# Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death



## Pale Rider (17 Sep 2016)

A cyclist has been charged following a fatal collision with a pedestrian.

Details are scant, but it appears Charlie Alliston hit Kim Briggs as she used a pedestrian crossing in Old Street, central London.

Ms Briggs died 'about a week later' in hospital.

The charge 'causing bodily harm by wilful misconduct' is an unusual one.

It's contrary to a section of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861.

Despite being an old Act, other sections are still in very common use.

Most assault charges - assault occasioning actual bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm, and unlawful wounding - are all contrary to sections of it.

The wording of the charge faced by the cyclist suggests he is not being held responsible for the death of Ms Briggs, only for injuring her.

Seems odd given that she died only a week or so later.

There may be medical evidence which proves the cyclist did not cause the death, only an injury.

But on the face of it, the charge looks an odd one.

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2016/09/14/bicycle-death-old-street-kim-briggs-man-charged/


----------



## alicat (17 Sep 2016)

As you say, details are scant and perhaps Ms Briggs' death was not caused by the collision.


----------



## mjr (17 Sep 2016)

Yes, an odd charge. Strange not to use the cycling offences. Possibly the cycling is incidental?


----------



## midlife (17 Sep 2016)

Maybe Ms Briggs threw a pulmonary embolism or similar semi random event not directly attributable to the original injury?

Shaun


----------



## velovoice (17 Sep 2016)

After several re-readings of that uninformative article linked to in the OP, I wonder - is it possible it was the young man who was on foot and the now-deceased who was on a bicycle?


----------



## midlife (17 Sep 2016)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...into-by-a-cyclist-at-old-street-a3198936.html

There are a few more articles to read that cover it a bit better, the above example having more info

Shaun


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Sep 2016)

The man charged was riding a bike.

This BBC article is even shorter on detail, but does make that clear.

I suspect the explanation is as been alluded to upthread.

The cyclist is charged with causing a relatively minor physical injury during the collision, but the victim died from an unrelated medical condition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37365010


----------



## velovoice (17 Sep 2016)

Thanks for additional coverage. As you say, an odd case.


----------



## Slick (18 Sep 2016)

What a waste. Hopefully the family get more answers than reported so far.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Sep 2016)

Whilst it may well be that the cyclist has done wrong, befitting the charge, it does also seem a marked contrast that this is an assault charge, yet deliberately driving a car at someone is usually dangerous driving or even careless driving - eg the range rover deliberately driven into the toddler in a trailer recenlty.


----------



## Slick (18 Sep 2016)

I'm obviously no lawyer, but I have heard about assault charges being used in other strange circumstances. A young scaffolder in London was immediately charged with causing grievous bodily harm when a tube slipped from his grasp and struck 2 pedestrians below.


----------



## jarlrmai (19 Sep 2016)

It's odd to find a case where the doctors have stated that cause of death was not in someway attributed to a recent prior trauma.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Oct 2016)

He appeared at the Old Bailey today and his 3-day trial has been set for January 2017.


----------



## Dannz (4 Nov 2016)

*35 Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.*
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.

Something to keep in mind for motorists who by wilful neglect cause bodily harm to cyclists. (this would include cuts, grazes, bruises etc.).

In 2009 a cyclist was prosecuted under this section after he had ridden on the pavement and hit and killed an 84-year old pedestrian. Hall was jailed for seven months: http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

In principle, a cyclist who runs a red light and e.g. causes a car to brake suddenly resulting in whiplash injury might be prosecuted under this since there was 'wilful misconduct' by going through the red light.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Aug 2017)

Trial scheduled for today, 14 August, at the Old Bailey

_Court 11 at 10am New trial of Charlie Alliston,20, a cyclist, who hit and killed mother-of-two Kim Briggs, 44, as she was on her lunch break in Old Street, central London, on 12 February last year. The victim worked as an HR executive. He is accused of wanton and furious riding and his bike allegedly had no front brake._


----------



## RoubaixCube (14 Aug 2017)

I see some nitpicking to find an excuse for charges....

No front brake? How about his rear brake? If his front brake wasnt working but his rear brake was then thats not something that can be taken into account as cause of death other than for the cyclists own safety. Was his rear brake working? If not then why wasnt that mentioned either? Was there a 3rd party involved that immediately inspected the bike after the collision and claimed the front brake wasnt operational? 

Though at a pedestrian crossing... He should have stopped. 

Hes guilty of being a nob.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Aug 2017)

RoubaixCube said:


> I see some nitpicking to find an excuse for charges....
> 
> No front brake? How about his rear brake? If his front brake wasnt working but his rear brake was then thats not something that can be taken into account as cause of death other than for the cyclists own safety. Was his rear brake working? If not then why wasnt that mentioned either? Was there a 3rd party involved that immediately inspected the bike after the collision and claimed the front brake wasnt operational?
> 
> ...



The suggestion is that the bike lacked a front brake, not that it wasn't working. Perhaps it was a fixie and he didn't bother making it road legal. We'll have to wait for more details from the trial.


----------



## RoubaixCube (14 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The suggestion is that the bike lacked a front brake, not that it wasn't working. Perhaps it was a fixie and he didn't bother making it road legal. We'll have to wait for more details from the trial.



Ahh good point, I guess I misunderstood the context.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Aug 2017)

RoubaixCube said:


> Ahh good point, I guess I misunderstood the context.




From road.cc:

_"[The prosecutor] ...alleged that the bike lacked a front brake, and that at trial the prosecution would address issues including “the condition of the bike and its roadworthiness” and “whether it should have had a brake fitted to the front wheel.”

Alliston’s counsel said however that the defence would seek to establish that a front brake “wouldn’t have heeded his ability to stop any quicker as he was a competent rider.”_​
Er, good luck with that one.


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2017)

Clearly he wasn't a competent rider or he wouldn't have killed someone.


----------



## jefmcg (14 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> From road.cc:


Also contains the answer to the original query raised by this thread

'Paul Jarvis, prosecuting, told yesterday’s hearing: “There is no homicide charge which relates to riding a bike,” reports the Hackney Gazette'


----------



## PK99 (14 Aug 2017)

the bike (type) in the case

From the planet x website (my emphasis)

_The Pro Carbon Track bike is a* speed weapon.* Constructed from high quality Toray T700 carbon fibre, its lightweight frame is amazingly rigid and efficient.* Ideal for hammering around the velodrome at full gas*, the Pro Carbon Track is ridden to victory by countless club and elite racers!_

And part of Guardian report:

_A “dangerous” cyclist knocked down and killed a pedestrian on a busy London street and then blamed his victim, saying people have “zero respect”, a court heard.

Charlie Alliston, then aged 18, was said to be going nearly 20mph when he mowed down Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street, east London, on 12 February last year.

The 44-year-old mother of two was on her lunch break when the crash happened.

Alliston was riding a “fixie”, a fixed-gear track bicycle with no front break, which is not legal on the road without modification.

He allegedly shouted at Briggs to “get out of the way” twice before their heads smashed together. Briggs suffered brain injuries including two skull fractures and died a week later.

After seeing a newspaper report about the incident, Alliston posted a comment online claiming he tried to warn her but she “ignored me” and “stopped dead” in his path.

He wrote: “I feel bad due to the seriousness of her injuries but I can put my hand up and say this is not my fault.”

On an internet forum he described how their heads collided and hers “ricocheted” into his. He wrote: “It is a pretty serious incident so I won’t bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault but she did not deserve it.”_


----------



## jefmcg (14 Aug 2017)

Wow. I know the Telegraph is a definite "lycra lout" paper, but he is looking really bad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...strian-high-speed-crash-said-people-had-zero/

This is apparently him online after the accident but before she died. He was eighteen, so of course he is an idiot, but it's way more than that. I'm unsurprised he's been charged with manslaughter.


The Telegraph said:


> He wrote: "I feel bad due to the seriousness of her injuries but I can put my hand up and say this is not my fault."
> On an internet forum he described how their heads collided and hers "ricocheted" into his.
> He wrote: "It is a pretty serious incident so I won't bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault but she did not deserve it."
> He went on to claim Mrs Briggs had been on her mobile phone at the time of the accident.
> ...


----------



## PK99 (14 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The suggestion is that the bike lacked a front brake, not that it wasn't working. Perhaps *it was a fixie and he didn't bother making it road legal.* We'll have to wait for more details from the trial.



that has been confirmed the trial.

Up thread, all the posts making excuses for the cyclist and making random speculations on the cause of death make depressing reading.


----------



## TVC (14 Aug 2017)

Daily mail clickbait, please copy and paste so we don't give them traffic.


----------



## Y2k1 (14 Aug 2017)

That poor family. I dont care if its a cyclist or a driver. If you kill someone on the road accident or not, you should get a minimum of 10 years. But obviously its drivers that are the killers. 

The guy will probably get parole after 2 and a half years such a joke is our legal system.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (14 Aug 2017)

Covered here: 

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/an-unusual-case.207295/


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> View attachment 368050
> 
> 
> the bike (type) in the case
> ...



Well, I think his words have just kneecapped any mitigation his solicitor might invent.


----------



## stiffknees (14 Aug 2017)

The arrogance and refusal to take responsibility of the pillock on that bike has just made cycling a lot more enemies.


----------



## User6179 (14 Aug 2017)

RoubaixCube said:


> Though at a pedestrian crossing... He should have stopped.



I think but not sure that it was a Pelican crossing going by the pictures in the papers so the cyclist maybe had a green light and the victim maybe walked out into the road, it seems going by what is being reported that the lack of front brake meant the cyclist could not stop in time.

I have no idea how good/bad the braking is on a fixie and whether it would be able to brake quicker with a front brake, maybe someone could comment?


----------



## Ian H (14 Aug 2017)

The best you can hope for, without a brake, is to lock the back wheel either with your shoe or (more difficult) by locking your legs. Either way you will slide quite a long way if you're travelling at speed.

He's a young man, so should have a long time to grow up and realise just what he's done.


----------



## PK99 (14 Aug 2017)

Eddy said:


> I think but not sure that it was a Pelican crossing going by the pictures in the papers so the cyclist maybe had a green light and the victim maybe walked out into the road, it seems going by what is being reported that the lack of front brake meant the cyclist could not stop in time.
> 
> I have no idea how good/bad the braking is on a fixie and whether it would be able to brake quicker with a front brake, maybe someone could comment?



Sheldon Brown:

_Track bicycles do not have brakes. Brakes are unnecessary on tracks, since everybody is moving in the same direction, and none of the other cyclists you are riding with can stop any faster than you can. (Most tracks forbid the use of bikes that have brakes, as a safety measure!)
_
and from Pearson cycles:
_
If you're worried that repeatedly using a fixed back wheel could cause knee problems, opinions differ. William Pearson, of Pearson, says the key to slowing down is to "put your legs into neutral" and use the front brake_


----------



## Y2k1 (14 Aug 2017)

Ian H said:


> The best you can hope for, without a brake, is to lock the back wheel either with your shoe or (more difficult) by locking your legs. Either way you will slide quite a long way if you're travelling at speed.
> 
> He's a young man, so should have a long time to grow up and realise just what he's done.



When I was 18 I knew that riding a bike with no breaks and killing a woman is wrong.

The guy has no empathy. Its that simple. He is one of the vain me generation hipsters.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I'm unsurprised he's been charged with manslaughter



He's not been charged with manslaughter but with dangerous and wanton driving, see my earlier post >> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/an-unusual-case.207295/#post-4917420


----------



## User6179 (14 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> Sheldon Brown:
> 
> _Track bicycles do not have brakes. Brakes are unnecessary on tracks, since everybody is moving in the same direction, and none of the other cyclists you are riding with can stop any faster than you can. (Most tracks forbid the use of bikes that have brakes, as a safety measure!)_



It said no front brake in the article so I assumed it had some sort of back brake but not no brakes, mental !


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Aug 2017)

Ian H said:


> The best you can hope for, without a brake, is to lock the back wheel either with your shoe or (more difficult) by locking your legs. Either way you will slide quite a long way if you're travelling at speed.



Locking a wheel is the worst you can hope for; it shows that you've broken traction with the road surface and will therefore take longer to stop, and you've lost control of your vehicle.


----------



## PK99 (14 Aug 2017)

Eddy said:


> It said no front brake in the article so I assumed it had some sort of back brake but not no brakes, mental !



the only brake is the fixed wheel - as you say, mental on the road.


----------



## jefmcg (14 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> He's not been charged with manslaughter but with dangerous and wanton driving, see my earlier post >> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/an-unusual-case.207295/#post-4917420


From the telegraph article 

"In a legal first, he also faces an additional charge of the manslaughter of Mrs Briggs from Lewisham, south London."


----------



## Ian H (14 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Locking a wheel is the worst you can hope for; it shows that you've broken traction with the road surface and will therefore take longer to stop, and you've lost control of your vehicle.



In the given context it's about the only braking you will achieve. Which was my point.


----------



## voyager (14 Aug 2017)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2017)

Even if, as he asserts, the lady launched herself without warning, does the careful and competent road user not moderate their speed a bit and take extra care when in proximity of a crossing?


----------



## Cycleops (14 Aug 2017)

The cyclist claims the woman was at fault as she was on her phone.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told


----------



## jefmcg (14 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> From the telegraph article
> 
> "In a legal first, he also faces an additional charge of the manslaughter of Mrs Briggs from Lewisham, south London."


The Guardian concurs.
--


glasgowcyclist said:


> Perhaps it was a fixie and he didn't *bother* making it road legal.


I suspected it was more positive than this suggests and indeed...



The Guardian said:


> Alliston told police he had been riding a fixed-gear bike since 2014, having removed the front brake from a previous model.
> 
> In 2015, he tweeted: “The time when you first take your brakes off and feeling like you’re in a lucasbrunelle movie,” in apparent reference to an American bike stunt film-maker.


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2017)




----------



## PK99 (14 Aug 2017)

Drago said:


> Even if, as he asserts, the lady launched herself without warning, does the careful and competent road user not moderate their speed a bit and take extra care when in proximity of a crossing?



The definition in wiki is very pertinent :

Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, landing on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the _mens rea_ required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is also termed "unlawful act" or "constructive" manslaughter.


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2017)

I was commenting more about how a conscientious road user - as the fixie riding chap feels himself to be - would act, rather than making an observation about any aspect of the pertinent legislation.

He is commenting that the victim was reckless in her actions, while conveniently neglecting to mention that he was acting in a reckless manner himself with several different aspects of his behaviour.


----------



## damj (14 Aug 2017)

Absolutely no remorse. Worrying.


----------



## vickster (14 Aug 2017)

@voyager 
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/an-unusual-case.207295/post-4917817


----------



## fimm (14 Aug 2017)

Bad bicycle.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Aug 2017)

I think he probably views a track bike without brakes as some sort badge of bravado completely ignoring any aspect of safety or what could go wrong. Well, something has now gone wrong and instead of having any remorse he blames his victim. When he does get convicted, as I'm sure he will, a psychiatrist will say he has some condition which prevents him feeling any regard for others.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> From the telegraph article
> 
> "In a legal first, he also faces an additional charge of the manslaughter of Mrs Briggs from Lewisham, south London."





jefmcg said:


> The Guardian concurs.



I'm going by the details given in the Old Bailey listings link I included in my post where only the wanton and furious driving is mentioned.

It wouldn't make sense that Alliston was additionally charged with manslaughter, perhaps it is an alternative charge.


----------



## User33236 (14 Aug 2017)

Cycleops said:


> I think he probably views a track bike without brakes as some sort badge of bravado completely ignoring any aspect of safety or what could go wrong. Well, something has now gone wrong and instead of having any remorse he blames his victim. When he does get convicted, as I'm sure he will, a *psychiatrist will say he has some condition which prevents him feeling any regard for others.*


I think they'd also have to prove not knowing right from wrong. I know I have little regard for others but still know when I have done something socially unacceptable. 

Nothing wrong with this bloke except being young and feeling invincible. 

Hopefully they throw the book at him and give him plenty of time to reflect on his misdemeanours.


----------



## MacB (14 Aug 2017)

Cycleops said:


> When he does get convicted, as I'm sure he will, a psychiatrist will say he has some condition which prevents him feeling any regard for others.



You don't need doctors to diagnose someone suffering from being 18


----------



## srw (14 Aug 2017)

User33236 said:


> Hopefully they throw the book at him


I rather hope is trial is conducted in accordance with the law and isn't prejudiced by online speculation...


----------



## stiffknees (14 Aug 2017)

He's got a face you just want to punch.

If it was his mum who died he'd be wailing all over twatter, arzbook and everywhere, demanding justice, suing all and sundry.
His is the face of modern youth with all its entitled arrogance. Belting down the road shouting get out the way?
Cyclists deserve consideration but that works both ways.

He's got a face you just want to punch., oh I just said that didn't I


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2017)

If he gets found guilty they'll pass him round as currency in prison. He won't feel so entitled and arrogant after that


----------



## User33236 (14 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> I rather hope is trial is conducted in accordance with the law and isn't prejudiced by online speculation...


I am sure if will be and, hopefully, the jurors will hear the evidence they need to find guilty or innocent as they see fit. However his own statement shortly after the event which in the public domain cant have gone down well if presented to them.


