BBC confuses motorcycle with e-bike (deliberately?)

It looks like the pedestrian caused the crash to me. I don't know where that leaves them legally if they had injured themselves, the rider, or the rider had ended up sliding into someone else and injuring them.

I don't think there's compelling evidence to say it was the pedestrian's intention to cause the rider to fall. In that scenario, a momentary gesture, or even the perception of one by the rider travelling towards the pedestrian at pace - a twitch, a look, a drop of the shoulder - could easily have triggered a reflexive reaction. In contrast, the rider's behaviour seems clearly calculated aggression.

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I don't think there's compelling evidence to say it was the pedestrian's intention to cause the rider to fall. In that scenario, a momentary gesture, or even the perception of one by the rider travelling towards the pedestrian at pace - a twitch, a look, a drop of the shoulder - could easily have triggered a reflexive reaction. In contrast, the rider's behaviour seems clearly calculated aggression.

So are you saying it was a bit like the Auriol Grey scenario...? That the pedestrian was scared and reflexively lashed out at the person on two wheels but definitely never intended or envisioned that they might fall off...?

brooksby wrote:

So are you saying it was a bit like the Auriol Grey scenario...?

Not really, for reasons pointed out in others' comments.

I didn't suggest anything was "definitely never intended or envisioned". The point of my comment was that I don't believe there is compelling evidence as to intent or otherwise (others are asserting there was).

Sriracha wrote:

Walesonline reports:

Quote:

when the pedestrian saw him coming towards him he held out his hands in a "slow down type gesture". The court heard that as Stanciu raced past the man he struck his victim's hand before losing control of his bike, falling off, and sliding along the wet road.

That has a "he ran into my fist" sort of ring to it. I can fully empathise with the pedestrian, I've had exactly the same impulse in similar circumstances. But I do believe he deliberately caused the crash. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/teenage-biker-hits-pedestr...

It's like when cars close pass - if you can touch them, then they're too close. I must admit to not having any sympathy for the bike rider and hopefully they've learnt an important lesson.

Blimey, given Wales Online's normal anti-cyclist bias, that is quite impressive. It only refers to the chav's bike as a "motorbike".

I think you're probably correct that the pedestrian caused the chav to fall off his (illegal) bike but, given that said chav seems to be a disgusting POS with an extensive criminal record, I'm not losing much sleep over it.

Eton Rifle wrote:

said chav seems to be a disgusting POS with an extensive criminal record

You prompted me to Google him... POS is generous. Fingers crossed he's deported.
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wannabe-gangster-poses-group-maske...

It's an interesting one this. I do think there are 'shades of Auriol Grey' to it.

The location looks to be here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dSssfk6dZMtivTfm7

It's a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am. The timestamp on the video is 16:55, so a pedestrian might expect vehicles to be using that street around the time of the incident.

Now, clearly this is an illegal motorbike being driven carelessly (if not dangerously), due to the excessive speed. The risks are orders of magnitude greater than a cyclist riding carefully on a shared pavement (or regular pavement). There is a line where force can be used to prevent a crime from occuring, but it's questionable whether this meets that bar.

If this pedestrian did deliberately knock the rider off their bike and the rider was very seriously injured or killed, then was that use of force proportionate? We would only find out if it had gone to court, but I suspect the pedestrian could have been in a whole heap of trouble.

HoarseMann wrote:

It's an interesting one this. I do think there are 'shades of Auriol Grey' to it.

The location looks to be here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dSssfk6dZMtivTfm7

It's a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am. The timestamp on the video is 16:55, so a pedestrian might expect vehicles to be using that street around the time of the incident.

Now, clearly this is an illegal motorbike being driven carelessly (if not dangerously), due to the excessive speed. The risks are orders of magnitude greater than a cyclist riding carefully on a shared pavement (or regular pavement). There is a line where force can be used to prevent a crime from occuring, but it's questionable whether this meets that bar.

If this pedestrian did deliberately knock the rider off their bike and the rider was very seriously injured or killed, then was that use of force proportionate? We would only find out if it had gone to court, but I suspect the pedestrian could have been in a whole heap of trouble.

There's a clear difference between this and Auriol Grey though in that Auriol moved towards her victim in order to remonstrate/assault, whereas this instance doesn't show that kind of deliberate aggression.

Personally, I think that if someone is close enough that merely lifting your hand up causes contact, then they're within your personal space and shouldn't be travelling at speed as that's clearly dangerous (to themselves by the look of things).

hawkinspeter wrote:

Personally, I think that if someone is close enough that merely lifting your hand up causes contact, then they're within your personal space and shouldn't be travelling at speed as that's clearly dangerous (to themselves by the look of things).

Which is the argument used on here a lot, that if your car was close enough for me to touch it then you were driving too close! 

In that most of us do not have 1.2m long arms, touchable is egregious close.

It looks to me as if the pedestrian deliberately knocked the rider off, but it's difficult to say for sure. What we can see from the streetview, is the pedestrian would have been able to see the rider coming from quite some distance, as the road is quite straight.

As pointed out by jh2727, vehicles can be expected on this road from 5pm and loading/disabled vehicles prior to this time, so it's not exclusively pedestrianised. Add to that the wet conditions, with a covered walkway available to the pedestrians left side and I do wonder why this pedestrian was walking in the road - they didn't appear to be crossing the street.

Seeing some footage a few seconds prior would be interesting, to see if the pedestrian moved from the pavement into the road; a deliberate action in order to obstruct the rider perhaps? They could have seen them coming from some way off.

The hand behind the back is perhaps telling too - almost like they were primed to lash out. I guess this wasn't probed too much, as it was the rider being prosecuted, not the pedestrian.

Irrespective of the actions of the pedestrian, it was dangerous driving.

HoarseMann wrote:

It's a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am. 

Google streetview for that area is about 13 years old, but if it's still the same restrictions, it isn't "a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am"

It is a pedestrianised street between 10:30am and 5pm, Monday to Saturday, where loading and disabled access are permitted at all times. Before 10:30am, after 5pm and all day on Sunday, there are no restrictions.

*edit - the Streetview photos which show the signage are newer - from 2022.

*edit2 - not that this in anyway legitimises riding an unlicensed motorbike there, at anytime.

Whilst I do not condone violence...

The rider was riding at excessive speed on an area which is evidently not meant for motor vehicles.
The rider rode towards and exceptionally close to the pedestrian, probably in an attempt to intimidate/scare him and thus feel "empowered" when it had plenty of space to pass more safely (which is debatable anyway given the speed etc).

I'm glad the pedestrian didn't appear to be significantly hurt by the impact, regardless of whether he intended the rider to fall off by extending his arm/hand.

Basically, the rider was an idiot.
It F-ed about and found out the results of its actions.

mitsky wrote:

Whilst I do not condone violence...

The rider was riding at excessive speed on an area which is evidently not meant for motor vehicles.
The rider rode towards and exceptionally close to the pedestrian, probably in an attempt to intimidate/scare him and thus feel "empowered" when it had plenty of space to pass more safely (which is debatable anyway given the speed etc).

I'm glad the pedestrian didn't appear to be significantly hurt by the impact, regardless of whether he intended the rider to fall off by extending his arm/hand.

Basically, the rider was an idiot.
It F-ed about and found out the results of its actions.

The pedestrian suffered a fractured wrist - scaphoid bone, which is quite slow healing. One of the articles reports that he had to wear plaster cast and was 'under the care of medics' for 2 months. He will have been in a cast and unable to drive or cycle for at least 6 months.