Yet another pedestrian hurt
webreader
WSR
Peter Grange
"Caught" is an interesting choice of word. Are you suggesting the
cyclist is some sort of fugitive?
--
Pete
Tony Dragon
If indeed it was a 'hit & run' then he would be a fugitive.
--
Tony Dragon
Peter Grange
I'm not altogether sure. Certainly in a car accident one is legally
required to stop and provide details, but I'm not sure about a
cycle-ped accident. Certainly common courtesy would require it, but
I'm not sure about the legal position. Someone on here probably knows.
--
Pete
JNugent
> He just rode off, and what are the chances of him being caught.
Well, just *look* at the over-design and Luddite layout of that junction
(that very *old* junction which has probably functioned for two centuries
without too much intervention by traffic "engineers").
That over-engineered layout is truly ridiculous, and all in an attempt to
hobble motor traffic.
JNugent
Is that not a suitable word for someone who flees justice? I can think of
worse ways to describe him/her. Can't you?
Tony Dragon
The cyclist still should have stopped.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Oops didn't see your other post.
--
Tony Dragon
Peter Grange
Fleeing justice suggests a breach of law. I am not sure there is a
legal requirement for a cyclist to stop in such circumstances. I may
well be wrong, please correct me if so.
--
Pete
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>> webreader wrote:
I don't disagree.
But there is so much to take in (for a pedestrian, let alone others), that
confusion is bound to occur.
JNugent
Before that, perhaps you can clarify your stance.
You seem to think that it is lawful for a cyclist to collide with a
pedestrian, (potentially) injuring him or her (or worse) and to then just run
(or rather, cycle) away as though it hadn't happened, or as though the
pedestrian didn't matter.
Have I understood you correctly?
Doug
> He just rode off, and what are the chances of him being caught.
>
> http://tiny.cc/DIw1l
>
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Toom Tabard
There are several aspects.
It is described as 'hit-and-run', but what we don't know from the
details is where fault lies between cyclist and pedestrian, and
therefore, in this instance, whether the cyclist was negligent and has
some obligation to the pedestrian.
Where there is no law or statutory obligation requiring a party to
stop and give details, it is not clear legally what rights the
pedestrian or witnesses would have to detain the cyclist and require
them to identify themselves. If anyone knows the answer or has some
pointers on that, I'd be interested to hear. It is a problem common to
all accidents/incidents which fall under civil law of liability and
where there is no statutory requirement to provide identification.
None of that detracts from it being reasonable and moral to expect the
cyclist to stop and to exchange name/address so that things can be
sorted out. In practical terms, cyclists might be more inclined to do
so if they have liability insurance, and less inclined to do so if
they don't and may be lumbered with a large claim and legal costs.
Toom
Tony Dragon
Perhaps Mr Reader is just trying to counter your posts.
--
Tony Dragon
mileburner
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:kKWdnWecM8lHGJXW...@pipex.net...
> Before that, perhaps you can clarify your stance.
Is somone on trial?
> You seem to think that it is lawful for a cyclist to collide with a
> pedestrian, (potentially) injuring him or her (or worse) and to then just
> run (or rather, cycle) away as though it hadn't happened, or as though the
> pedestrian didn't matter.
You seem to be trying to reiterate somone elses opinion in the hope of being
able to create some kind of argument out of it.
> Have I understood you correctly?
This seems to be going the retard route...
Peter Grange
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
In the case in point the cyclist did stop, but I am querying whether
there is a requirement in law (as opposed to common decency) for a
cyclists to remain on the scene following a collision which does not
involve a motor vehicle. I'm not querying whether there should be or
not, just whether there is.
--
Pete
David Hansen
webreader <websit...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>He just rode off,
Even the newspaper says that he stopped, briefly. What may well have
happened is that the cyclist asked the pedestrian if she was
alright, she said yes and he then carried on.
There is a history of demonising cyclists in parts of the mass
media. For example the toned down Daily Wail article at
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifying-moment-daughter-knocked-injured-cyclist.html>,
it being toned down from their original article with its claims of
the girl being run down and left for dead by a speeding cyclist. A
rather less demonising report of the same events is at
<http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/11-37pm-Police-appeal-girl-collides-cyclist/article-190248-detail/article.html>
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Before that, perhaps you can clarify your stance.
> Is somone on trial?
What?
Are you under the mistaken ipression that the system of justice is only
concerned with offences?
In case you didn't know (a distinct possibility, it seems), please be aware
that a large part of the UK's justice system is concerned with civil matters,
including the attribution of fault in negligence cases, together with the
assessment and award of damages.
>> You seem to think that it is lawful for a cyclist to collide with a
>> pedestrian, (potentially) injuring him or her (or worse) and to then just
>> run (or rather, cycle) away as though it hadn't happened, or as though the
>> pedestrian didn't matter.
> You seem to be trying to reiterate somone elses opinion in the hope of being
> able to create some kind of argument out of it.
I was asking them to clarify an indistinct argument. Like you, they gave the
impression of solely (and equally mistakenly) equating "justice" with
"offences". In your case, you obviously didn't know that. I'm not convinced
that the PP hadn't known it but simply overlooked it.
>> Have I understood you correctly?
No.
No surprise there, eh?
JNugent
Fair enough; we were at cross purposes.
Justice, of course, is not only about the punishment of offences. There is
always the civil aspect.
Tom Crispin
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:04:51 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
>webreader <websit...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>>He just rode off,
>
>Even the newspaper says that he stopped, briefly. What may well have
>happened is that the cyclist asked the pedestrian if she was
>alright, she said yes and he then carried on.
>
>There is a history of demonising cyclists in parts of the mass
>media. For example the toned down Daily Wail article at
><http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifying-moment-daughter-knocked-injured-cyclist.html>,
>it being toned down from their original article with its claims of
>the girl being run down and left for dead by a speeding cyclist. A
>rather less demonising report of the same events is at
><http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/11-37pm-Police-appeal-girl-collides-cyclist/article-190248-detail/article.html>
Conversely, hit and run incidents involving motor vehicles are so
common that all but the very worst incidents make it to national
newspapers.
Even the killing of Adrianna Skrzypiec by a hit and run lorry driver
only made it to London newspapers.
www.lewisham-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=20077
Though it did make it to the international press.
http://polishexpress.polacy.co.uk/art,gina_cyklisci,3736.html