Not sure I would forecast an anti-cyclist result from from a jury of 65 yo pensioners. The deceased cyclist was a 77 yo lady, who clearly wasn't riding without regard...she was pretty slow and keeping well to one side.
An approaching pedestrian would not have found it difficult to keep out of the way, instead of which the offender here not only steadfastly held her course but swore and waved her arm about.
In other words, it could have been a model for cooperation. The 77 yo lady did her bit, given that she was riding on the footpath, and the offender wilfully didn't. I can well understand why she was on the footpath although she might have been better pushing it.
I don't think I would have expected a custodial sentence, which was possibly intended to be exemplary, but I would say guilty. Full disclosure, I'm 69 & 53/73rds, and a cycle user.
Regarding bias, that towards cyclists generally seems to be at an all time high, as, not surprisingly, is the hostility of some cyclists (most likely to be drivers themselves) to drivers. There is no equivalence in the risk to life posed by inappropriate behaviour of these two groups. The difference of course is that the cyclists basically can't hurt the drivers.
Even so, over 60% of "motorists" surveyed say aggressive cyclists "threaten their safety".
www.lbc.co.uk/news/majority-of-drivers-say-aggressive-cyclists-threaten-their-safety-on-britains-ro/
Leaving out the cyclists, a lot (maybe 25%) of motorists out there are a menace, with no regard for their relative speed or proximity to vulnerable road users. I would say the inverse proportion of cycle users worry every day about the risks they are subjected to.
|
