll; ah, we can't; they're mere Road
Traffic "Accidents", no blame apportioned.



  #18  
Old December 6th 18, 03:13 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,385
Default "councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them toslow down"

On 06/12/2018 13:10, JNugent wrote:
On 06/12/2018 11:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/12/2018 02:01, JNugent wrote:



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).


I don't think it is "vanishingly unlikely" that a person can know
about a route but has no reason to use it normally. It was the middle
of May and a warm night, after all, and probably no rush to get home.
It's a nice time to be out exploring...


...whilst around three times over the alcohol limit (for driving). Yes -
what could be more natural or normal than exploring in the dark (which
is exactly the point) whilst ...er ... inebriated?


Fortunately not everybody is like you.
  #19  
Old December 6th 18, 03:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,167
Default "councils could not "babysit everyone on a bike or urge them to slow down"

TMS320 wrote:
On 06/12/2018 13:10, JNugent wrote:
On 06/12/2018 11:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/12/2018 02:01, JNugent wrote:



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).

I don't think it is "vanishingly unlikely" that a person can know
about a route but has no reason to use it normally. It was the
middle of May and a warm night, after all, and probably no rush to
get home. It's a nice time to be out exploring...


...whilst around three times over the alcohol limit (for driving).
Yes - what could be more natural or normal than exploring in the
dark (which is exactly the point) whilst ...er ... inebriated?


Fortunately not everybody is like you.


Most people actually are.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WHOOPS! "9 fractures in my ribs and a broken clavicle" "will be backon my bike in no time!" Mike Vandeman[_4_] Mountain Biking 1 May 28th 13 04:37 AM
Wales reveals "ground-breaking" plans requiring councils to provide safe walking & cycling routes Simon Mason UK 7 May 16th 12 05:31 AM
"Councils, expect to be sued" Jens Müller[_3_] Social Issues 40 December 30th 10 12:00 AM
"Councils, expect to be sued" Jens Müller[_3_] General 4 December 28th 10 04:15 AM
Look, Tom Crispin: How Councils Treat "Plebs" Re Parking Nuxx Bar UK 11 March 29th 09 09:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.