----------



## jefmcg (14 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> He's got a face you just want to punch.
> 
> If it was his mum who died he'd be wailing all over twatter, arzbook and everywhere, demanding justice, suing all and sundry.
> His is the face of modern youth with all its entitled arrogance. Belting down the road shouting get out the way?
> ...


Yeah, let's make convictions on the basis of how annoying people are on Twitter


----------



## stiffknees (14 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Yeah, let's make convictions on the basis of how annoying people are on Twitter



That not what I wrote at all is it?

although convicting people who use twatter is not such a bad idea.

Two children have needlessly lost their mum, a bloke has lost his wife,and folk are debating his bike? this idiot should apologise to the trees for wasting the oxygen they made. I hope he gets a jail term, the only bike in there will be him and ridden daily.


----------



## KnackeredBike (14 Aug 2017)

I wonder whether a motorist driving a car with defective brakes/tyres would also get manslaughter or just a C&U offence?

I say "I wonder", the way the police behave they would probably give them a medal.


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2017)

@stiffknees gets my vote for Justice Minister.


----------



## stiffknees (14 Aug 2017)

I thang you Drago. 

When cyclist are on the end of so much dislike,justified or not, I have to wonder about those who are debating the bicycle ins and outs of this affair rather than lament the death of a young mum. Last time I was in London, walking through Hyde Park at office chucking out time I was quite taken aback at the aggression from a lot of the cyclists I encountered in the park which has plentiful cycle lanes. Especially these right on hipster types. 

I also ride motorcycles and am an advocate of aggressive defensive riding, but I have yet to kill anyone, not even myself, and this year I have been riding motorcycles for 55yrs. I give a polite warning toot when approaching a rider, and a wide berth, I have even been known to slow down to give a panting rider a bit of a tug; now and again my polite toot is rewarded with the one finger salute [shite, if I made you jump, take the bloody earphones out]


The question has to be asked, Are some types of cyclists their own worst enemy?


----------



## mjr (14 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> Last time I was in London, walking through Hyde Park at office chucking out time I was quite taken aback at the aggression from a lot of the cyclists I encountered in the park which has plentiful cycle lanes. Especially these right on hipster types.


That must be a different Hyde Park to the one I ride through which seems to be trying to squash the cycling boom into a fraction of the width of a minority of the routes through the park, adding crash hazards to the places where walkers cross and closing cycle lanes seemingly on a whim with no advance warning with the only options being a U-turn or a dismount+push that disabled riders cannot easily do! While motorists are also restricted to a minority of routes, I've yet to see the park put up "alight and push" signs for drivers.



stiffknees said:


> The question has to be asked, Are some types of cyclists their own worst enemy?


Yes. The ones who are screaming to convict other cyclists before the evidence is all heard are the worst by far


----------



## slowmotion (14 Aug 2017)

User said:


> The question you could ask yourself is why do some people react badly to my polite toot? Does it sound polite at the receiving end?


With their headphones in, they don't hear it. There must be an alternative explanation.


----------



## Wobblers (14 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> I also ride motorcycles and am an advocate of aggressive defensive riding, but I have yet to kill anyone, not even myself, and this year I have been riding motorcycles for 55yrs. I give a polite warning toot when approaching a rider, and a wide berth, I have even been known to slow down to give a panting rider a bit of a tug; now and again my polite toot is rewarded with the one finger salute [shite, if I made you jump, take the bloody earphones out]



It is rather difficult to distinguish a "polite toot" with the other type indicating:

*"GET OUT OF MY WAY"*

It's hardily surprising that you get that sort of response.

You don't need the horn. If you're on a motorbike, they already know you're there. Try a cheery wave as you go past on a wide berth, I bet you'll get a more polite gesture back in return.


----------



## Wobblers (14 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> That not what I wrote at all is it?
> 
> although convicting people who use twatter is not such a bad idea.
> 
> Two children have needlessly lost their mum, a bloke has lost his wife,and folk are debating his bike? this idiot should apologise to the trees for wasting the oxygen they made. I hope he gets a jail term, the only bike in there will be him and ridden daily.



Uh, no. I'd far rather people were convicted on the crimes that can be proven that they did. It's this thing we call _justice_, you see. After all, if it's as clear as you're making out, it shouldn't take too long, should it?


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> Are some* types* of cyclists their own worst enemy?


Nope.

Are there individuals who are their own worst enemy? Ah - that's different.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> I have to wonder about those who are debating the bicycle ins and outs of this affair



What do you mean by 'bicycle ins and outs'?


----------



## voyager (15 Aug 2017)

At the end of the day a cyclist with only one brake ( a fixed wheel ) knocked down a pedestrian who died a week later . 
What ever the outcome of this case let us hope that the message gets through to all track bike riders and brakeless bmx riders that brakes are a legal and useful part of everyday cycling on the road.
When we rode to our local track meets we road fixies to the track and removed the front brake before scruteneering and then raced and refitted the brake to ride home.

This case is trying to open up a can of worms using very old laws that have been on the books for more than a century. 

The outcome will be very interesting.

Yes I still own an old fixie and still enjoy riding it ( with a front brake )

regards emma


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

Indeed, they simply don't care.


----------



## swansonj (15 Aug 2017)

Hands up anyone who, when they were a young adult, didn't behave at some time or another in a way that was reckless, selfish, dangerous, and probably illegal. It seems to be a characteristic of growing up that we do not emerge from childhood as the fully wise and mature and responsible adults that we have now all become, but go through an irresponsible phase on the way. 

Society needs to set bounds, and behaving in a public space in a way that has a significant potential to injure someone else is clearly and unequivocally unacceptable*. But it seems to me that being occasionally reckless and silly and yes selfish is part of being young and we'd lose something if we ever managed to eradicate it. Some of this thread has just a slight whiff of old-fogey-ism about it. 

*i am 99% sure someone will ignore the fact that I said this and accuse me of condoning the manslaughter of innocent pedestrians


----------



## voyager (15 Aug 2017)

That was like the 4 morons on brakeless bmxs i saw yesterday riding though the centre of Brighton.

They look cool as one youngster told me when I asked , he uses his foot on the tyre to stop ..


----------



## Fab Foodie (15 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Yeah, let's make convictions on the basis of how annoying people are on Twitter


It would be a good start .....


----------



## mjr (15 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What do you mean by 'bicycle ins and outs'?


https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/can-you-sleep-with-your-bike-on-a-ferry.221858/ - fnarr!


----------



## mjr (15 Aug 2017)

voyager said:


> At the end of the day a cyclist with only one brake ( a fixed wheel ) knocked down a pedestrian who died a week later .
> What ever the outcome of this case let us hope that the message gets through to all track bike riders and brakeless bmx riders that brakes are a legal and useful part of everyday cycling on the road.


That would be one hell of a way to misunderstand it! Riding with only a back brake isn't great, but plenty of people in bustling Amsterdam ride with only a weak rear coaster brake without mass carnage. I think the rider's attitude had much more to do with it than the bike.

If you are going to pass so close to someone that you couldn't miss them if they stepped out, you're going too close or too fast, so pass wider or slow down. Ride so you can stop within what you can see to be clear, not what you merely can't see to be obstructed yet.


----------



## PK99 (15 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> That would be one hell of a way to misunderstand it! Riding with only a back brake isn't great, but plenty of people in bustling Amsterdam ride with only a weak rear coaster brake without mass carnage. I think the rider's attitude had much more to do with it than the bike.
> 
> If you are going to pass so close to someone that you couldn't miss them if they stepped out, you're going too close or too fast, so pass wider or slow down. Ride so you can stop within what you can see to be clear, not what you merely can't see to be obstructed yet.



The bikes they ride in Amsterdam a Bimble Machines not Speed Weapons.


----------



## stiffknees (15 Aug 2017)

User said:


> The question you could ask yourself is why do some people react badly to my polite toot? Does it sound polite at the receiving end?



I give a quick touch on the horn button, well in advance, I don't come up behind a rider who has ear phones in and give a mighty blast and scare the crap out of him/her.


----------



## stiffknees (15 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> That must be a different Hyde Park to the one I ride through which seems to be trying to squash the cycling boom into a fraction of the width of a minority of the routes through the park, adding crash hazards to the places where walkers cross and closing cycle lanes seemingly on a whim with no advance warning with the only options being a U-turn or a dismount+push that disabled riders cannot easily do! While motorists are also restricted to a minority of routes, I've yet to see the park put up "alight and push" signs for drivers.
> 
> 
> Yes. The ones who are screaming to convict other cyclists before the evidence is all heard are the worst by far



This guy has convicted himself out of his own gob.

No it was that same Hyde park,some years ago, I never return to London any more, but I do remember it was like walking into a stampede, most of which was not using the cycle lanes, a bit of abuse chucked at this old bloke too. Not exactly ambassadors for cycling. Even old blokes in suits can be cyclists incognito. Antagonising your friends is not a good idea.

There is only one public road through the park, and a ring road. I knew Hyde park when the fastest thing down that road was a prostitute who spotted a cop.
All the cycle routes that have been provided are after all, a concession,not a right, it would take only a shift in political attude to have them removed.

Cyclists need to make friends with non-cyclists, not enemies.


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> This guy has convicted himself out of his own gob.



Oh aye, the prosecutor is going to weaponise those words and prevent him from concocting an excuse or defense, and if he's found guilty those words are the kiss of death to any of the vanilla reasons mitigation, such as genuine remorse etc.

He's going down, and hard.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (15 Aug 2017)

Most of what I've read about this today was on the Yahoo website, where the anti-cyclist hate fest is in full flow.


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

With prats killing people using brakeless track bikes on the road its no wonder the hairy palmed Mail readers are baying for cyclists blood. As a minority road user we get ten times the scrutiny as the mainstream car drivers, and each infraction draws ten times the criticism from that quarter - its wrong, but that's the way it is.


----------



## Bazzer (15 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> I give a quick touch on the horn button, well in advance, I don't come up behind a rider who has ear phones in and give a mighty blast and scare the crap out of him/her.



Struggling to see why you need to warn another road user and specifically a cyclist of your presence. Particularly if you are giving them sufficient room as you pass.
Indeed, I can see an argument that by doing it, you might actually cause a problem in the future. Because there could be one time a cyclist hears a horn and they should be taking notice of it. Instead they choose to ignore it because they have been conditioned by some motorcyclist who sets off his horn every time he passes them, just to let them know he is there, not to warn them of something.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Aug 2017)

Drago said:


> With prats killing people using brakeless track bikes on the road its no wonder the hairy palmed Mail readers are baying for cyclists blood. As a minority road user we get ten times the scrutiny as the mainstream car drivers, and each infraction draws ten times the criticism from that quarter - its wrong, but that's the way it is.



Hold on a mo Drago, there's been one death at the hands of one rider on a bike with no front brake, an extremely rare event. The DM style of fury-inducing coverage is wrong and we (the general public) do not have to accept it and the resultant overblown criticism as 'the way it is', let alone perpetuate it.

I get this kind of stuff at work when criticism of people cycling gets blown out of proportion and delivered as if it's a universal truth. 
I always firmly reject it. 

Maybe I'm a lone voice with little or no effect but I'm not going to let such people think they have a reasonable point of view at the expense of a generally benign transport mode without saying something to them.


----------



## PK99 (15 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Hold on a mo Drago, there's been one death at the hands of one rider on a bike with no front brake, an extremely rare event. * The DM style of fury-inducing coverage is wrong* and we (the general public) do not have to accept it and the resultant overblown criticism as 'the way it is', let alone perpetuate it.
> 
> I get this kind of stuff at work when criticism of people cycling gets blown out of proportion and delivered as if it's a universal truth.
> I always firmly reject it.
> ...



So essy to be glib and dismissive about the DM....

http*://www.bbc.co.uk*/news/uk-england-london-40927791

https://www.*theguardian*.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told

http://www*.independent.*co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dangerous-cyclist-charlie-alliston-mowed-down-killed-kim-briggs-east-london-old-street-old-bailey-a7893446.html

http://www.*telegraph*.co.uk/news/2017/08/14/cyclist-killed-pedestrian-high-speed-crash-said-people-had-zero/

https://www.*standard*.co.uk/news/crime/cyclist-accused-of-fatally-ploughing-into-motheroftwo-shouted-at-her-as-she-lay-dying-a3612026.html

http://www*.mirror*.co.uk/news/uk-news/people-zero-respect-cyclist-who-10987344


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> So essy to be glib and dismissive about the DM....



I mentioned that shitrag because it was referenced in the post I was replying to.


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> So essy to be glib and dismissive about the DM....
> 
> http*://www.bbc.co.uk*/news/uk-england-london-40927791
> 
> ...


They all seem to reporting the facts of the case (ok, the two I looked at) not drumming up generic hatred of all cyclists. I don't know if the DM is doing that, but I expect if it isn't it will shortly.

And how did you mess up all those links so badly?


----------



## fossyant (15 Aug 2017)

Hmm let's see what sentence this chap gets and let's compare it to a typical motorist. I bet the chap gets a far more severe sentance.

His comments haven't helped him.


----------



## booze and cake (15 Aug 2017)

What is striking to me is all the focus seems to be on blaming the cyclist (and I'm not defending him for a second), and hardly any focus seems to be on the fact the lady seems to have stepped out into the road while looking at her phone. Is stepping out into the highway while not looking not contributory to the accident in any way? Are they implying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to step out into the road without looking? If yes, I'm struggling to see that logic applied to car drivers on the same roads, if it is reasonable to expect peds to step out without looking, why are'nt all cars everywhere being driven at 12mph just in case a ped steps out.....cos that's happening isn't it.....

And don't start me off on the Hyde Park cycling policy, what a joke that is, all they have shown is they are very adept at pissing money up the wall on pointless and completely ineffective modifications that IMHO are more likely to cause accidents than avoid them.


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'm going by the details given in the Old Bailey listings link I included in my post where only the wanton and furious driving is mentioned.
> 
> It wouldn't make sense that Alliston was additionally charged with manslaughter, perhaps it is an alternative charge.



OK, and this is not aggressive, it's a genuine question: Are you a lawyer? I'm not sure why when the Guardian, Telegraph, Standard, Independent and BBC are all asserting he has been charged with manslaughter, you are certain they are wrong. That Old Bailey page doesn't look like any sort of legal document or charge sheet, it's just picking out enough details of each case that the public can identify it even if you don't know the names of those involved. I'm sure it doesn't list all the charges. 

Again, it's a genuine question, not a dig.


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> That not what I wrote at all is it?



True. I'm not sure what happened there. Let's try again.



stiffknees said:


> He's got a face you just want to punch.



So? Lots of good people have faces you want to punch, I'm sure. Let's not judge him by his resting face, anymore than we would by the colour of skin or his sexuality or gender.

I watched a country coalesce to convict someone because they didn't like her face. Let's try not to do that.


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

swansonj said:


> Hands up anyone who, when they were a young adult, didn't behave at some time or another in a way that was reckless, selfish, dangerous, and probably illegal.



When I was young, I was driving late at night and distracted, completely failed to notice a red light to the last moment. Rear ended a car, no real damage done as both cars were already dented. But my attitude was "what if it had been a pedestrian instead of a bumper bar I hit?" I learned to always focus while driving, to stop and rest if I can't, changed my life so I wasn't driving home exhausted at midnight.


----------



## PK99 (15 Aug 2017)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/moped-driver-screamed-at-dying-woman-then-fled-6mdqzr90c

_A moped driver knocked down a 78-year-old woman and screamed, “What were you doing walking in the middle of the road?”, as she lay dying._

_Simon Coker, 32, was over the legal alcohol limit for driving and had taken cocaine the previous evening. He told police that he left the scene because people who ran to help Helen Doherty “were giving me s***”._

_Coker, a convicted drug dealer, was jailed for eight years by a judge who said that he had shown “temerity and cowardice” after causing the death of the widow and church volunteer, described as a “kind-hearted community stalwart”._


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Are you a lawyer?



How very dare you!



jefmcg said:


> I'm not sure why when the Guardian, Telegraph, Standard, Independent and BBC are all asserting he has been charged with manslaughter, you are certain they are wrong. That Old Bailey page doesn't look like any sort of legal document or charge sheet, it's just picking out enough details of each case that the public can identify it even if you don't know the names of those involved. I'm sure it doesn't list all the charges.
> 
> Again, it's a genuine question, not a dig.



I could very well be wrong; the basis for my statement was the link I quoted (which I accept is not an official court resource). 
He's either been charged with Crime A or Crime B, or the prosecution is proceeding with Crime A with the alternative charge of Crime B. My guess is that it's the latter.


----------



## Pale Rider (15 Aug 2017)

The defendant is charged with wanton and furious cycling, and manslaughter.

Had any of us heard the prosecution opening, we would know how the case is being put.

One definition of manslaughter is the unintended consequence of a deliberate act.

The act in this case being wanton and furious cycling.

The prosecution need to prove the wanton and furious in order to establish it as a deliberate act.

Once that's established, the prosecution can then seek to prove wanton and furious cycling resulted in the collision, which in turn caused the death of the pedestrian.

