Cyclist Jailed

[bikepacker]

This idiot gets us all a bad name. I think he got off lightly.

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/13348707.Cyclist_jailed_following_death_of_pensioner_he_hit_on_busy_shopping_street/?ref=mr&lp=1

[mrcharly-YHT]

He's a young moron on a bike, a PoB on a BSO. Not a cyclist. From the sounds of it, if he could have afforded a car he would have driven a car like a bellend. Probably acts like a complete bellend in everything he does.

I define a 'cyclist' as someone who has an interest in bikes other than a cheap convenient way to get from A to B.

[bikepacker]

Problem is when the headline starts with the word 'cyclist' we all get tarred with the same brush.

[ian]

Compare and contrast that article with a similar article about someone being killed or injured by the person behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

I'm not a cyclist, I'm a person who often rides a bicycle. I am no more responsible for the behaviour of other people who ride bikes, than they are me.

[KenM]

He does not give me a bad name. I am not responsible for what other people do.

I don't like the implication that, because a bloke on a bike did something wrong, somewhere in the world, I am a bad person.

I'm actually a very nice person

The bloke in the OP, however, is an idiot. Who deserves all the punishment he gets.

[mattc]

Problem is when the headline starts with the word 'cyclist' we all get tarred with the same brush.

Yes, but whose fault is that?

I'd say the headline writers and those holding the brush are strongly implicated.

If you saw
"Woman causes fatal crash"
... what conclusion would you draw?

[Pedaldog.]

A quote from the article   "Their views were backed up by Judge Abbas Mithani, QC, in his sentencing remarks.

"There is good reason for the general and specific bans imposed on cyclists in our towns and cities," he said. "It is not just because they are a nuisance and annoyance, it is because they cause a serious risk of harm, or in this case, even death."

My bold and can we award a honorary "Super Twat award" for that bit?

[Gattopardo]

Its more than he would get by running someone over and fucking off sharpish

[tonycollinet]

Probably not if driving in a pedestrianised area after multiple warnings.

[contango]

A quote from the article   "Their views were backed up by Judge Abbas Mithani, QC, in his sentencing remarks.

"There is good reason for the general and specific bans imposed on cyclists in our towns and cities," he said. "It is not just because they are a nuisance and annoyance, it is because they cause a serious risk of harm, or in this case, even death."

My bold and can we award a honorary "Super Twat award" for that bit?

I'm not sure it's warranted, given the context.

As I read it the judge wasn't saying that cyclists in general are a nuisance and an annoyance, just that cyclists in specific areas are a nuisance and an annoyance. The way I read his remarks I'd agree with him - I've been in a few pedestrianised shopping areas and found the cyclists riding through (despite the No Cycling signs) to be a nuisance and an annoyance. It's not that big an ask to get off and walk the bike if you really don't want to go round.

[Pedaldog.]

I think it sounds more like he was saying that Cycling bans are there because cyclists are a nuisance and an annoyance?

[contango]

I think it sounds more like he was saying that Cycling bans are there because cyclists are a nuisance and an annoyance?

The bit I don't find clear is whether he's saying that cyclists are a nuisance and an annoyance generally speaking, or just in specific settings. If the former then I agree a Super-Twat award is in order. If he's talking about cycling bans in specific areas is because cyclists in those areas are a nuisance and an annoyance he probably has a point.

Sadly trying to restrict antisocial or otherwise idiotic cycling is nigh on impossible because any case will turn into an argument over whether any specific piece of cycling was actually antisocial or idiotic and it benefits nobody to try and determine just how far away from a pedestrian you have to be before it counts as "idiotic", especially since a reasonable distance will depend on your speed, their speed, their direction and a whole host of other things. The close passes from vehicles that we detest so much are no more acceptable when it's an idiot cyclist buzzing a pedestrian. So if people on bikes become a problem the easy option is a "no cycling" sign.

[ian]

I'd rather be closely passed by an idiot on a Apollo mountain bike than an idiot in a Audi Q7.

It's not about cycling, we seem to breed our own peculiar class of antisocial idiot. If they weren't speeding through a pedestrian precinct they'd be up to some other sundry variety of no-good.

[P Walsh]

Cycling on busy pedestrianized shopping streets can be a nuisance. It's unnerving, a bit like someone kicking a football around close to you when you are lying on a beach.

This lad is a feral good-for-nothing who will make problems whatever he does. Next time he may kill someone with a car. It's a problem caused by him, not his mode of transport.

[tom_e]

This lad is a feral good-for-nothing who will make problems whatever he does. Next time he may kill someone with a car. It's a problem caused by him, not his mode of transport.

This. 

Someone rolling on their bike at walking pace is probably no more hazardous than pushing it.  But it's hard to make and enforce rules on selfish stupid behaviour like that.  It's much easier to have rules which say "no cars" and "no bikes".  Even a moron can comprehend those.  Unfortunately this particular lad seemingly won't be stopped by anything other than jail, which is a bit of a waste.

[mcshroom]

I read the judge's statement as explaining that bikes are not banned from pedestrian areas because they cause annoyance or are a nuisance (which is a perception I have met before), they are banned from areas because they could be dangerous.

I'm not sure it was any statement about whether they were actually annoying and/or a nuisance