Pedestrian killed by cyclist

[Greenbank]

Cyclist knocked down and killed teenage girl, court hears - Telegraph

"
A cyclist who ran down and killed a teenage girl as she walked along the pavement has denied a charge of dangerous cycling.

Jason Howard, 36, was allegedly heard shouting "move because I'm not stopping" as he hurtled towards a group of teenagers at around 20mph.

He admitted to police that he could have avoided the group but thought they would get out of his way, a court has heard.

Mr Howard struck Rhiannon Bennett, 17, with such force that he knocked her over and she struck her head on the pavement.
"

"
If convicted he faces a maximum fine of £2,000 pounds.
"

Google News link to other newspapers/websites: Google News

[Regulator]

I'm sorry but rather sensationalist reporting I think.  There is quite a bit in the story that simply doesn't add up and I wouldn't be surprised if he is acquitted.

I feel sorry for the girl's family but I think there is more to it than is being said.

[tiermat]

In summary:

1) Idiot gets on a bike
2) Idiot thinks it is ok to cycle on the pavement
3) Same idiot thinks it is ok to cycle AT SPEED on pavement
4) ditto thinks a simple shout will get peds to move whilst he is cycling on the pavement
5) accident ensues, persons injured, one critically
6) sensibly(or possibly not, due to head injury) the idiot puts the cruitically injured person in recovery position
7) Idiot admits to it all when questioned by the police
All cyclists labelled as idiot pedestrian killers....

Who loses? Cyclists, who wins? No-one

[Phil]

Oh dear

Bet that gets more attention than this deliberate murder. 

[spindrift]

In summary:

Kids swigging beer deliberately push a girkl in front of a cyclist.

No less misleading and fact-bereft than other posts here.

the story just doesn't add up, the beeb make no mention of pavement cycling.

Acquital, I think.

[blackpuddinonnabike]

If he admitted to the police that he could have avoided the group but though they would move then he's a dangerous idiot.

Equate this to a driver heading towards a group, not slowing down or moving out, and simply beeping his horn expecting them to get out of the way. The cyclist would be as irresponsible.

But there does appear to be an if which we need to let the court sort out.

From the article there is that initial comment that the cyclist admitted wrongdoing, then the rest is a group of kids who had been drinking, who initially moved out of the way when he shouted, but the girl in question stepped back out. Anyone who has cycled past a group of kids where one of them has pushed a friend out into the path of the bike, or at least made to do so, can understand what might have happened.

If he was on the pavement his culpability is even higher.

But all the ifs make it impossible for anyone other than the people involved and their consciences to know exactly.

[tiermat]

In summary:

Kids swigging beer deliberately push a girkl in front of a cyclist.

No less misleading and fact-bereft than other posts here.

the story just doesn't add up, the beeb make no mention of pavement cycling.

Acquital, I think.

Ahem

A cyclist who ran down and killed a teenage girl as she walked along the pavement has denied a charge of dangerous cycling.

[Regulator]

And of course, it isn't said whether he was on a shared 'farcility' or not...

[spindrift]

A cyclist who ran down and killed a teenage girl as she walked along the pavement has denied a charge of dangerous cycling.

The story's crap.

No mention of pavement:


BBC NEWS | UK | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Teenager in bicycle accident dies

[tiermat]

A cyclist who ran down and killed a teenage girl as she walked along the pavement has denied a charge of dangerous cycling.

The story's crap.

No mention of pavement:


BBC NEWS | UK | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Teenager in bicycle accident dies

And that story is soooooooooo in depth and detailed....

Twice in the Telegraph story is pavement mentioned, once as in my previous quote, and secondly when they mention she hit her head on the pavement....

Basically it sounds like the guy is a knob and it's all just a sorry story, as I previously mentioned, the only loses are cyclists (in the general publics eyes) as it is all just grist to their cyclist hating mill.

[Deano]

The Daily Mail (!) explains the situation:

Other members of the group gave conflicting accounts of where Rhiannon was when she was hit. One said she was on the pavement. But another said in a police statement that she believed the accident could have been avoided if Rhiannon had not stepped into the path of the cyclist.