No doubt there will be some medical evidence about that.


----------



## stiffknees (15 Aug 2017)

"and if he's found guilty those words are the kiss of death to any of the vanilla reasons mitigation, such as genuine remorse etc."

He is showing no remorse as yet; but believe me when they are in the dock they are all very very sorry and won't do it agin m'lud.

The toot from my scooter horn is just that, about as loud as a bee in a bucket, as for passing wide, when I passed mycar test back in 1966 it was impressed on me that in law "...a cyclist is entitled to wobble.." and to give a 6ft wide pass as thats about the length an adult male would fall. Makes sense to me and its how I have always driven.

There is some paranoid victim complexes on show here; lets show some respect for cyclists, thats why I give warning when I pass, because I see so many with earplugs in while riding, deaf to everything almost, equally lets look out for people with earhones in for phone or music or staring at their damn phones.
It's a small increasingly overcrowded island, with increasingly overstressed people in it.
Like it or not cyclists do not have any special claim to any space, but the pillock in this case thought otherwise. Like he said, no one is invincible.

He'll find that out soon enough.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> The defendant is charged with wanton and furious cycling, and manslaughter.



Thanks for the clarification.

Can you also clarify whether it's possible for this defendant to be convicted of both crimes?


----------



## T4tomo (15 Aug 2017)

I think the answer to that is yes, but if they can't prove a) then they can't try for b)


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Can you also clarify whether it's possible for this defendant to be convicted of both crimes?


Why not? It's possible to be convicted of possession of an unlicensed firearm, and murder.



T4tomo said:


> I think the answer to that is yes, but if they can't prove a) then they can't try for b)


I assume the jury will only deliberate once, so the judge would have to direct them to only consider b) if they have already found him guilty of a). The prosecution will present the case for both.

#NotALawyer


----------



## T4tomo (15 Aug 2017)

Just my opinion from having ridden both, but whilst a fixed wheel "counts" as a rear brake in some senses, I'd rather have a proper rear brake by some distance. So whilst some comments are referring to him having only one brake, its really more like half a brake.
The jury will decide whether, had he had a front brake too, then the collision would have been avoided or the impact significantly reduced


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> The toot from my scooter horn is just that, about as loud as a bee in a bucket, as for passing wide, when I passed mycar test back in 1966 it was impressed on me that in law "...a cyclist is entitled to wobble.." and to give a 6ft wide pass as thats about the length an adult male would fall. Makes sense to me and its how I have always driven.


I think this would be better in a separate thread

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/vehicles-tooting-just-before-passing-a-cyclist.222471/


----------



## T4tomo (15 Aug 2017)

User said:


> If they accept the witness testimony, that he shouted twice, then accepting that he would have had time and space to stop had he had a front brake, should follow like night and day.


Yes I agree if its accurately reported. If there is CC TV that should make it pretty clear. 
If she was on her phone that's a bit foolish, but not something that should get you killed. As soon as she steps out he should be breaking/slowing and making sure he avoids her.


----------



## stiffknees (15 Aug 2017)

In my keener youth I tried and failed to ride a fixed wheel cycle, every time I tried to stop I couldn't.
Maybe you got stronger legs than I had back then.
Fixed wheels were for Herne Hill and Sunday morning Bath Road keen types.

"If they accept the witness testimony, that he shouted twice, then accepting that he would have had time and space to stop had he had a front brake, should follow like night and day." 

Thats the reason in road accidents the length of the skid is so important.


----------



## mjr (15 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> No it was that same Hyde park,some years ago, I never return to London any more,


Oh so not really up to date with the cycling boom there, then.



stiffknees said:


> but I do remember it was like walking into a stampede, most of which was not using the cycle lanes, a bit of abuse chucked at this old bloke too. Not exactly ambassadors for cycling. Even old blokes in suits can be cyclists incognito. Antagonising your friends is not a good idea.


Exactly - so I don't understand why the Royal Parks repeatedly antagonise cyclists who should be their best friends, biggest fans and most ardent supporters.



stiffknees said:


> All the cycle routes that have been provided are after all, a concession,not a right, it would take only a shift in political attude to have them removed.


Yeah, that's probably the hope of whoever's manufacturing that conflict.



stiffknees said:


> In my keener youth I tried and failed to ride a fixed wheel cycle, every time I tried to stop I couldn't.


So jealousy of fixie riders as well 



booze and cake said:


> Are they implying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to step out into the road without looking?


Possibly - and why not? Walkers are about one degree more predictable than their pet animals and two than wild animals.



booze and cake said:


> If yes, I'm struggling to see that logic applied to car drivers on the same roads, if it is reasonable to expect peds to step out without looking, why are'nt all cars everywhere being driven at 12mph just in case a ped steps out.....cos that's happening isn't it.....


Indeed. It should, but we've completely lost control of them.



stiffknees said:


> Like it or not cyclists do not have any special claim to any space


Not a special claim, but actually almost exactly the same claim to the carriageway as a walker and more so than a licensed motorist.



User said:


> ...a reasonable expectation that she would wait for him to pass before crossing. That is the standard arrangement between pedestrians and linear traffic.


What standard's that then and where's it set?


----------



## User6179 (15 Aug 2017)

From the BBC

Witness - Mr Callan said mother-of-two Mrs Briggs had not been using a crossing some 30 feet (9m) away.

Does not really change anything other than pointing out the shoddy reporting.


----------



## User6179 (15 Aug 2017)

User said:


> It is often suggested that crossing a road in the vicinity of a crossing but not using it, is more dangerous than crossing away from a crossing.



Especially a Pelican crossing that has a green light as some drivers and cyclists will actually speed up to get through before it turns red.


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

booze and cake said:


> Are they implying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to step out into the road without looking?


Um, yes, unless you have just landed in London from another planet (or indeed another country). It's reasonable to expect something that happens. Pedestrians do this all the time. On old street. She probably wasn't the first pedestrian on that journey to step out in front of him without looking. I don't think I have ever cycled through a busy part of London without having to avoid a pedestrian. And all the other riders do this too, or the streets would be littered with bodies.

Edit: Not dramatically avoid, mostly, just plan my ride on the basis that someone will step out, and usually someone does.


----------



## mjr (15 Aug 2017)

Eddy said:


> Especially a Pelican crossing that has a green light as some drivers and cyclists will actually speed up to get through before it turns red.


Before???  Not for a long time. RLJ cameras required ASAP.


----------



## fossyant (15 Aug 2017)

Riding fixed at speed without two brakes in areas of high traffic/pedestrians is the height of stupidity. I've ridden fixed for 7 years (would be 9 had I not stopped cycle commuting) and two brakes in addition to leg braking was needed.

It won't go well for him


----------



## User6179 (15 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> Before???  Not for a long time. RLJ cameras required ASAP.



I nearly got squashed by a City Link bus once that floored it to go through the lights as they turned red, by the time it caught up with me it must of been doing 50 mph on a S bend with a railing , I had about 6 inches to railing and 6 inches to the bus, this was in a town and a 30mph limit.


----------



## stiffknees (15 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> ....more so than a licensed motorist...



How do you work that out?

"..All users of the Queens highway, and that covers everything from public footpaths to M roads have the right to pass and repass without let or hindrance..."

is more or less how the law stands. It says nothing about riding on pavements for instance, neither cars nor bikes have that penmission.
and pedestrians have no claim at all to the "carriageway".

and no, other than knowing that the roads of london are becoming overloaded with aggressive bolshie types many of whom I am convinced are riding bikes more as a political statement than a love of cycling per se I am not up to date with the cycling boom up there; but down here where I am there are bike shops springing up everywhere and Sunday mornings are major lycra events. Thankfully the mankini fad has gone from here.

In my youth I used to ride my bike in all weathers, from Lewisham to Fulham and back, a lot of working men had a bike [or bus] as their only transport, I don't recall any of all this back then, but nothing would induce me to ride a cycle in London ever again.



mjr said:


> So jealousy of fixie riders as well



Look here you, I'm a 3 speed Sturmey guy through and through.



mjr said:


> Yeah, that's probably the hope of whoever's manufacturing that conflict.


now there's a thought?


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> "..All users of the Queens highway, and that covers everything from public footpaths to M roads have the right to pass and repass without let or hindrance..."


What is this? It looks like a quote of a law, but





It's very confusing if you put quotes around phrases you just made up.



stiffknees said:


> and no, other than knowing that the roads of london are becoming overloaded with aggressive bolshie types many of whom I am convinced are riding bikes more as a political statement than a love of cycling per se



Neither. Almost everyone cycling in London is doing it as transport.


----------



## srw (15 Aug 2017)

fossyant said:


> Hmm let's see what sentence this chap gets and let's compare it to a typical motorist. I bet the chap gets a far more severe sentance.
> 
> His comments haven't helped him.


First, let's see what verdict the court returns. And let's hope he gets a fair trial rather than one coloured by ill-informed speculation online.


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

Yes. Let's give him a fair trial before we find him guilty and lock him up.


----------



## mjr (15 Aug 2017)

stiffknees said:


> How do you work that out?


Walkers, driven and ridden animals, cyclists and probably some other stuff uses the road by right. Motorists are only allowed to use it by licence.



stiffknees said:


> "..All users of the Queens highway, and that covers everything from public footpaths to M roads have the right to pass and repass without let or hindrance..." is more or less how the law stands. It says nothing about riding on pavements for instance, neither cars nor bikes have that penmission.
> and pedestrians have no claim at all to the "carriageway".


That quote is pretty bogus. The law does indeed say that cycling or driving on the footway (which is part of a highway) is an offence, as well as motoring on mandatory cycleways being an offence. However, the opposite isn't true: pedestrians and cyclists aren't normally prohibited from the carriageway even where a footway or cycleway exists, except for special roads, motorways and a few others.


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

That was one thing that concerned me about urban America, where the motor car reigned so thoroughly supreme that mere humans could only cross where they were told to.


----------



## rliu (15 Aug 2017)

Has anyone been reading or following this trial?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...outed-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded
Basically the facts seem to be the victim crossed the road ahead of the pedestrian crossing, while the light was green for the cyclist, who crash investigators say was riding at 18mph and would have had a braking distance of 12m (had he had functioning brakes). The cyclist was riding a Planet X track frame with no brakes fitted at all, he shouted at the pedestrian, who did not react in time, they clashed and the pedestrian fell to the ground sustaining brain injuries that she died from.
The CPS have charged the cyclist with manslaughter, and I think it's more than likely he will be convicted, especially given his lack of immediate remorse and aggressive attitude to the pedestrian.
I'm hoping that this case may actually in future lead to more bold charging by the CPS for dangerous road users of all modes. If the cyclist here can be charged for manslaughter for not having a road legal bike despite the light being green for him and him ostensibly having the right of way, shouldn't drivers who kill cyclists in some of the recent cases we have seen such as overtaking a line of 3 vehicles, overtaking past the central white line etc. also be charged with manslaughter?


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/an-unusual-case.207295


----------



## rliu (15 Aug 2017)

Ah fair enough I'll comment in that existing thread, cheers


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

Good heavens above, this is news to me!!!


----------



## booze and cake (15 Aug 2017)

......Are they implying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to step out into the road without looking?



jefmcg said:


> Um, yes, unless you have just landed in London from another planet (or indeed another country). It's reasonable to expect something that happens. Pedestrians do this all the time. On old street. She probably wasn't the first pedestrian on that journey to step out in front of him without looking. I don't think I have ever cycled through a busy part of London without having to avoid a pedestrian. And all the other riders do this too, or the streets would be littered with bodies.
> 
> Edit: Not dramatically avoid, mostly, just plan my ride on the basis that someone will step out, and usually someone does.



Wahey well done for getting completely the wrong end of the stick and nicely misrepresenting what I said, I'll put it down to the fact you're new in town or to the UK, right?

Here's what I said:



booze and cake said:


> What is striking to me is all the focus seems to be on blaming the cyclist (and I'm not defending him for a second), and hardly any focus seems to be on the fact the lady seems to have stepped out into the road while looking at her phone. Is stepping out into the highway while not looking not contributory to the accident in any way? Are they implying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to step out into the road without looking? If yes, I'm struggling to see that logic applied to car drivers on the same roads, if it is reasonable to expect peds to step out without looking, why are'nt all cars everywhere being driven at 12mph just in case a ped steps out.....cos that's happening isn't it.....



I agree with you, it is reasonable to expect peds to step out into the road, not acceptable, but reasonable to assume it may happen. My point was that if it is reasonable to expect peds to step out without looking, and for cyclists to be accountable for any accidents that may occur as a result of this not happening, why is this same rule not applying to drivers? Where are all the convictions for the drivers killing pedestrians and cyclists? It just smacks of double standards.

I thought the original reason for the 20mph speed limit was the greatly increased chances of survival for pedestrians in an impact with a car at 20mph compared to 30mph. So why is all of London not 20mph limit or less then? It could be easily implemented. A few years ago the police stated they were'nt even going to enforce the 20mph limit, that does'nt give an impression of concern for safety for vulnerable road users, rather there isn't the will to pursue it to the letter, as travelling around town faster is clearly more important.

I am just surprised that all the focus has been on his lack of brakes and braking distances, and how there is seemingly no mention of the fact the pedestrian being on the phone has contributed to the accident. If he had a front brake and she just stepped out in front of him a bit later, so reducing his reaction times and braking distances, would the outcome have been any different? As you say pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking in London is a daily occurrence, I just think more should be done to highlight this as an issue as its not going to go away.


----------



## rliu (15 Aug 2017)

Had started a separate thread as I didn't see this, but this case is legally very interesting. There are as many aggravating factors towards Alliston's guilt as there are mitigating factors.
Aggravators - illegal bike, unremorseful attitude, aggressive at the scene
Mitigators - pedestrian crossing while light is green for cyclist, riding at a fairly average speed of 18mph, pedestrian seemed to not acknowledge presence of bike prior to collision

I know we all hate victim blaming, but unfortunately these arguments are made in court and do have a sway with judges. I think it's more likely than not Alliston will be convicted and receive a significant custodial sentence, but can't help to also feel injustice that we see cases where drivers have overtaken dangerously, turned left without checking their mirrors, pulled out into the path of cyclist etc to cause death and got off with non-custodial sentences and a small fine. Surely some of that behaviour is also manslaughter? I know the hook for the prosecution here is that Alliston flagrantly rode a non road legal bike, which is a reckless and dangerous act without a tragic collision happening, but surely if a driver hits a cyclist then either fails to stop and report, or drives uninsured, that should also be seen as a reason to press for a more serious charge than just careless driving?


----------



## srw (15 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> Alliston's guilt


Isn't that a little premature? Unless I've missed something he's still on trial.

[goes and checks]

I haven't. The trial is still ongoing. Until it's concluded _no-one_ should assume anything about his guilt or innocence.


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

Im happy to assume his guilt. He pretty much hung himself with his own online denials.


----------



## rliu (15 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> Isn't that a little premature? Unless I've missed something he's still on trial.
> 
> [goes and checks]
> 
> I haven't. The trial is still ongoing. Until it's concluded _no-one_ should assume anything about his guilt or innocence.



Hang on I didn't say he was guilty, I meant hypothetical guilt. Don't just pick out one thing from a long post on a semantic issue please, I have said there are as many arguments for as there are against. This isn't a press report and we are not jurors, we don't need to be so picky about use of language.


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

We can have our own opinions, and no one is forced to agree.


----------



## srw (15 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> This isn't a press report


In the eyes of the law it is. 

I accept that yours was (by a very long way) one of the less extreme examples in this thread, and maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but when the initial reports of the case refer specifically to posts alleged to be made on a cycling forum by the alleged perpetrator it doesn't seem terribly bright of successive posters to be using a cycling forum to speculate, often extremely wildly, about the crime, the guilt or otherwise of the accused and the appropriateness or otherwise of a hypothetical sentence _while the trial is still going on._


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

It makes no difference. Nothing we say is evidential.


----------



## srw (15 Aug 2017)

Drago said:


> It makes no difference. Nothing we say is evidential.


In which case there are no restrictions on what _anyone_ says, and all court reporters can speculate away to their hearts' content, and no trial will ever be stopped because of prejudicial reporting.

Woohoo!


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2017)

Yes.

And no.


----------



## srw (15 Aug 2017)

Alternatively, read the official government advice aimed at social media users....
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../Prejudice_and_social_media_-_infographic.pdf











While I'm not particularly bothered about individual numpty posters running the risk of falling foul of this advice it does seem a little unfair on our host (who can be seen as the publisher) being exposed.


----------



## jefmcg (15 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> _while the trial is still going on._


While on that subject, I'm glad they changed the title of this thread to be more descriptive, but isn't naming him and stating he was the cause a little too far until he's convicted?


----------



## srw (15 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> While on that subject, I'm glad they changed the title of this thread to be more descriptive, but isn't naming him and stating he was the cause a little too far until he's convicted?


OMG. I hadn't noticed that. I certainly think so, and my reading of the Attorney General's advice would suggest that the courts would too.


----------



## Shaun (15 Aug 2017)

I've adjusted the thread title to include "accused of".


