Headphones-wearing cyclist, 23, is cleared of ‘wanton or furious driving’ after smashing into ‘slow and unsteady’ pedestrian who died eight days later – after he told court ‘if cars can go 30mph why can’t bikes?’

16 comments

  2. I would never wear headphones cycling myself, but how is it different to a driver having the radio on loud?

    And the kinetic energy of a bike at 30mph is way less than a car’s at 30mph, so unless the stopping distance is greater why is that speed an issue?

  3. What a terrible article. He was going less than the speed limit and someone stepped out without looking. He did what he could to avoid them.

  5. Reading through the facts of the incident as presented, it doesn’t look like any laws were being broken at the time of the collision, it appears to be a tragic accident. That having been said I think there is room for greater regulation of cyclists. The rider did run a red light earlier that day and given the proximity of cycle lanes to pavements and the quietness of bikes, there is something to be said for more clarity on appropriate speeds, I’ve personally had more near misses as a pedestrian (I don’t drive or cycle) with cyclists than cars.

  7. To add to the cyclists own point: The Daily Mail would never highlight a driver listening to music as if it’s something outrageously irresponsible but a _cyclist_ doing it…

  8. > Mr Clare said he could remember thinking ‘if any one steps out’ they would collide with Mr De Bruin, and added: ‘Before I could even finish my thought, he had already hit the chap.’

    I’m not sure I believe Me Clare did have that incredibly prescient thought.

  9. > She told the court that she noticed how Mr Gunn had been walking ‘slowly and unsteady’ in the middle of the road and that he was looking ‘ahead and not left or right’ when he was crossing the road… The court heard Mr De Bruin he pressed his brakes and ‘tried to swerve to the right’ to avoid Mr Gunn, who had moved ‘backwards and forwards’ in an effort to avoid the oncoming cyclist.

    I know victim blaming is bad and all that but to me it reads like the pedestrian was a danger to himself and was the one more at fault for the incident. Not being aware of his surroundings while crossing the road and then behaving erratically when he did notice the cyclist very late.

    The cyclist was travelling at a speed well within the speed limit, applied his breaks hard (a witness heard them screeching) and swerved to try and avoid the victim. I honestly see no justification for this ending up in court.

  10. France has laws regarding the wearing of head/earphones while cycling and we do not. Didn’t need bringing up if you’re within the law using them.

  12. Rage inducing headline.

    Would a driver listening to music be prosecuted?

    No? Then fuck off. Its sad as hell but it was an accident. Music is hardly pertinent.

  13. Bruh these articles are getting out of hand, they’re trying to demonise every non taxable/green form of transportation, heck I wouldn’t be surprised if they find a way to make walking “a danger to society”

  14. Dear me, just the comments.

    My personal fav:
    > at 10-20 miles per hour a bicycle will likely cause more varied injuries to a pedestrian than a car, which are designed to reduce injury to pedestrians.

    Oh man, DM readers truly are fucking idiots.

  16. Usually, cars tend to be on the road where most people don’t walk and don’t tend to go flat out. Bikes tend to not do 30mph unless one is going flat out and at that speed, headphones shouldn’t be worn because it takes literal seconds to crash.

    ​

    Sadly, a person has died because of this arsehole’s lack of attention. But there are a severe lack of bike lanes. Even then, i doubt most cyclists go flat out unless it’s an electric bike.

    ​

    Most pay attention of their surrondings.

Leave a Reply