When asked if that was what she still believed, she said: 'The cyclist was speeding down and there were a lot of young people on the road. She could have moved out of his way.'

So there is doubt about whether or not he was on the pavement. 

He still sounds like an idiot - if you're going past pedestrians, especially drunken teenagers, it's sensible to give them a wide berth.

[blackpuddinonnabike]

Bizarrely the Mirror has a slightly fuller report of the court proceedings.

The versions of events from the kids are contradictory to say the least, and there's still confusion over whether he was on the pavement or not.

The 'speeding' cyclist is a nod to sensationalism though.

[spindrift]

Mr Thompson said Howard maintained that Rhiannon was walking in the road when he struck her.

Howard, from Buckingham, denies dangerous cycling.

From The Mirror.

[blackpuddinonnabike]

Mr Thompson said Howard maintained that Rhiannon was walking in the road when he struck her.

Howard, from Buckingham, denies dangerous cycling.

From The Mirror.

Another friend said Howard clung close to the kerb before he veered on to the pavement, "cut the corner" and hit Rhiannon

From the Mirror

Which one is right?

[tiermat]

Isn't selective reading great Spindrift? read what you want to read, not what the article actually says...

Anyways what I don't understand is how they can say that he reached speeds of "at least 23mph"?  Did they have a speed gun setup whilst all this was going on? If they are going off the CCTV footage, how are they determining that the CCTV footage is true and accurate?

True, it's a sad story and my heart goes out to the girl's family.

[spindrift]

Isn't selective reading great Spindrift? read what you want to read, not what the article actually says...

News | This is London

There is nothing in this report that says the cyclist was riding on the pavement, as others have suggested.

It does states that he was travelling down the road, there is a comment at the end of the article that says

"Its illegal to cycle on the pavement",

 which is an interesting comment as many pavements have had cycle lanes added to them!

Maybe this guy could have avoided her and only he really knows why he didn't or why he chose not too.

So the reason I guess he has not been charged with a more serious offence is that she was crossing or walking in the road in front of him, negligence on her part too.

I will be very surprised if he gets convicted, he was not breaking the speed limit, he was not riding on the footpath or was he in any other contravention of any other road traffic offences

[Phil]

I know there aren't really any facts yet, but he's either a complete lunatic or the reporting is skewed.  I tried to imagine a situation in which I might have acted similarly and came up with this:

• kids see cyclist, spread out across road/pavement to hassle him
• cyclist decides that most sensible course of action is not to stop and find out whether their intentions are peaceful
• kids don't believe he won't stop
• nasty crunching sound ensues. 

Could be he's just a lunatic though. 

[Polar Bear]

Too many imponderables at the moment ...

As far as I can tell having read all I can find is that there is no conclusive evidence that the collision took place on the pavement.   I don't know how a group of drinkers can judge whether each other is 'all right' or not.   

Everything available is just too vague.

Tragic any way you look at it.

   

[spindrift]

Tragic any way you look at it.

It's horrible the girl's poor mum had to leave the court.

[Greenbank]

Anyways what I don't understand is how they can say that he reached speeds of "at least 23mph"?

Cycle computer? GPS?

Still, the exact speed is pretty irrelevant to the case.

[Dave]

Possibly a guesstimate from this:

The court heard that Howard, of Western Avenue, Buckingham, was travelling at between 23 mph and 17 mph down the road and was captured on CCTV.

[tiermat]

Anyways what I don't understand is how they can say that he reached speeds of "at least 23mph"?

Cycle computer? GPS?

Still, the exact speed is pretty irrelevant to the case.

agreed, but the reporting is a bit slack, if using a bike computer to show his top speed, who's to say he hasn't ridden down a steep hill just before he is caught on CCTV?  

I'll say it once again, carp carp carp.

[Ian H]

Oh dear

Bet that gets more attention than this deliberate murder. 

It certainly is in here.

[Regulator]

Oh dear

Bet that gets more attention than this deliberate murder. 

It certainly is in here.

But if you kill someone with a car, it isn't murder or manslaughter - simply a 'tragic accident' where no-one is to blame... 

[spindrift]

It's a terrible story given disproportionate and misleading coverage,  The Mail version is replicated in the Standard despite their recent damascene conversion to supporting cycling.