----------



## slowmotion (15 Aug 2017)

I'm not sure that Cyclechat would be quite so entertaining without the wild speculation, pitchfork and torch waving mania, and accusatory finger jabbing.


----------



## slowmotion (15 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Each to their own


Not my own.


----------



## rliu (15 Aug 2017)

On the topic of prejudicing trials I thought the onus was more on jurors - i.e. they are told not to search for any internet articles or posts on parties to a case, did not think there would be any recourse against other anonymous commenters?


----------



## slowmotion (15 Aug 2017)

User said:


> You did say that you found it entertaining


Fair point.


----------



## Glow worm (15 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> Alternatively, read the official government advice aimed at social media users....
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../Prejudice_and_social_media_-_infographic.pdf
> 
> View attachment 368229
> ...



'Catherine, Jim, Robert and Dora' - Christ, all we need is a Giles and we'd have the most middle class Government advice ever seen!


----------



## srw (16 Aug 2017)

Glow worm said:


> 'Catherine, Jim, Robert and Dora' - Christ, all we need is a Giles and we'd have the most middle class Government advice ever seen!


It *was* from the Cameron government!


----------



## srw (16 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> On the topic of prejudicing trials I thought the onus was more on jurors - i.e. they are told not to search for any internet articles or posts on parties to a case, did not think there would be any recourse against other anonymous commenters?


It's a tough call. Whose thoughts do I believe? Those put out in the name of the Government's legal advisor, or those of someone random off the internet?


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Aug 2017)

Metro was leading with "No Brakes but Cyclist Blames *Mum he Killed*" on its front page yesterday (my emphasis).

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/C2F9/production/_97331994_metro.jpg


----------



## srw (16 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4919538, member: 9609"]for commentating on an ongoing trial when not part of proceedings, well the media do it, even the BBC give this case some air time last night[/QUOTE]

They don't commentate. They report.

"In court today, so-and-so said such-and-such."


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Aug 2017)

John the Monkey said:


> Metro was leading with "No Brakes but Cyclist Blames *Mum he Killed*" on its front page yesterday (my emphasis).
> 
> https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/C2F9/production/_97331994_metro.jpg



I don't think there's any contention that she died as a result of him colliding with her, the trial is to establish whether there was any criminality on Alliston's part.
You'll often see the same type of headline in a murder or manslaughter case where the accused doesn't deny the killing but denies criminal responsibility.


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I don't think there's any contention that she died as a result of him colliding with her, the trial is to establish whether there was any criminality on Alliston's part.
> You'll often see the same type of headline in a murder or manslaughter case where the accused doesn't deny the killing but denies criminal responsibility.


Fair point.


----------



## rliu (16 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> It's a tough call. Whose thoughts do I believe? Those put out in the name of the Government's legal advisor, or those of someone random off the internet?



That pamphlet was about social media and gives examples pertaining to Twitter.
As much as we value this forum its reach and reader base is not as wide as Twitter.
I'm trying to clarify an issue, there's no need for the sarcastic retorts.


----------



## Pale Rider (16 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> That pamphlet was about social media and gives examples pertaining to Twitter.
> As much as we value this forum its reach and reader base is not as wide as Twitter.
> I'm trying to clarify an issue, there's no need for the sarcastic retorts.



Published remarks is the point.

It matters not how many people might or might not read the remarks, merely that a juror could read the remarks and allow the remarks to colour his view of the case.

Hence the two-pronged attack.

Jurors are told to try the case on the evidence they hear in court, and social media users are told to be careful what they write.


----------



## Dan B (16 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> That pamphlet was about social media and gives examples pertaining to Twitter.
> As much as we value this forum its reach and reader base is not as wide as Twitter.
> I'm trying to clarify an issue, there's no need for the sarcastic retorts.


This thread has had 7000 or so views at the time I write this post. The average Twitter user[*] has about 700 followers. I'm sure some of those thread views are from the same people, so these numbers don't compare directly, but I doubt there's more than an order of magnitude either way. Also Cyclechat is a lot more amenable than Twitter to Google searches for anything more than about 24 hours old


----------



## Milkfloat (16 Aug 2017)

Has anyone found the testimony from the 'Crash Investigator' to be a bit weird. He concludes that Alliston would have been able to stop if he had a front brake. He does this by saying that a mountain bike has stopping distance of about 3 meters and that this bike was four times longer at 12 meters.

As a defence barrister I would be investigating that - who cares what a MTB can stop in, why was teh test not done on Alliston's bike with a brake fitted, in fact is there even a definition of want constitutes a working front brake? I have seen some BSOs that have a front brake that would struggle to stop in 20m. I would even be debating the 12m stopping distance. Is the crash investigator a regular fixed rider? I know that on my fixed at 18 mph my stopping distance could be less than 12m without a front brake, but also it could be a lot longer.

However, I am not defending Alliston, he should have had a front brake and had he had one I assume that he may not be up in court at all, even if he did not use it.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I don't think there's any contention that she died as a result of him colliding with her, the trial is to establish whether there was any criminality on Alliston's part.
> You'll often see the same type of headline in a murder or manslaughter case where the accused doesn't deny the killing but denies criminal responsibility.



What is he had died** after (hypothetically) stepping on the road without looking? Would you say that she killed him?

** a not unlikely scenario


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> What is he had died** after (hypothetically) stepping on the road without looking? Would you say that she killed him?
> 
> ** a not unlikely scenario



Don't see why not.


----------



## T4tomo (16 Aug 2017)

Glow worm said:


> 'Catherine, Jim, Robert and Dora' - Christ, all we need is a Giles and we'd have the most middle class Government advice ever seen!


Could you imagine the furore if they had used obviously ethnic minority names? They have played it safe!


----------



## KneesUp (16 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> Has anyone found the testimony from the 'Crash Investigator' to be a bit weird. He concludes that Alliston would have been able to stop if he had a front brake. He does this by saying that a mountain bike has stopping distance of about 3 meters and that this bike was four times longer at 12 meters.



It does seem especially lazy not to use a comparable bike, but perhaps the data isn't available, and the cost of testing was prohibitive? I don't know which would stop quicker on road to be honest - an MTB would be able to generate more friction because of the wider tyres, but a road bike would have less momentum due to lower weight. I reckon I can stop my road bike quicker than my (slick-shod) MTB on the road given the same starting speed, but only because the brakes on the road bike are better adjusted (because they're easier to adjust) 3 metres @ 18mph doesn't sound very far to me - it's less than the length of a Fiat 500, and less than the braking distance for a car (5m) Incidentally the thinking distance is also 5m, giving a total stopping distance for a car of 10m. I reckon I'd struggle to stop either of my bikes in the length of a Fiat 500 from 18mph.

It would certainly be something I'd query as the defence, but then the prosecution could point to the fact that it has been reported that he shouted out twice, which may indicate he had sufficient time (I guess it depends on how far apart the shouts were)


----------



## Milkfloat (16 Aug 2017)

KneesUp said:


> It would certainly be something I'd query as the defence, but then the prosecution could point to the fact that it has been reported that he shouted out twice, which may indicate he had sufficient time (I guess it depends on how far apart the shouts were)



This is the bit that really confuses me - how does he have time to shout out quite a few words - twice. I only shout out at the last moment when I think I am going to get munched, before that I am slowing down, manoeuvring and making eye contact. With a pedestrian in a busy city, surely in the time it takes to shout out a sentence twice, the pedestrian would be over the other side of the road, even if they are on their phone.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Don't see why not.


So then, until the court decides whose fault the collision was, we don't know who killed her. 

It outcome might look obvious in this case, but I think the principal of not convicting people in the press/on social media (even if doesn't affect the jury) is an important one. Remember the Atlanta bombing suspect?


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4919267, member: 1314"]Sorry @MacB but nothing to do with his age. It's the older middle aged road users who are the problem.

And the Mamils.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, who are they killing again?



KneesUp said:


> the cost of testing was prohibitive?


Order a similar model from PX and asking them to fit a front brake, got to come in under £600. The prosecution has engaged a QC, so <google>

 Queen’s Counsel (Silk): £350+ per hour + VAT
I.E. Using the cost of the bike is pocket change.


----------



## mjr (16 Aug 2017)

KneesUp said:


> 3 metres @ 18mph doesn't sound very far to me - it's less than the length of a Fiat 500, and less than the braking distance for a car (5m)


Yeah - I was wondering about that. One of my bikes has hub brakes front and back (90mm XL-FDD up front), which are the fiercest brakes I've had yet (solid forks required!) and I reckon my stopping distance from about 16mph is still about 4m. Is an MTB stopping from 18mph in 3m the best case - maybe some sort of well-maintained disc-braked lightweight rarely seen as a London commuter bike?


----------



## mjr (16 Aug 2017)

User said:


> If the expert reckons 3m and the space available was 12m, the margin for errors in either figure is sufficient as to render questions about it pretty much irrelevant.


Is the expert still expert if the 3m is completely incredible? It's well below even the theoretical good-tyres-on-dry-concrete numbers given by calculators like http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html


----------



## Tin Pot (16 Aug 2017)

So what actually happened?

Man riding bike, woman walking. Collision. Woman dies.

That's all I've got so far. Oh and that he should be punched, "just look at im!".

Was she crossing the road?
Did he try to stop?
Country, residential or city road?


----------



## KneesUp (16 Aug 2017)

User said:


> If the expert reckons 3m and the space available was 12m, the margin for errors in either figure is sufficient as to render questions about it pretty much irrelevant.


There is only 9m difference (two VW Golfs) between the two figures. Given that the 3m sounds optimistic to me, the 12m needs to be fairly accurate for the errors to be irrelevant.


----------



## KneesUp (16 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Who needs to be convinced here, you or a jury?


I was responding to your post which expressed your opinion. I didn't realise I wasn't allowed one


----------



## Milkfloat (16 Aug 2017)

User said:


> If the expert reckons 3m and the space available was 12m, the margin for errors in either figure is sufficient as to render questions about it pretty much irrelevant.



I think if you asked the average person to stop an average bike at 19 mph, that more than 50% would take over 12m. I am not talking super cyclists with great well maintained equipment, just the stuff you see out on the roads everyday. For a start about 75% or more of these people would use their back brake alone.

I see the stopping distances as an irrelevance to the whole prosecution - so I am unsure how they can get the manslaughter charge to stick. The defence should quite easily be able to get an expert with a legal bike and show that it takes more than 12m to stop.


----------



## KneesUp (16 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> I think if you asked the average person to stop an average bike at 19 mph, that more than 50% would take over 12m. I am not talking super cyclists with great well maintained equipment, just the stuff you see out on the roads everyday. For a start about 75% or more of these people would use their back brake alone.
> 
> I see the stopping distances as an irrelevance to the whole prosecution - so I am unsure how they can get the manslaughter charge to stick. The defence should quite easily be able to get an expert with a legal bike and show that it takes more than 12m to stop.


I would imagine that most people on an 'average' bike could slow it significantly in 12m even if they couldn't stop it.


----------



## Milkfloat (16 Aug 2017)

KneesUp said:


> I would imagine that most people on an 'average' bike could slow it significantly in 12m even if they couldn't stop it.



As could a former courier on a fixed with no front brake.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> It outcome might look obvious in this case, but I think the principal of not convicting people in the press/on social media (even if doesn't affect the jury) is an important one.



I'm not saying he's guilty of any crime.

As I pointed out earlier, it's possible to be the cause of another's death but be found to be not criminally responsible.


----------



## KneesUp (16 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> As could a former courier on a fixed with no front brake.


But not as much as if it had a front brake. I guess that's the crux of the issue.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

I imagine the expert spoke for an hour or more. It's likely that the summary in the Press has been abbreviated to the point of nonsense. Does anyone know if we can actually get to see the transcript?


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> As I pointed out earlier, it's possible to be the cause of another's death but be found to be not criminally responsible.


I understand that. But he was** not only denying he was guilty of a crime, but also denying he was the cause of her death. He claimed the cause of her death was stepping on to the road without looking, not his actions. So he was denying both "manslaughtering" her, and causing her death.

**using the the past tense because I am going on his quotes from lfgss. I don't know if that's the actual defence he will use in court.


----------



## Milkfloat (16 Aug 2017)

KneesUp said:


> But not as much as if it had a front brake. I guess that's the crux of the issue.



Well that would be the prosecution argument - and I agree, he should have had a front brake. However, by having a front brake there is no guarantee that stopping distances would have been less if it was not maintained or used correctly.


----------



## mjr (16 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Does anyone know if we can actually get to see the transcript?


I don't know but I don't think so. I wonder if the eventual judgment will appear at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/


----------



## swee'pea99 (16 Aug 2017)

Haven't read the whole thread, but I have to say that while the no-brake thing is probably what will sink him - he was definitively breaking a specific law, and someone died as a result - in my experience it's the no-brain thing that does the real damage. 

I frequently cycle down a busy stretch of road, with much (slow- or not-moving) traffic, many high-sided vehicles, any number of jaywalkers threading thru' the traffic (many of them foreign, and all too likely to look 'the wrong way') and meanwhile cyclists are flying along at high speed, whizzing past, eg, buses, in such a way that brake/no-brake would be utterly irrelevant. If someone stepped out from (or, worse, pushed a buggy from behind) a bus, they'd plough into them, no question. Of course the vast majority of the time they get away with it. But I do often wonder what, if anything, is going through their tiny minds...the utter lack of imagination they display. And like I say, this is a pretty much daily occurrence. Sad truth is, the world is full of imbeciles, and a fair number of them are on bikes.


----------



## DaveReading (16 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> They don't commentate. They report.
> 
> "In court today, so-and-so said such-and-such."



Commentate is exactly what they do do. Comment is what they don't.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

From the Guardian yesterday
_Wyeth said: “We have seen velodromes and seasoned athletes. One way the fixed-wheel bikes can be brought to a stop involves getting up out of the seat and [putting] down pressure on pedals to get that kinetic energy to come to a sharper halt than just a free wheel.”

He asked whether Alliston could be seen doing just that, and Small said he did not recall the defendant rising from his saddle.
_
That's the defence asking the question, and presumably because the accused believes he did that. If that is part of emergency braking on a fixie, how could the expert "not recall"? If he knows his stuff, he should have been looking for things like that, surely?


----------



## User6179 (16 Aug 2017)

DaveReading said:


> Commentate is exactly what they do do. Comment is what they don't.



Which is this?

"Accused killer’s sick online post after mowing down mother"


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

Eddy said:


> Which is this?
> 
> "Accused killer’s sick online post after mowing down mother"


The BBC said that?????


----------



## User6179 (16 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> The BBC said that?????



Not the BBC but some other news outlet on the Tinternet


----------



## KneesUp (16 Aug 2017)

It appears to be a quote from what appears to be the Australian Daily Mail.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...r/news-story/00bfe55322bc874ac3379a41f318a5e6


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

KneesUp said:


> It appears to be a quote from what appears to be the Australian Daily Mail.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...r/news-story/00bfe55322bc874ac3379a41f318a5e6


Murdoch.




Eddy said:


> Not the BBC but some other news outlet on the Tinternet


Lol. Well, it's only 16,000km away, so yes, I am sure it's subject to UK law and standards.


----------



## KneesUp (16 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Murdoch.


And to think that I liked him when he was in the A-Team ...


----------



## User6179 (16 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Murdoch.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Well, it's only 16,000km away, so yes, I am sure it's subject to UK law and standards.



Yes but other UK news outlets will also have the link to that story on their websites.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

Eddy said:


> Yes but other UK news outlets will also have the link to that story on their websites.


That does not make it part of the British media. Nor are the car companies, phone retailers, weight loss scammers or dating sites you will also find linked on newspapers sites.

But at least the Australian paper found room for the word "accused" in the headline, which puts it slightly ahead of the Metro.


----------



## DaveReading (16 Aug 2017)

Eddy said:


> Which is this?
> 
> "Accused killer’s sick online post after mowing down mother"



It's a newspaper headline (from the Sun) and, the adjective aside, appears to be an assertion which I doubt the defence is disputing.


----------



## srw (16 Aug 2017)

DaveReading said:


> It's a newspaper headline (from the Sun) and, the adjective aside, appears to be an assertion which I doubt the defence is disputing.


Quite. It's factual reporting, however emotionally phrased. That's the skill of a tabloid subed.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4920529, member: 1314"]

I don't understand your question.[/QUOTE]
We are in a thread about a kid who has allegedly killed someone with his bike, and you say "It's the older middle aged road users who are the problem." How are they "the problem" compared to getting killed by an 18 year old?


----------



## jefmcg (16 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4920559, member: 1314"]Eh? He is a man. He was 18 and is older now. 18 is when you stop being a 'kid' in the UK. I'll deal with the rest of your post once you've dealt with the simple difference between 'kid' and 'adult'.[/QUOTE]
In a thread where someone is dead, you say the real problem is middle aged men.

Don't distract. Why are they the problem - in a place where we are talking about death? 

Answer, or I will ignore you like everyone else has (obviously more sensibly than me) and enjoy your echo chamber.


----------



## numbnuts (17 Aug 2017)

User said:


> He's giving evidence and making himself seem a complete and utter bellend...


