Pedestrian run over!!

On 14 Mar, 21:17, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Petert" wrote in message

...

Apparently a pedestrian was run over by someone who jumped a red light
- the guilty party has the cheek to complain about his conviction!!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5903362.ece

Funny how he thinks his treatment should have been so different from if he
had done the same in a car.

Not really. Had it been a car the boy victim would probably have been
badly injured or killed, instead of having just cuts and bruises. I
speak from direct experience of having been hit by a car travelling no
faster than 5mph, which hospitalised me with extensive cuts and
bruising and pains from cracked ribs which lasted for weeks. It would
have been much more serious or even fatal at 15mph.

As I have shown previously, cars can severely damage the walls of
houses, which no bicycle ever could. Due to these differences in
danger posed it is appropriate that the law should treat the two modes
of transport differently and usually does.

"why was this taken to court in the first place?"
I'm not quite sure what he wanted. Would he ave preferred a civil case for
damages by the injured party, which could have run into serious money, and
was he insured had that happened? Hell, the boy could still sue - where is
BGR Bloomer, who are forever advertising on the radio, when you want them?

I suspect the cops involved were motorists with a natural bias against
cyclists.

“My problem was that I stopped and helped. If I had carried on, nothing
would have happened."
Well, there you go. I'm not really in favour of compulsory registration of
bicycles, but this only goes to show that you can, indeed, "get away with
it" (who is it keeps using that phrase, the name escapes me just now) when
you commit an offence on a bike.

Plenty of killer motorists can hit and run with no witnesses despite
having number plates.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

On 14 Mar, 21:17, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Petert" wrote in message

...

Apparently a pedestrian was run over by someone who jumped a red light
- the guilty party has the cheek to complain about his conviction!!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5903362.ece

Funny how he thinks his treatment should have been so different from if he
had done the same in a car.

Not really. Had it been a car the boy victim would probably have been
badly injured or killed, instead of having just cuts and bruises. I
speak from direct experience of having been hit by a car travelling no
faster than 5mph, which hospitalised me with extensive cuts and
bruising and pains from cracked ribs which lasted for weeks. It would
have been much more serious or even fatal at 15mph.

It seems that the cyclist has been treated very fairly.

However, using courts to resolve such an issue does seem a little like
using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Surely a better way would be
some sort of mediation between the two parties to come to a legally
binding solution.

The real cost to the taxpayer of the cyclist's incompetence is
probably about £1,500. For that the hapless child could have a top
end Islabike, a spare one and a plethora of accessories.

Tom Crispin wrote:


"Graculus" wrote:
"Petert" wrote:

Apparently a pedestrian was run over by someone who jumped a red light
- the guilty party has the cheek to complain about his conviction!!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5903362.ece

Funny how he thinks his treatment should have been so different from if he
had done the same in a car.

It seems that the cyclist has been treated very fairly.
However, using courts to resolve such an issue does seem a little like
using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Why and how?

Whereas there is a "fixed" (ie, open-ended) penalty system for such charges
as applied to drivers and riders of motor-vehicles, there isn't one for
cyclists. That being the case, it's either a court appearance or nothing -
isn't it? Surely you are not arguing that cyclists should never be prosecuted
for proceeding through a red traffic lights?

Surely a better way would be
some sort of mediation between the two parties to come to a legally
binding solution.

But this is a case of an offence having been committed. That means that
others (including the authorities) have a legitimate interest in the matter.
There may well be a good argument for settling the (private) compensation
issue on an agreed basis, but there is also the little matter of a proper
penalty for deliberately breaking the law, which is where there is public
interest at stake.

The real cost to the taxpayer of the cyclist's incompetence is
probably about £1,500. For that the hapless child could have a top
end Islabike, a spare one and a plethora of accessories.

If that really is the cost to the taxpayer, there is a good argument to the
effect that it should have been added to the fine (as well as a victim
surcharge, of course).

Where is a will to save the taxpayer money, there is usually a way.