With comment like that it sounds like he hasn't got a good legal team


----------



## KneesUp (17 Aug 2017)

I had time to shout / A brake wouldn't have made me stop in time / I didn't have time to reach the brake lever even if I'd had one / I'm an experienced cyclist.


----------



## User6179 (17 Aug 2017)

KneesUp said:


> I had time to shout / A brake wouldn't have made me stop in time / I didn't have time to reach the brake lever even if I'd had one / I'm an experienced cyclist.



His evidence is what is going to convict him, what is the saying again about keeping quiet and looking stupid. 

An experienced cyclist would have their hand on the brake lever going through an area with lots of pedestrians and other cyclists.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Aug 2017)

numbnuts said:


> With comment like that it sounds like he hasn't got a good legal team


He's being represented by a QC in court, so they are spending some serious money. It seems as if he's ignoring the advice.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Aug 2017)

"At all times I would know what I'm doing and completely responsible for my actions."

As I said elsewhere... Nobber.


----------



## PK99 (17 Aug 2017)

KneesUp said:


> I had time to shout / A brake wouldn't have made me stop in time /* I didn't have time to reach the brake lever even if I'd had one / I'm an experienced cyclist*.



An experienced cyclist would cover their brakes in that situation.


----------



## T4tomo (17 Aug 2017)

He allegedly had time to shout twice didn't he? Pretty sure I could brake in that time, assuming I had some.fitted obviously.

Indeed in an emergency braking situation this summer I'd come to a halt albeit in a massive endo by the time I'd reached the "c" of "fark"


----------



## al78 (17 Aug 2017)

This particular cyclist comes across as a sociopath to me, unable to own his actions and their consequences. The excuses he comes out with are ridiculous. I really don't get it, I see pedestrians wandering around using smartphones all the time, the sight of the smartphone is an indication that the user is oblivious to anything around them, so I need to keep speed down and give them a wide berth. I've never come close to crashing into a pedestrian, there is plenty of warning if someone is going to step in front of you if you are paying attention and looking along the road, not just at your front wheel. As for a front brake not making a difference, shuuuuut uuuuuuup you prat.


----------



## KneesUp (17 Aug 2017)

Imagine you made a terrible mistake when you were very young - a mistake for which you may have to pay with a substantial number of years of your liberty, and a chunk of your employment prospects and - as a result - your future earnings, as well as living with the guilt for, what 80 years?

Imagine that mistake involved that feeling of invincibility that youth brings, and that sensation that seems limited to the young of imagining everyone is as sharp, switched on and alert as you are. Remember how, when you were 18, you couldn't comprehend how middle-aged people were so slow witted, and why their reaction times were so slow?

Now imagine you're in court on trial. There are certain facts you cannot reasonably deny because there is hard evidence and witness evidence.

Assuming you don't want to go to court and say "It was all my fault - have mercy on me" what would you say any different?


----------



## Buddfox (17 Aug 2017)

User3094 said:


> As has probably already been said, brakes or not, the slammed riding position of that fixie is hardly conducive to commuting cycling.



As the photo is credited to the Press Association, it's unlikely to be his actual bike, I would think


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Aug 2017)

KneesUp said:


> Now imagine you're in court on trial. *There are certain facts you cannot reasonably deny because there is hard evidence and witness evidence.*
> 
> Assuming you don't want to go to court and say "It was all my fault - have mercy on me" what would you say any different?



You man up. You plead guilty. Anything else involves flying in the face of facts, distortion and, probably, lying.

We/he can claim he was unlucky. That's life. It is terribly unfair.


----------



## DaveReading (17 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You man up. You plead guilty. Anything else involves flying in the face of facts, distortion and, probably, lying.



With the added advantage that, as well as being the right thing to do, it will shorten your sentence compared to being found guilty by a jury.


----------



## KneesUp (17 Aug 2017)

From The Independent

"The court heard that the stunt cyclist [Lucas Brunelle} makes "alleycat" videos, in which he rides around cities including London "doing dangerous stuff" such as weaving in and out of traffic, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and going into bus lanes.

But Alliston, who *admitted to not wearing a helmet*, denied copying the film-maker, or enjoying taking risks.

"I wouldn't say I drove recklessly or at any time dangerously," he said.

"At all times I would know what I'm doing and completely responsible for my actions."

He added: "I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe."

Prosecutor Duncan Penny QC, cross-examining Alliston, suggested "fixies" are popular in urban areas such as Shoreditch, where some riders view them as "stylish".

He asked Alliston: "*It's far from uncommon for people riding track bikes or 'fixies' without front brakes to not wear a helmet*. It's part of a look, isn't it?"

What has the rider not wearing a helmet got to do with any of this?


----------



## Buddfox (17 Aug 2017)

To the lawyers and similarly experienced individuals here - do both sides get to present their own expert witness? I've read reports of one expert witness (I had assumed presented by the prosecution) explaining what the impact on stopping distance might be with there being no front brake. Does the defence get the opportunity to do the same - i.e. argue that the lack of front brake would not have made a difference? Or is it one, independent court-appointed expert that both sides get to cross-examine?


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Aug 2017)

KneesUp said:


> From The Independent
> 
> "The court heard that the stunt cyclist [Lucas Brunelle} makes "alleycat" videos, in which he rides around cities including London "doing dangerous stuff" such as weaving in and out of traffic, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and going into bus lanes.
> 
> ...



The prosecutor is using the absence of a helmet to support the general prosecution contention the cyclist is a risk taker, a guy who looks up to the maker of alleycat videos, a guy who is more concerned with looks than safety - the type of guy who might ride in a wanton and furious manner. 

Bear in mind it's only a tiny handul of saddos on internet forums who are obsessed with helmets.

To the common man, a helmet wearing cyclist is one taking a responsible attitude to safety, a non-helmet wearing cyclist is not so responsible.

Beyond that, no one gives a stuff about helmets one way or the other.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Aug 2017)

I'm reading a daily mail article, so you don't have to. It has some more details



Daily Mail said:


> In one [post] he wrote: 'She put not only hers, but my life in danger.'
> 
> In another he said: 'F*** me and my health, I can heal and recover. The bike cannot. Thankfully I was going quite a slowish/moderate speed. If I were going any faster the frame would have cracked or been shattered.'
> 
> Jurors were told about a further post, in which Alliston wrote: 'At the end of the day, if you know the flame will hurt you, yet you still proceed to put your hand over it and get burnt, it's your fault.'





Daily Mail said:


> But Alliston, now 20, claims he had no idea it was a legal requirement for a front brake, insisting it would not have made any difference when he saw Mrs Briggs come into the road with a mobile phone.
> 
> 'I tried to go around,' he said.
> 
> ...





Daily Mail said:


> Tests showed his bike would have taken at least 36ft to stop. A similar model with a front brake could have stopped in 12ft and a mountain bike in 9ft.





Daily Mail said:


> The scaffolder and former cycle courier


Who is paying for his QC?


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I'm reading a daily mail article, so you don't have to. It has some more details
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Short answer: You are as a tax payer.

Long answer: He's a scaffolder so it's likely he qualifies for legal aid, although if he has a wage coming in he may be required to make a contribution.

The prosecution has briefed a QC, so as a general rule the defendant is allowed equal legal firepower.

Had he been accused of a more minor offence, the prosecution would brief an ordinary barrister, and he would only be entitled to legal aid for the same level of lawyer.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Short answer: You are as a tax payer.


Yeah. Of course. That seems right.

The tax payers of course are paying for 3 QCs, prosecution, defence and the judge.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Aug 2017)

The definition of 'above and beyond the call of duty' :



jefmcg said:


> I'm reading a daily mail article, so you don't have to.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The definition of 'above and beyond the call of duty' :



The most fulsome account is, as is so often the case, in Mail Online.

It's not the world's best read news site for nothing.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> The most fulsome account is, as is so often the case, in Mail Online.
> 
> It's not the world's best read news site for nothing.


Not because of their journalism, because of their excellent click bait game. I read that article, then was tempted by the side bar about a wedding going wrong, that turned out to a description of a scripted reality episode. That's actually why I avoid the DM. I find their click bait nearly irresistible, and almost always disappointing.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Not because of their journalism, because of their excellent click bait game. I read that article, then was tempted by the side bar about a wedding going wrong, that turned out to a description of a scripted reality episode. That's actually why I avoid the DM. I find their click bait nearly irresistible, and almost always disappointing.



People log on to Mail Online to read the stories and look at the pics/video.

In other words, for the journalism.

There's no other reason to visit the site.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> People log on to Mail Online to read the stories and look at the pics/video..


Um, that's a description of the web.


----------



## Wobblers (17 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> Has anyone found the testimony from the 'Crash Investigator' to be a bit weird. He concludes that Alliston would have been able to stop if he had a front brake. He does this by saying that a mountain bike has stopping distance of about 3 meters and that this bike was four times longer at 12 meters.
> 
> As a defence barrister I would be investigating that - who cares what a MTB can stop in, why was teh test not done on Alliston's bike with a brake fitted, in fact is there even a definition of want constitutes a working front brake? I have seen some BSOs that have a front brake that would struggle to stop in 20m. I would even be debating the 12m stopping distance. Is the crash investigator a regular fixed rider? I know that on my fixed at 18 mph my stopping distance could be less than 12m without a front brake, but also it could be a lot longer.
> 
> However, I am not defending Alliston, he should have had a front brake and had he had one I assume that he may not be up in court at all, even if he did not use it.



3 metres! If Alliston was going at 18 mph as stated, to brake in three metres would require 1 gee deceleration. That's scarcely plausible for a car with good brakes on a perfect dry road surface. Usually it can be expected to be 20% less. It's just wrong for someone on a bike - stability issues (if you brake too heavily, you'll go over the handle bars) limit maximum braking to about 0.5--0.6g. Clearly he has no idea about braking on bikes.

That's not weird, that's verging on perjury.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Not because of their journalism, because of their excellent click bait game. I read that article, then was tempted by the side bar about a wedding going wrong, that turned out to a description of a scripted reality episode. That's actually why I avoid the DM. I find their click bait nearly irresistible, and almost always disappointing.


The side bar of shame.

Many a boy has been lost there. Slippery slope and all.


----------



## KneesUp (17 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4921776, member: 259"]I agree with you, but the fact is he'd have been able to stop much faster if he had a front brake. He's going to be stuffed anyway. I wonder though what would've happened if he'd just been driving a car rather than a bike. Probably wouldn't have made the news at all.[/QUOTE]
A car without front brakes?


----------



## Wobblers (17 Aug 2017)

Eddy said:


> His evidence is what is going to convict him, what is the saying again about keeping quiet and looking stupid.
> 
> An experienced cyclist would have their hand on the brake lever going through an area with lots of pedestrians and other cyclists.



An experienced cyclist would be going slower in an area with lots of pedestrians. If only for self preservation. If he had time to shout, he had time to reach the brakes.


----------



## Wobblers (17 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4921776, member: 259"]I agree with you, but the fact is he'd have been able to stop much faster if he had a front brake. He's going to be stuffed anyway. I wonder though what would've happened if he'd just been driving a car rather than a bike. Probably wouldn't have made the news at all in the Mail unless he'd had a sex change or he wore a bikini.[/QUOTE]

No, you're right, that doesn't excuse his actions in any way. He's a bell end. I've little doubt that an effective front brake would have been quite capable of stopping him and bike in that distance. I rather suspect that Alliston wouldn't have bothered using it...


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Aug 2017)

McWobble said:


> No, that doesn't excuse his actions in any way. He's a bell end. I've little doubt that an effective front brake would have been quite capable of stopping him and bike in that distance. I rather suspect that Alliston wouldn't have bothered using it...



I agree, but does the law actually call for an effective front brake or just a brake. If he can prove that if he had a legal but ineffective front brake that he would not have stopped any sooner that may help him. If I were his QC I would be finding my own expert who can actually ride a fixed gear and prove that it can stop in less than 32ft and then do the same with an ineffective brake and stop in the same distance.

He is still a nobber though, my worry is that this sets a precedent allowing pedestrians to jump out in front of cyclists at will.


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Aug 2017)

User said:


> The law requires two independent brakes, and that they operate efficiently.



So they should be able to get him on that, but manslaughter?


----------



## Buddfox (17 Aug 2017)

User said:


> The law requires two independent brakes, and that they operate efficiently.



I know you know this, but worth clarifying that a fixie counts as a rear brake


----------



## PK99 (17 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> So they should be able to get him on that, but manslaughter?



*Involuntary manslaughter[edit]*
Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but* caused the death of another through **recklessness** or **criminal negligence*. For these purposes*, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation.* An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, landing on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the _mens rea_ required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is also termed "unlawful act" or "constructive" manslaughter.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> does the law actually call for an effective front brake or just a brake




It's covered by the Pedal Cycles Construction and Use Regs 1983 which, as Adrian has already pointed out, specifies that the brakes must be "efficient".

While looking that up, I came across this article in the Guardian from 2010:

Cycling without brakes? You're breaking the law

Lots of people argue that a skilled brakeless rider can stop faster than an inexperienced commuter with brakes, which I've always found rather disingenuous. Others claim that adding a brake in any scenario will improve the likelihood of a safe outcome should the worst happen.
But arguments over safety aside, the fact is that brakeless riders are strictly breaking the law in the UK.
Chris Juden is technical officer at the national cyclists' organisation CTC, and an expert on what is legal and illegal when it comes to cycling. He maintains a thorough and very accessible summary of cycling law online.

"A front brake is necessary on a bicycle," he said. "If you're trying to stop a bicycle, or any vehicle, as quickly as you can there will be hardly any weight on the back wheel.
"If you're slowing down gradually the back wheel's fine, but if you're slowing down in an emergency forget about the back brake."

"It takes a great deal of skill to brake with a fixed wheel like that but some people can do that," added Mr Juden. "A skilled rider with a front brake will stop in half the distance. You need a front brake to be safe."​


----------



## Wobblers (17 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> I agree, but does the law actually call for an effective front brake or just a brake. If he can prove that if he had a legal but ineffective front brake that he would not have stopped any sooner that may help him. If I were his QC I would be finding my own expert who can actually ride a fixed gear and prove that it can stop in less than 32ft and then do the same with an ineffective brake and stop in the same distance.
> 
> He is still a nobber though, my worry is that this sets a precedent allowing pedestrians to jump out in front of cyclists at will.



He is indeed a nobber, who has just condemned himself to boot. I don't think this'll set any precedent about pedestrians jumping in front of cyclists - people tend to try to avoid things that might hurt them after all! That's the sort of argument you hear against assumed liability. I believe that sort of argument to be false for the same reason - a cyclist is unlikely to risk life and limb on some presumed liability point (wihch, if it could be shown that the cyclist was acting recklessly, would be moot anyway).


----------



## iwantanewbike (18 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> *Involuntary manslaughter[edit]*
> Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but* caused the death of another through **recklessness** or **criminal negligence*. For these purposes*, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation.* An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, landing on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the _mens rea_ required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is also termed "unlawful act" or "constructive" manslaughter.



So a motorist who kills someone while driving on a mobile phone could also be guilty of this? But how many have, despite clear evidence?


----------



## growingvegetables (18 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> ... my worry is that this sets a precedent allowing pedestrians to jump out in front of cyclists at will.




Umm ... far-fetched?


----------



## slowmotion (18 Aug 2017)

Pedestrians walk out into the road if they don't see cars. Bikes don't register as a potential threat to their well-being. That's reality. If you ride a bike, you plan for that, cover your brakes, ride cautiously in crowded areas and don't have an alleycat mentality. Simple really.


----------



## growingvegetables (18 Aug 2017)

slowmotion said:


> Pedestrians walk out into the road if they don't see *hear* cars. Bikes don't register as a potential threat to their well-being. That's reality. If you ride a bike, you plan for that, cover your brakes, ride cautiously in crowded areas and don't have an alleycat mentality. Simple really.


Just a tiny wee FTFY.


----------



## Tin Pot (18 Aug 2017)

slowmotion said:


> Pedestrians walk out into the road if they don't see cars. Bikes don't register as a potential threat to their well-being. That's reality. If you ride a bike, you plan for that, cover your brakes, ride cautiously in crowded areas and don't have an alleycat mentality. Simple really.


Was it a crowded area?


----------



## jefmcg (18 Aug 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Was it a crowded area?


Old Street at lunchtime? It's not Oxford Street but there would be a lot of people about.


https://goo.gl/maps/MdMWFoqRNEU2


----------



## jefmcg (18 Aug 2017)

iwantanewbike said:


> So a motorist who kills someone while driving on a mobile phone could also be guilty of this? But how many have, despite clear evidence?


I assume he was charged with manslaughter because there is no crime "causing death by dangerous cycling"


----------



## srw (18 Aug 2017)

McWobble said:


> who has just condemned himself to boot


Well - not necessarily. That's for the jury _in the trial that's still ongoing _to decide.

We get a partial and prejudiced report of what's going on in court, inevitably coloured by the stage of the trial we're at.


----------



## srw (18 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4922076, member: 1314"]simply countered a point made by one or two that he is a 'kid' and, secondly, the linked false extrapolation that 'kids' are a menace on the roads. This is self-evidently untrue.[/QUOTE]
"Kid" doesn't mean "person below the age of legal responsibility". It means "young person". And I'm afraid it is absolutely true that "kids" on the road are a menace. The most dangerous road users bar none are young men in cars - there's a reason it costs an arm and a leg to insure them.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4922116, member: 1314"]Ok.

Once more - he was an adult when he was involved in the incident.* NOT a* kid/young person/*teenager*/ ...

[/QUOTE]
He was 18.


----------



## mjr (18 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> If I were his QC I would be finding my own expert who can actually ride a fixed gear and prove that it can stop in less than 32ft and then do the same with an ineffective brake and stop in the same distance.


Why? He's not been charged with the braking offence and I agree with those who suggest he might not have pulled the brake anyway.



Milkfloat said:


> He is still a nobber though, my worry is that this sets a precedent allowing pedestrians to jump out in front of cyclists at will.


They are already allowed to.



iwantanewbike said:


> So a motorist who kills someone while driving on a mobile phone could also be guilty of this? But how many have, despite clear evidence?


I'd guess none because juries won't convict for it and that's why the two lesser offences of causing death by types of crap driving were created.



slowmotion said:


> Bikes don't register as a potential threat to their well-being.


Nor should they be. I was riding along a small residential road just off an A road and a mother told her child to be careful because I was cycling past. The young girl told her mother not to be silly and it's just a man on a bike. I smiled and waved as I rode past


----------



## byegad (18 Aug 2017)

Whatever his age, having listened to reports from the court he had a fixie with no front brake!

So illegal on the road, which kind of puts him well into the wrong side of any dispute.


----------



## postman (18 Aug 2017)

Mr and Mrs Postman were talking about this case last night.She asked me how fast would i ride in Leeds centre.Not very fast i replied because of the abundance of traffis lights and the layouts of the roads.She also thought cameras could be used to see his journey,tracking him backwards as such.More to come i think.


----------



## kingrollo (18 Aug 2017)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ans-death-claimed-riding-without-front-brake/

Riding a fixie, hit and killed a woman - now on trail for manslaughter.

Riding without a front brake seems a very stupid thing to do and leaves you open to this sort of thing. My own feelings though it was probably more how the lady fell that did the damage.....

Thoughts ?


----------



## vickster (18 Aug 2017)

Assuming you mean trial  , there's 19 pages of thoughts here

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/c...r-accused-of-causing-pedestrian-death.207295/


----------



## srw (18 Aug 2017)

I'm enjoying myself reporting each new thread with a new word. We're up to sextuplication now.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Aug 2017)

postman said:


> More to come i think


No, I think they are pretty well done.

"The trial continues on Friday, when prosecution and defence barristers will give their closing speeches, before the judge, Wendy Joseph QC, sums up the case. She told jurors they would retire to consider their verdicts on Monday."


----------



## Markymark (18 Aug 2017)

If I am riding through an area with an increased chance of pedestrians stepping out in front of me, e.g. Busy junctions, people walking toward the kerb, kids etc I slow and cover my brakes. If someone steps directly in front of me I'll be able to start my braking quicker and far more likely to cut/bruise than badly injure or kill as lower speed. Quite simple really.


----------



## kingrollo (18 Aug 2017)

I remember watching one of those motorway cops programs - A guy on motorbike was caught doing well over the limit. His argument was that he had all brakes upgraded and it was all state of the art stuff - so although he was speeding his stopping ability was greater than you average motorbike.

..since I started typing this Ive forgotten the point I was going to make.....Dammmmm !


----------



## al78 (18 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4922086, member: 1314"]Rule of thumb I use, and which Alliston appears not to have, is that any road user has a duty to look after the more vulnerable road user.[/QUOTE]

That is a good moral rule to follow. I go by a similar rule that states my primary duty is to get to my destination safely and without incident, "safely" refers to mine and others. If a pedestrian is careless, I'll do whatever I can to avoid running into them. If a motorist is careless, I'll do whatever I can to get out of his/her predicted path.


----------



## al78 (18 Aug 2017)

kingrollo said:


> I remember watching one of those motorway cops programs - A guy on motorbike was caught doing well over the limit. His argument was that he had all brakes upgraded and it was all state of the art stuff - so although he was speeding his stopping ability was greater than you average motorbike.
> 
> ..since I started typing this Ive forgotten the point I was going to make.....Dammmmm !



The thinking distance will increase with increasing speed? Also isn't there a risk of risk compensation, if someone thinks their vehicle has superior stopping power, they might subconsciously be less worried about paying attention to what is happening further down the road.


----------



## Jason (18 Aug 2017)

Never nice to hear of any fatality on the roads or otherwise, the facts as I see them

she: HR consultant, oh phone, and crossing Old Street (some blame has to be apportioned to pedestrian)
he: young 6th form drop out on a trendy fixie with no brakes
she: tragically took the full force of the collision, and suffered head injuries 
he: guilty of riding an ill equipped bike for the road
most likely outcome: suspended sentence and a fine


----------



## srw (18 Aug 2017)

Jasonbourne said:


> he: guilty of riding an ill equipped bike for the road
> most likely outcome: suspended


He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.

Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.

This thread is on page 1 of the Google results for "Charlie Alliston forum", and is result number 3 for "Charlie Alliston cycling forum." Given the reporting, both are likely search terms. No other public discussion appears until page 3 of either search.

We are not a quiet, private, discussion.


----------



## classic33 (18 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.
> 
> Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.
> 
> ...


News hasn't been shy in reporting/telling it either. There used to be an instruction given to stay away from any source of material, outside of the court. Has that fallen by the wayside now?


----------



## Jason (18 Aug 2017)

it obviously has, and many publishers have written articles about the incident and the resulting court case


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.
> 
> Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.
> 
> ...


then it needs to be moved, or should not have taken place in a public space.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Aug 2017)

Jasonbourne said:


> it obviously has, and many publishers have written articles about the incident and the resulting court case


and it is possible a juror might be tempted to find out what cyclists think about the case?


----------



## Jason (18 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> and it is possible a juror might be tempted to find out what cyclists think about the case?



anything is possible, but this argument holds water for any case that has been made public


----------



## Banjo (18 Aug 2017)

According to some newspaper columnists all cyclists are evil and selfish monsters so Im not putting much credence in anything I read about this in the chip wrappers.

At least he remained at the scene .
.Any comments he made immediately after the crash would have been fuelled by adrenaline .

Lets let the jury decide.Either way its a complete tragedy.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> and it is possible a juror might be tempted to find out what cyclists think about the case?



It is possible, but the juror will have been told by the judge making such inquiries could result in prison.


----------



## Banjo (18 Aug 2017)

Unless they are locked in a room with no phones for the weekend do we really believe none of the jurors will be tempted take a sneaky look on line?


----------



## User33236 (18 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.
> 
> Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.
> 
> ...


I suspect the curious would simply search for him by name, in which case this thread in on page 5 of a Google search. 

Add the word cyclist after his name and it moves up to page 3. 

Personally I would think it odd for a member of the general public to stick the word forum into a Google search on the matter.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Aug 2017)

Banjo said:


> Unless they are locked in a room with no phones for the weekend do we really believe none of the jurors will be tempted take a sneaky look on line?



Funnily enough we more or less do.

Studies have shown jurors take their responsibility seriously.

They are not stupid, and well grasp the meaning of the judge's warning.

Having also been told to try the case on the evidence they hear in court, it's unlikely a juror's mind would be swayed by comment from non-entities on a cycling forum, even if the juror read it.

There has been a handful of instances of jurors playing detective, visiting the scene, or trying to gather evidence in other ways.

The juror in this link went to prison for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/23/juror-contempt-court-online-research


----------



## swansonj (18 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.
> 
> Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.
> 
> ...





User33236 said:


> I suspect the curious would simply search for him by name, in which case this thread in on page 5 of a Google search.
> 
> Add the word cyclist after his name and it moves up to page 3.
> 
> Personally I would think it odd for a member of the general public to stick the word forum into a Google search on the matter.


Unless you are using Google on an anonymous machine in an Internet cafe, isn't it the case that the position of a link in the search results is influenced by your previous browsing history, so the fact that all of us find this thread very readily when we google is (a) not surprising and (b) not necessarily predictive of what jurors would find?

(This doesn't affect the principle you are each arguing, just the evidence for it)


----------



## DaveReading (18 Aug 2017)

classic33 said:


> There used to be an instruction given to stay away from any source of material, outside of the court. Has that fallen by the wayside now?



The instruction to jurors typically stresses the prohibition on doing internet research about a case. I've never heard a judge tell a jury they can't read newspapers.


----------



## PK99 (18 Aug 2017)

swansonj said:


> isn't it the case that the position of a link in the search results is influenced by your previous browsing history)



And it is surprisingly powerful, I've been googling all thing Canadian & tourist for the past few days planning a holiday. I wanted info on "cathedral grove" (an area on Vancouver Island) - I got as fat as "cat" before it gave me a direct link - it felt like it had read my thoughts.

So, as you say, what one of us might find is "...not necessarily predictive of what jurors would find."


----------



## jefmcg (18 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> We are not a quiet, private, discussion.


Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, lfgss forum is holding their discussion in a members only section.


----------



## srw (18 Aug 2017)

swansonj said:


> Unless you are using Google on an anonymous machine in an Internet cafe, isn't it the case that the position of a link in the search results is influenced by your previous browsing history, so the fact that all of us find this thread very readily when we google is (a) not surprising and (b) not necessarily predictive of what jurors would find?
> 
> (This doesn't affect the principle you are each arguing, just the evidence for it)


I believe that various factors, including browsing history, cookies, location and login are taken into account. Controlling for all apart from location using a clean private browsing tab I find very similar results. Of course private browsing (incognito in Chrome) might not be as anonymous as I think.

The reason I chucked the word "forum" in is because his comments are widely reported as having been made on a Cycling forum, and because if I want to know what the knowledgeable think I'd turn to a forum.

Actually, like @Pale Rider I suspect that jurors will typically behave responsibly. But as the stern government advice implies that doesn't absolve the rest of us from our responsibility to do the same.



DaveReading said:


> The instruction to jurors typically stresses the prohibition on doing internet research about a case. I've never heard a judge tell a jury they can't read newspapers.



You've probably heard many more of these warnings than I have - the last time I did jury service was before widespread public internet access. But newspapers are written by professional journalists and editors and have legal advice on tap. I am not a journalist, but I'd expect "how not to do something illegal" would be a core part of training, So the absence of the warning reflects the stricter standards of newspapers compared with the wilds of the internet.

My suspicion is that all the newspapers already have opinion pieces ready to go immediately the verdict has been reached. More depressingly, they're all predictable, and even worse I suspect more than one has been researched by using this thread.


----------



## srw (18 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, lfgss forum is holding their discussion in a members only section.


A different general interest cycling forum has discussions in a public thread headed "super-twat". The law is immature, and I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that sooner or later forums will catch up with newspapers and squish - hard - discussion of criminal cases before they're completed. All it will take is a single prosecution of a forum host.


----------



## Firestorm (18 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> A different general interest cycling forum has discussions in a public thread headed "super-twat". The law is immature, and I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that sooner or later forums will catch up with newspapers and squish - hard - discussion of criminal cases before they're completed. All it will take is a single prosecution of a forum host.


I am active on a football forum in which a recent case involving fans of the club was discussed. The thread was heavily moderated with posts being frequently deleted.


----------



## User33236 (18 Aug 2017)

swansonj said:


> Unless you are using Google on an anonymous machine in an Internet cafe, isn't it the case that the position of a link in the search results is influenced by your previous browsing history, so the fact that all of us find this thread very readily when we google is (a) not surprising and (b) not necessarily predictive of what jurors would find?
> 
> (This doesn't affect the principle you are each arguing, just the evidence for it)


I, too, believe that results are influenced by your search history. The results got by asking my daughter, who is much more interested in make-up and fashion than cycling, to run the search of her own laptop at her home thus, hopefully, getting a more general result.


----------



## srw (18 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4922967, member: 1314"]who have 'young' males been a danger to on the roads? Themselves, their cars, their passengers, other road users?[/QUOTE]

All the above.

[QUOTE 4922967, member: 1314"]And what are these figures compared to other road users? E.g why is there a grotesque disproportionate of fatal incidents with cyclists and pedestrians involving tipper trucks driven by middle-aged men?[/QUOTE]

Because you're only looking at London. The common thread in London is the lorries and their owners, not the drivers.


----------



## srw (18 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4923009, member: 1314"]So the insurers take into account that the tipper-truck drivers who drive through London during rush-hour that they insure are employed by companies with dodgy daily targets and trucks?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Actual claims experience has a strong influence over pricing for that sort of insurance.

[QUOTE 4923009, member: 1314"]I'm still interested in looking at detail as to actually who are 'young' drivers a 'menace' to but with detail and compare this with other demographics. As an insurer I'm sure you will have the stats.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily in my company - we avoid young drivers precisely because they are high-risk, so we don't have the stats. Even if we did they'd be proprietary. You'll simply have to accept that this is a subject I know quite a lot about - young drivers are a danger both to their passengers and to other road users, so give rise to lots of expensive claims and so get hit with very high premiums. If they were safe in the same way as (say) their 40-something parents then there would be a race to provide insurance to them cheaply.


----------



## Will Spin (18 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> I'm enjoying myself reporting each new thread with a new word. We're up to sextuplication now.


Hope you're keeping on the trail then!


----------



## Origamist (18 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, lfgss forum is holding their discussion in a members only section.



There are two threads where this subject is being discussed on lfgss - one in the members only area, the other in a non-members area...

I'll save my armchair pontificating until the verdict is in...


----------



## Drago (18 Aug 2017)

Good heavens above. This is news to me!


----------



## Drago (18 Aug 2017)

Didn't have time to brake, yet had time to shout at her in the hope that she had time to avoid him.

And as she lay on the ground fatally injured he gobbed off at her.

Send him down, lock him up, throw away the key.


----------



## srw (18 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.
> 
> Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.
> 
> ...


Another control experiment now that I'm at home. Microsoft Edge (a browser I never use), using "InPrivate" browsing (a functionality I never use on that browser) and Bing search (a search engine I never use). About as close to a clean civilian search as you can get.

This thread is on page 2 of the results for "Charlie Alliston". The _specific post of mine I'm quoting_ is now number 1 result for "Charlie Alliston forum". Which is scary. Using other plausible search terms like "cyclist killed pedestrian" other cycling forums appear higher than this one.


----------



## KnackeredBike (18 Aug 2017)

Drago said:


> Didn't have time to brake, yet had time to shout at her in the hope that she had time to avoid him.
> 
> And as she lay on the ground fatally injured he gobbed off at her.
> 
> Send him down, lock him up, throw away the key.


If you've ever had an accident you will know that your first reaction is rarely the one you follow through with.

Last time I was knocked off my bike.

1. Pull out into centre of road to make myself more visible.
2. Try to swerve out of path.
3. Swear as the sodding car pulls across the entire road.
4. Try as far as possible to hit the rear wing at an angle rather than dead one.
5. Retract limbs so only my foot gets run over by the car.

However, pretty much everything you do is instinctive rather than carefully thought through.

All that in the space of a few seconds. Often shouting out is enough to avoid an accident.with a ped or other cyclist.


----------



## classic33 (19 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> Another control experiment now that I'm at home. Microsoft Edge (a browser I never use), using "InPrivate" browsing (a functionality I never use on that browser) and Bing search (a search engine I never use). About as close to a clean civilian search as you can get.
> 
> This thread is on page 2 of the results for "Charlie Alliston". The _specific post of mine I'm quoting_ is now number 1 result for "Charlie Alliston forum". Which is scary. Using other plausible search terms like "cyclist killed pedestrian" other cycling forums appear higher than this one.


Done a similar search, using the victims name(firefox & bing), TV & Newspapers take the first 8 pages.


----------



## classic33 (19 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4923326, member: 1314"]You haven't answered my questions. Take it into another separate thread for reasons outlined earlier.[/QUOTE]
Most under 18 would be stopped, if they were driving by themselves. As to who they're a danger to, @srw has already answered. I'm not in London by the way. Local figures on vehicles stopped for speeding, show that the drivers tend to be newly qualified and/or young. 

There's a straight stretch of road nearby. A few years ago it had a car that was "only doing thirty" according to the driver, leave after hitting an unseen patch of black ice, drivers description, fly through the air for close on 50 yards before coming to rest on the remains of the roof of the garage next to the house. Destroying two cars and the garage they were parked in. He was a teenager at the the time, aged 19.


----------



## bladesman73 (19 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> "Kid" doesn't mean "person below the age of legal responsibility". It means "young person". And I'm afraid it is absolutely true that "kids" on the road are a menace. The most dangerous road users bar none are young men in cars - there's a reason it costs an arm and a leg to insure them.


i disagree. in my experience the most dangerous drivers are the elderly and middle aged men. the former as i have seen plenty at junctions pull out totally oblivious to other traffic. almost all near misses i have had involved old biddies who were simply not concentrating. the latter as they are the ones who i see are aggressive towards cyclists and treat us with contempt.


----------



## bladesman73 (19 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Working in the insurance industry @srw knows as an irrefutable fact that young males are a high risk category of car driver. It is no comment on individuals


bullcrap. seems actual experiences of road users do not tally with the crap insurance companies come out with.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> No, I think they are pretty well done.
> 
> "The trial continues on Friday, when prosecution and defence barristers will give their closing speeches, before the judge, Wendy Joseph QC, sums up the case. She told jurors they would retire to consider their verdicts on Monday."


Hmm, no reports I can find on line about what happened yesterday. I guess not unreasonably been eclipsed by what happened in Barcelona.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> Yes. Actual claims experience has a strong influence over pricing for that sort of insurance.
> 
> 
> Not necessarily in my company - we avoid young drivers precisely because they are high-risk, so we don't have the stats. Even if we did they'd be proprietary. You'll simply have to accept that this is a subject I know quite a lot about - young drivers are a danger both to their passengers and to other road users, so give rise to lots of expensive claims and so get hit with very high premiums. If they were safe in the same way as (say) their 40-something parents then there would be a race to provide insurance to them cheaply.


Was chatting to a mate's daughter last evening, just got her A levels, off to Bournemouth Uni next month, ma and pa provided a clio for upper VIth duties, two accidents, premiums now 175 notes a month. No car for uni.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2017)

bladesman73 said:


> bullcrap. seems actual experiences of road users do not tally with the crap insurance companies come out with.


Are you suggesting that the insurance claims from actual road users don't relate to actual experiences. Is it just possible that the collated data from tens of thousands of incidents might show trends that are at odds with your individual experience?

Declaring an interest... I work for an insurance company.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Are you suggesting that the insurance claims from actual road users don't relate to actual experiences. Is it just possible that the collated data from tens of thousands of incidents might show trends that are at odds with your individual experience?
> 
> Declaring an interest... I work for an insurance company.


Ah, in before I got around to hitting post on my sarcasm.

"Yup, I'll take your anecdotes ahead of carefully collated statistics assembled by professionals whose business depends on it's accuracy."

Edit: Most drivers are men over 30, so they are going to cause the majority of accidents. That doesn't mean they are the worst drivers.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Hmm, no reports I can find on line about what happened yesterday. I guess not unreasonably been eclipsed by what happened in Barcelona.



Closing speeches - particularly the prosecutor's - are inevitably similar to what's gone before.

If the media outlet has done daily reports, there will be nothing new so they tend not to do speeches and summing up unless it's a very high profile case.

There might be something Monday, not least because a day has been missed and some outlets will want to keep the pot simmering, if not boiling.

There may, of course, be verdicts.

The case is listed to start at 9.30am, which is pre-dawn in court terms, so it looks like the judge wants to have a good run at it on Monday morning.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (19 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Closing speeches - particularly the prosecutor's - are inevitably similar to what's gone before.
> 
> If the media outlet has done daily reports, there will be nothing new so they tend not to do speeches and summing up unless it's a very high profile case.
> 
> ...


Love the "pre dawn in court time" comment.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Aug 2017)

Tail End Charlie said:


> Love the "pre dawn in court time" comment.



The same judge has a short hearing in a different case listed at 9.15am, so she's obviously not averse to putting a shift in.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4924349, member: 1314"]

Fair enough. In which case I'll still keep an eye our for the list of road users I mentioned earlier when cycling (or walking) instead of focussing on 'kids' driving cars.

There must be stats somewhere which show who are the most dangerous users of road space in terms of endangering other road users apart from themselves.[/QUOTE]
The only stats available cover actual harm not (mere) endangerment. Maybe that's the thing. Young males kill and maim like no other group whereas, possibly, older drivers just scare the bejaysus out of cyclists?


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4924349, member: 1314"]Fair enough. In which case I'll still keep an eye our for the list of road users I mentioned earlier when cycling (or walking) instead of focussing on 'kids' driving cars.[/QUOTE]
Hate to be pedantic (OK - no I don't ), but still ... you don't think it would be good idea to keep an eye out for ALL road users?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Aug 2017)

Some interesting remarks from the court today here

All smacks of the usual most vulnerable road user victim blaming.


----------



## srw (21 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Some interesting remarks from the court today here
> 
> All smacks of the usual most vulnerable road user victim blaming.


That is the job of the defence barrister....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> That is the job of the defence barrister....


I thought their job was to defend the accused not blame the victim. Who is dead and not able to defend herself.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Some interesting remarks from the court today here
> 
> All smacks of the usual most vulnerable road user victim blaming.


Oh dear. "As drivers, the prospects you would be prosecuted for unlawful act manslaughter are very slender.”


----------



## rliu (21 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Oh dear. "As drivers, the prospects you would be prosecuted for unlawful act manslaughter are very slender.”



Sad but true, the job of the defence barrister is rarely ever a popular one.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> Unfortunately he is not wrong, but what a terrible argument to use in someone's defence.


The barrister lmows how to "work a jury". A stark and terrifying indictment of what passes for justice for vulnerable road users.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> Sad but true, the job of the defence barrister is rarely ever a popular one.


... but a lucrative one? Sorry ... this one is sticking in my craw. I suppose there's an element of weary expectation of how killer drivers evade justice. How many times have we seen/ heard it? But "tweaking" it so overtly, obviously, and brutally - "somebody" ****ing wept.


----------



## slowmotion (21 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> The barrister lmows how to "work a jury". A stark and terrifying indictment of what passes for justice for vulnerable road users.


Isn't "working the jury" an essential part of an adversarial justice system? The UK system probably works as well or better than any other country's.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Unfortunately they are not courts of justice, they are courts of law.


... and theatrical performance


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Aug 2017)

slowmotion said:


> Isn't "working the jury" an essential part of an adversarial justice system? The UK system probably works as well or better than any other country's.


I beg to differ.


----------



## slowmotion (22 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> I beg to differ.


Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I think that a defence council trying to persuade a jury to acquit purely because the jurors themselves might sometime be in a similar situation to the defendant's is absolutely appalling. I hope the judge would stomp on that line pretty quickly.


----------



## growingvegetables (22 Aug 2017)

slowmotion said:


> ... I think that a defence council trying to persuade a jury to acquit purely because the jurors themselves might sometime be in a similar situation to the defendant's is absolutely appalling. I hope the judge would stomp on that line pretty quickly.


Innumerable press reports say otherwise, but we must hope.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Aug 2017)

Worth bearing in mind the prosecutor also made a speech.

That's not in any press report I've seen, but the jury would have heard it and it's for them to decide which speech they think more of.

They will also have been told that nothing the barristers say is evidence in the case.

Of course, that can cut both ways, but they are told to decide the case on the evidence, so they may choose not to take much account of either speech.

In this case, both barristers are QCs, so the speech part of what is a battle should at least start on a roughly equal footing.

The prosecutor makes his speech first, so the defending barrister - assuming he is light on his feet - has the opportunity to counter it, so in that respect he has an advantage.

The last word goes to the judge in her summing up, which one might think the jury would take more notice of than either speech.


----------



## slowmotion (22 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Worth bearing in mind the prosecutor also made a speech.
> 
> That's not in any press report I've seen, but the jury would have heard it and it's for them to decide which speech they think more of.
> 
> ...


I've only been on a jury for two trials. In both cases, the juries took the judges' warning to judge the case on the evidence only extremely seriously.


----------



## Milkfloat (22 Aug 2017)

One question I ask myself. If the defendant had brakes fitted, but failed to use them, would he even be in court?


----------



## srw (22 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I thought their job was to defend the accused not blame the victim. Who is dead and not able to defend herself.


If the best way to defend the accused is to shift the blame onto the victim - that is what will happen. Victims and their families have rarely had a voice in the UK courts; it's only recent governments, acting under pressure from the worst bits of the tabloid press, which have begun to change that.


----------



## jefmcg (22 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> One question I ask myself. If the defendant had brakes fitted, but failed to use them, would he even be in court?



As far as I can tell from what I have read, that's exactly what did happen. He shouted at her twice and swerved before attempting to stop only when he was nearly upon her. That also explains his otherwise bizarre ascertain that it was impossible to avoid the collision with any brakes. 

Riding through London at speed shouting at but not slowing for errant pedestrians? How has he only hit one? 

But I think he's in court because of the crap he posted online.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Aug 2017)

He's in court because the pedestrian died.


----------



## DaveReading (22 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Innumerable press reports say otherwise



For better or worse, a jury is not required or expected to explain how and why it reached its verdict, so any press speculation around that isn't worth the paper it's written on.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Yes and no. Yes because in the most literal way that is true. No because there is more to it than that.
> If it were as simple as that, quite a lot of drivers would be similarly prosecuted, way more than ever do.


He's in court because the pedestrian died after a collision with a cyclist. Cyclist are a menace. Especially Lahndahn Louts.

Had he been driving a car as badly, and as badly "maintained" well... the defence have said it all, a much lesser charge I reckon.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> He's in court because the pedestrian died after a collision with a cyclist. Cyclist are a menace. Especially Lahndahn Louts.
> 
> Had he been driving a car as badly, and as badly "maintained" well... the defence have said it all, a much lesser charge I reckon.



Were he a driver, he would have been in line for one of the causing death by driving charges.

They don't apply to cyclists because of the wording '...you drove a mechanically propelled vehicle...' which is why the prosecution has got a bit creative with the wanton and furious/manslaughter charging approach.


----------



## jefmcg (22 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Were he a driver, he would have been in line for one of the causing death by driving charges.


If he was driver who went online and said "I tooted her twice, but she didn't get out of the way", yes probably . But if he'd said "she stepped out suddenly and I didn't have time to stop. That terrible moment will stay with me for the rest of my life" then maybe not.


----------



## mjr (22 Aug 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> One question I ask myself. If the defendant had brakes fitted, but failed to use them, would he even be in court?


He should be, because they've not charged him with the use regulations offence, reportedly - but I share your doubts.


----------



## T4tomo (22 Aug 2017)

It would depend on circumstances, the prosecutions approximate case is he should have known having no brake was dangerous yet knowingly ride it anyway.

If had proper brakes but knowingly didn't use them for whatever hypothetical reason then he may well have been charged. If he genuinely didn't have he opportunity to use them, then probably not.


----------



## Firestorm (22 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> If he was driver who went online and said "I tooted her twice, but she didn't get out of the way", yes probably . But if he'd said "she stepped out suddenly and I didn't have time to stop. That terrible moment will stay with me for the rest of my life" then maybe not.


The article on the defence summing up has a line about it being agreed that she stepped backwards into him.
So it seems that not only did she step out in front of him 30 ft from a Zebra crossing, but when he had avoided her she stepped backwards into him.
It strikes me as being a harsh prosecution ....


----------



## T4tomo (22 Aug 2017)

Although the prosecution may argue yelling at someone instead of braking could have induced a panic that made her step back.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Aug 2017)

T4tomo said:


> yelling at someone instead of braking could have induced a panic that made her step back.



Which is why you have to be very careful, if using an audible warning, to do so at sufficient distance you can react to this this kind of response. 
Sometimes it's better to stay quiet, slow down and go behind.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Aug 2017)

It appears the jury has still not reached a verdict and has been sent home. Deliberations resume at 10:00 tomorrow.


----------



## Buddfox (22 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It appears the jury has still not reached a verdict and has been sent home. Deliberations resume at 10:00 tomorrow.



Can anything be read into that?


----------



## rliu (22 Aug 2017)

Buddfox said:


> Can anything be read into that?



It is an extremely difficult case to consider and I won't be surprised if there are significant splits in the room. Both the accused and the victim will cause sympathies and prejudices in different ways, and that's not to mention the purely factual complications to reaching a verdict - in that the victim was unaware of the approaching cyclist, and had crossed the road while distracted.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Aug 2017)

Buddfox said:


> Can anything be read into that?



Maybe >>




??


----------



## numbnuts (22 Aug 2017)

Buddfox said:


> Can anything be read into that?


Maybe there are a few cyclists on the jury.


----------



## iwantanewbike (22 Aug 2017)

If he does get sent down I would hope the case represents a turning point in all traffic violence cases, i.e. much tougher sentences for all dangerous drivers and cyclists alike. This would be a real improvement to the current system. However if the punishment is disproportionate to that received by drivers going forward I'll be quite dismayed. I do however think the charge against him is a bit dubious given he wasn't totally to blame. Many people simply don't look when crossing the road and rely on their ears too much, which is useless if there is a quiet bicycle approaching.

I see his contribution to her death no more than driving a car around with any of the following: bald tyres, any mechanical problems previously aware of, no MOT, on a mobile phone, speeding or tired due to a night out even if sober.

Consciously choosing not having an effective brake is the only fact that is relevant but the other parts (his immediate reaction including shouting at her) I don't think should be taken into account in terms of whether the collision could have been avoided or not.


----------



## rliu (22 Aug 2017)

iwantanewbike said:


> If he does get sent down I would hope the case represents a turning point in all traffic violence cases, i.e. much tougher sentences for all dangerous drivers and cyclists alike. This would be a real improvement to the current system. However if the punishment is disproportionate to that received by drivers going forward I'll be quite dismayed. I do however think the charge against him is a bit dubious given he wasn't totally to blame. Many people simply don't look when crossing the road and rely on their ears too much, which is useless if there is a quiet bicycle approaching.
> 
> I see his contribution to her death no more than driving a car around with any of the following: bald tyres, any mechanical problems previously aware of, no MOT, on a mobile phone, speeding or tired due to a night out even if sober.
> 
> Consciously choosing not having an effective brake is the only fact that is relevant but the other parts (his immediate reaction including shouting at her) I don't think should be taken into account in terms of whether the collision could have been avoided or not.



Of the many replies to the thread I think yours most closely aligns with my view. As Alliston's defence barrister alluded to, in this situation where a pedestrian has crossed the path of a cyclist, it's very dubious who is the more vulnerable road user, as it would have been just as likely for the cyclist to be thrown over the handlebars and suffer head injuries and for the pedestrian to escape with non permanent injuries. It is a very different situation to if a cyclist had hit a pedestrian from the back on a shared used path for example, a situation where the entire responsibility to be cautious and mindful of risks is on the cyclist.


----------



## rliu (22 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Would you drive a car with no brakes other than using the gears and engine? That would be a closer approximation.



There are many cases of pedestrian deaths due to excessive speeding which has tripled or quadrupled braking distances, I would say that is an apt comparison to the situation here.

https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/

The writer here points out the lenient sentences given to drivers who kill due to excessive speeding.

If Alliston is convicted he would not escape a custodial sentence given the seriousness of a manslaughter charge. Surely that is unfair.


----------



## rliu (22 Aug 2017)

User said:


> No I don't think it is unfair. What is unfair is the leniency others get.



We're in agreement on that and I think basically everybody is in agreement killer drivers literally get away with murder, due to conscious choices like speeding, drink or drug driving, or dangerous manoeuvres due to impatience or arrogance.
I have no preference as such for how the verdict goes. I am however highly doubtful a conviction of Alliston will lead to more dangerous drivers of any form of mode of transport being charged with manslaughter in the future. As we can see how long his case has dragged out prosecutions like this are expensive, and in our market driven society where justice ministers call court users customers the CPS will always go for low hanging fruit careless driving charges that lead to fines and community service only.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> There are many cases of pedestrian deaths due to excessive speeding which has tripled or quadrupled braking distances, I would say that is an apt comparison to the situation here.
> 
> https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/
> 
> ...


What is unfair is that we, as a society, are so wedded to car use we can't even stomach the idea of charging drivers with manslaughter when they kill, because juries won't convict, and so have introduced lesser charges of "causing death by...'"

And even then juries don't convict.

That's what's unfair.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Aug 2017)

User said:


> I have, on many occasions, said that our criminal justice system needs to take a tougher attitude from one end to the other on policing our roads. The written law on what constitutes careless driving and dangerous driving is a too undemanding. Our police officers excuse poor and dangerous driving too readily. The CPS are too wary about prosecuting serious charges. Juries appear to be too ready to dismiss serious charges.


^This. Cubed.


----------



## Buddfox (22 Aug 2017)

I'm sure we all agree that our justice system needs toughening up in relation to dangerous drivers, but I am surprised at the number of cyclists hoping for the first precedent to be set with a cyclist themselves, under fairly arcane legislation. Let's see what the jury comes up with.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Aug 2017)

Buddfox said:


> I'm sure we all agree that our justice system needs toughening up in relation to dangerous drivers, but I am surprised at the number of cyclists hoping for the first precedent to be set with a cyclist themselves, under fairly arcane legislation. Let's see what the jury comes up with.


Is it a precedent?


----------



## PK99 (22 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> I think basically everybody is in agreement killer drivers* literally get away with murder*,.



No. No agreement at all on that.


----------



## growingvegetables (22 Aug 2017)

Firestorm said:


> The article on the defence summing up has a line about it being agreed that she stepped backwards into him.
> So it seems that not only did she step out in front of him 30 ft from a Zebra crossing, but when he had avoided her she stepped backwards into him.
> It strikes me as being a harsh prosecution ....


Nope.

Your "not only" has me spitting bits of teeth.
Your "when he had avoided her ..."has me spitting more bits of teeth.


----------



## growingvegetables (22 Aug 2017)

Buddfox said:


> I'm sure we all agree that our justice system needs toughening up in relation to dangerous drivers, but I am surprised at the number of cyclists hoping for the first precedent to be set with a cyclist themselves, under fairly arcane legislation. Let's see what the jury comes up with.


I'd rather think a fair number of us are not being "tribalist" about sticking up for "fellow"-cyclists, no matter what. I'd like to think they are trying to be objective, even scientific about degrees of vulnerability - recognising that a human body at 3mph has rather less destructive force than a human body at 18mph?


----------



## PK99 (22 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> I'd rather think a fair number of us are not being "tribalist" about sticking up for "fellow"-cyclists, no matter what. I'd like to think they are trying to be objective, even scientific about degrees of vulnerability - recognising that a human body at 3mph has rather less destructive force than a human body at 18mph?



Quite right, there is a hierarchy of vulnerability. The more vulnerable are owed a duty of care by the more robust.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (22 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> I'd rather think a fair number of us are not being "tribalist" about sticking up for "fellow"-cyclists, no matter what. I'd like to think they are trying to be objective, even scientific about degrees of vulnerability - recognising that a human body at 3mph has rather less destructive force than a human body at 18mph?


I thought it was a human body PLUS a bicycle (the latter having various hard, metal, pointy bits on it).


----------



## Wobblers (22 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> He's in court because the pedestrian died.



If only I could bring myself to believe that.

I can't: on average, over 100 pedestrians are killed in this country every year by motor vehicles _when they are on the pavement_. How many of the drivers face manslaughter charges, I wonder. Actually, I wonder just how many of them face any sort of charges at all.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2017)

McWobble said:


> If only I could bring myself to believe that.
> 
> I can't: on average, over 100 pedestrians are killed in this country every year by motor vehicles _when they are on the pavement_. How many of the drivers face manslaughter charges, I wonder. Actually, I wonder just how many of them face any sort of charges at all.


But those deaths are _accidents_ surely? Unavoidable. Nobody's fault. In fact if anyone is to blame it is the pedestrians for being unprotected and on foot near roads, they'd be safer in cars, after all.


----------



## Helenbells (23 Aug 2017)

If the scenario had been such that both parties were insured as if they were drivers in a ' car park shunt' the one going backwards into the path of one going forwards with right of way, I reckon the one going backwards would be penalized. However unfair the consequences.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> But those deaths are _accidents_ surely? Unavoidable. Nobody's fault. In fact if anyone is to blame it is the pedestrians for being unprotected and on foot near roads, they'd be safer in cars, after all.



All drivers do so in the reasonable expectation a pedestrian will not step into the carriageway in front of their vehicle.

If that wasn't the case, no one would drive through a built up area at more than walking pace.

Thus when a pedestrian does step into the path of a vehicle, it's an uphill task to hold the driver of the vehicle responsible - if that's what you are trying to do.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> All drivers do so in the reasonable expectation a pedestrian will not step into the carriageway in front of their vehicle.
> 
> If that wasn't the case, no one would drive through a built up area at more than walking pace.
> 
> Thus when a pedestrian does step into the path of a vehicle, it's an uphill task to hold the driver of the vehicle responsible - if that's what you are trying to do.


All pedestrians who walk on pavements do so in the expectation that motor vehicles will stay on the tarmac and off the pavement. That mistaken, flawed expectation gets around 100 pedestrians killed every year in the UK.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2017)

Helenbells said:


> If the scenario had been such that both parties were insured as if they were drivers in a ' car park shunt' the one going backwards into the path of one going forwards with right of way, I reckon the one going backwards would be penalized. However unfair the consequences.


Maybe she saw him, stepped backwards to get out of his path but got clobbered anyway? It happens.


----------



## srw (23 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> around 100 pedestrians killed every year in the UK.



Have you got a link?


----------



## fossyant (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Any reasonable driver, or cyclist, keeps a careful eye on pedestrians on the pavement, to spot the early warnings that someone might be about to step onto the carriageway so that they can accommodate that.



Exactly. The number of pedestrians that do step into the road expecting vehicles to stop is huge. See it every day in the city centre. It's like they have an invisible force field that will make 1500kg of car suddenly stop. "Ah they won't run me over".


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

Helenbells said:


> If the scenario had been such that both parties were insured as if they were drivers in a ' car park shunt' the one going backwards into the path of one going forwards with right of way, I reckon the one going backwards would be penalized. However unfair the consequences.



according to the highway code no one has right of way.

plus, the pedestrian was not acting illegally, but the cyclist was.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> All drivers do so in the reasonable expectation a pedestrian will not step into the carriageway in front of their vehicle.



"A prudent man will guard against the possible negligence of others, when experience shows negligence to be common." _Lord du Parcq_
​


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> Have you got a link?


I expect @McWobble may have...


----------



## rliu (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> "A prudent man will guard against the possible negligence of others, when experience shows negligence to be common." _Lord du Parcq
> _
> 
> ​




Negligence, in the context of that quote, is a civil liability/law of tort concept. Civil law has a lower evidential and liability threshold than criminal law. While it may be fair to expect an insurer to pay up for a pedestrian that mindlessly steps in front of a car, the same would not stretch to criminally prosecuting that driver and imposing a criminal sentence. This is also why the word gross is added in the context of gross negligence manslaughter, meaning the negligence must be reckless or egregious. This is a distinction we must make here.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4928119, member: 45"]I was walking up the road with my boys a few weeks ago. We were side by side. A car passed and the wing mirror hit me. The driver said it was my fault because I was too close to the edge of the pavement.[/QUOTE]
As a pedestrian aren't you meant to stand to attention and salute your superiors as they pass?


----------



## Alan O (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> "A prudent man will guard against the possible negligence of others, when experience shows negligence to be common." _Lord du Parcq_


Didn't he get run over by a bus?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> Negligence, in the context of that quote, is a civil liability/law of tort concept. Civil law has a lower evidential and liability threshold than criminal law. While it may be fair to expect an insurer to pay up for a pedestrian that mindlessly steps in front of a car, the same would not stretch to criminally prosecuting that driver and imposing a criminal sentence. This is also why the word gross is added in the context of gross negligence manslaughter, meaning the negligence must be reckless or egregious. This is a distinction we must make here.



You're right, and I ought to have made clear the remark was in connection with civil law. 

However, it remains a useful and relevant maxim when operating a vehicle in a location busy with predictably unpredictable pedestrians.


----------



## rliu (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> You're right, and I ought to have made clear the remark was in connection with civil law.
> 
> However, it remains a useful and relevant maxim when operating a vehicle in a location busy with predictably unpredictable pedestrians.



Yes I agree it's certainly a good principle to bear in mind, as it would be undoubtedly very stressful causing an injury to a pedestrian and facing a civil claim as a cyclist, given many don't have third party liability insurance. 

I just wanted to call out however applying this standard to the Alliston case would be unduly harsh.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Jury has been directed on returning a majority verdict.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Jury has been directed on returning a majority verdict.



Directed how? That they may or may not?


----------



## rliu (23 Aug 2017)

Buddfox said:


> Directed how? That they may or may not?



The direction is always going to be that the jury may return a majority verdict as I understand it.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Aug 2017)

The direction is the judge will now accept a verdict on which at least 10 of them are agreed.


----------



## iwantanewbike (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Would you drive a car with no brakes other than using the gears and engine? That would be a closer approximation.



What about Dutch hire bikes with rear drum brakes only that are actuated when you force the cranks backwards? How do they compare?


----------



## KneesUp (23 Aug 2017)

iwantanewbike said:


> What about Dutch hire bikes with rear drum brakes only that are actuated when you force the cranks backwards? How do they compare?


Do many people ride Dutch hire bikes in the UK do you think?


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

iwantanewbike said:


> What about Dutch hire bikes with rear drum brakes only that are actuated when you force the cranks backwards? How do they compare?



Sheldon Brown on Coaster brakes (his emphasis at the end)

*Pro:*
Coaster brakes work just as well in the rain as they do in dry conditions
Coaster brakes generally require less maintenance than any other type of brake.

There are no cables running from the handlebars, giving a tidy and simple appearance.

The lack of cables with a single-speed or kickback two-speed coaster brake is particularly advantageous for folding or take-apart bikes.

Coaster brakes can be a good choice for handicapped riders who lack sufficient hand strength, or for arm amputees.

Coaster brakes are usually quite narrow, fit in 110-114 mm spacing, though they can be fitted to frames with wider spacing by adding washers along the axle.

An internal-gear hub can include a coaster brake, providing both gearing and rear-wheel braking.

A bicycle with a coaster brake can coast backward with stationary cranks (useful in acrobatic cycling).

*Con:*

Coaster brakes make it awkward to get started, and prevent the use of clip-in pedals or toe clips and straps, since there's no easy way to rotate the pedals to starting position.

Coaster brakes often cause skidding, resulting in excessive tire wear.

When coaster brakes fail (usually the result of chain breakage or derailment) they fail suddenly and completely.

Coaster brakes are prone to overheating and fading when used in mountainous areas.

A coaster brake inside an internal-gear hub complicates the mechanism and reduces the options for lubrication.

A coaster brake is not compatible with derailer gearing or a *chain tensioner*.

Too many bikes are equipped with _only_ a coaster brake, so there's no back-up system in the event of brake failure.

*To be safe, any bicycle needs a front handbrake and some sort of rear-wheel braking system. This could be a handbrake, coaster brake or fixed gear.*


----------



## fossyant (23 Aug 2017)

User3094 said:


> Not unreasonable given the location.
> 
> Edit: You're probably aware of the shared space scheme in Poynton?



Yes. Works well other than in rush hour when it has huge tail backs. Downside for cyclists is that due to the narrow lanes and curbs, you can't filter


----------



## fossyant (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> As someone who owns both fixed wheel bikes, and a bike with a coaster brake, I can say with some experience that a coaster brake is way more effective than slowing a fixed wheel bike by leg braking. Some people are way better at leg braking than I am though.



Leg braking isn't easy and not good for your knees. Hence 2 calliper brakes on mine.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Convicted of causing bodily harm by wanton & furious driving.
Not guilty of manslaughter.


----------



## Markymark (23 Aug 2017)

...and it's headline breaking news on the main news websites. Seriously, how many other court cases involving death from road users get this sort of coverage?


----------



## Buddfox (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Convicted of causing bodily harm by wanton & furious driving.
> Not guilty of manslaughter.



Good result on the manslaughter


----------



## Buddfox (23 Aug 2017)

Markymark said:


> ...and it's headline breaking news on the main news websites. Seriously, how many other court cases involving death from road users get this sort of coverage?



Because pedestrians killed by cyclists is relatively rare?


----------



## AndyMack (23 Aug 2017)

breaking news on BBC Website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Markymark said:


> Seriously, how many other court cases involving death from road users get this sort of coverage?



There was barely a peep about this guy who killed a 4yr old girl on the pavement by running over her with his tipper van as she rode along on her scooter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514

_He said he "slowed to a stop, indicated and checked my mirrors and drove on to the pavement. I heard a lady screaming and I got out the van to see what had happened and there was a little girl on the floor._​
It's just everyday motorised road violence that's become normalised. But you take an exceptional outcome where a cyclist is accused...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2017)

User3094 said:


> 2 years tops.
> 
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...ance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a28



I'm guessing it'll be near the top end. 

Remember the case of Philip Benwell who injured a young girl on a pedestrian crossing and fled? He pled guilty to GBH and got a year, Alliston's victim died.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'm guessing it'll be near the top end.
> 
> Remember the case of Philip Benwell who injured a young girl on a pedestrian crossing and fled? He pled guilty to GBH and got a year, Alliston's victim died.



From the Guardian coverage:

"Alliston was released on bail. He will be sentenced on September 18th. Judge Wendy Thomas warned that he faced a custodial sentence but added that it was not a certainty until she had heard mitigation at the sentencing hearing. She added: 'I have not seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all at any stage.'"


----------



## Markymark (23 Aug 2017)

Judge has said that mitigating circumstances 'may' mean no custodial


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Martin Porter QC presents some interesting points about this case:
https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html


----------



## Firestorm (23 Aug 2017)

BBC article on the verdict says that Mrs Briggs family plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians....


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2017)

Firestorm said:


> BBC article on the verdict says that Mrs Briggs family plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians....



I was about to post the same point, with the question: What tougher cycling laws do you need? He was tried for manslaughter!


----------



## fossyant (23 Aug 2017)

He didn't help himself, but had it been a vehicle then it would be no news. 

As I've said before the driver that very nearly paralysed me didn't even get a telling off. No points nothing.


----------



## Milkfloat (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I was about to post the same point, with the question: What tougher cycling laws do you need? He was tried for manslaughter!



Perhaps they just want cycling banned on public roads.


----------



## DaveReading (23 Aug 2017)

Buddfox said:


> Judge Wendy Thomas warned that he faced a custodial sentence



Which doesn't necessarily mean he will go to prison.


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Martin Porter QC presents some interesting points about this case:
> https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html


Also interesting points (and comparisons) from the Road Danger Reduction Forum.


----------



## rliu (23 Aug 2017)

I think the verdict overall was a fair one, and you could certainly argue for creating an offence linked to death or injury caused by not maintaining a road legal bike.
However the manslaughter charge was definitely a punt in the dark by the CPS and I'm not surprised the jury rejected it.


----------



## srw (23 Aug 2017)

Markymark said:


> ...and it's headline breaking news on the main news websites. Seriously, how many other court cases involving death from road users get this sort of coverage?


It's news precisely _because_ it's extremely rare. That's what news is.

And in direct answer to your question, typing "road death" into the BBC website gives me...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-40862829
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40487828
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-40351943
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39803713
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-39716649
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39716289
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-38733704
...all from 2017. Each has a particular hook that has made it news rather than a statistic, whether the age of the victim or the circumstances of the death.


----------



## mjr (23 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> All pedestrians who walk on pavements do so in the expectation that motor vehicles will stay on the tarmac and off the pavement. That mistaken, flawed expectation gets around 100 pedestrians killed every year in the UK.


http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cy...an-motorists-claims-transport-minister/018723 claimed it was 34 a year a few years ago. I could fire up the database of police collision reports but I still doubt it'll be 100.



KneesUp said:


> Do many people ride Dutch hire bikes in the UK do you think?


They don't need to be hire bikes. Bikes temporarily ridden here don't need to comply with UK regulations according to http://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/international-traffic but only a UN convention which is fine with only a coaster brake (but doesn't regard fixed wheel as a brake). I suspect there's a few around at any given time.

My own Dutchie came with UK-specific front forks fitted because the ones used in the Netherlands don't support a front brake!



Firestorm said:


> BBC article on the verdict says that Mrs Briggs family plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians....


 I hope someone like the RDRF approaches them. It would seem better to press the police to actually enforce the existing regulations a bit more (so maybe the likes of Alliston get a Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme ticket before they hurt someone).


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> There was barely a peep about this guy who killed a 4yr old girl on the pavement by running over her with his tipper van as she rode along on her scooter:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514
> 
> ...



in no way comparable. 

the case you cite involved a momentary lapse with tragic consequences.

The current case involved long term deliberate flouting of the Law.

the guy claimed he did not know it was illegal to not have a front brake yet told the bloke he bought it from he wanted it to ride on the track.


----------



## srw (23 Aug 2017)

I haven't the faintest idea whether the verdict was fair or appropriate - I am neither a lawyer nor a member of the jury. I'm extremely glad the case was brought, because it highlights the extreme rarity of cyclists injuring, let alone killing, pedestrians, and reminds us all not to be nobbers.

Speaking of which - what a nobber the defendant was. First of all to post completely idiotic comments online, and then not to say "it's a fair cop - I'm pleading guilty". He showed himself to be a self-entitled selfish prat.


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I was about to post the same point, with the question: What tougher cycling laws do you need? He was tried for manslaughter!



a driver faces "causing death by dangerous/careless driving". there is no comparable "causing death by wanton and furious cycling" hence the resort to the manslaughter charge.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> It's news precisely _because_ it's extremely rare. That's what news is.
> 
> And in direct answer to your question, typing "road death" into the BBC website gives me...
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-40862829
> ...



There are two more factors which made this case big news.

It happened in London, raising its importance to the mostly London-based media.

The victim, if not the defendant, is middle class, a HR consultant, which makes many media titles think 'she's one of us'.

Put another way, the case would have got a lot less coverage if it had happened in a back street in Bolton to a woman on the way to her cleaning job.


----------



## srw (23 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Put another way, the case would have got a lot less coverage if it had happened in a back street in Bolton to a woman on the way to her cleaning job.


Or if the person in the dock had shown some remorse - he created his own headlines by failing to take responsibility.

I hope he gets the maximum possible sentence.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> Or if the person in the dock had shown some remorse - he created his own headlines by failing to take responsibility.
> 
> I hope he gets the maximum possible sentence.



Agreed, I expect the case turned out better than expected for the hacks who gathered on the press bench at the start.

As regards the sentence, the judge's remark about him not showing any remorse so far could be taken as a hint she's not that keen to lock him up, and might not if some remorse is shown from now on.

That's a bit late in the day, but some lawyers are skilled at putting a positive shine on recent changes of heart by their client.

Alliston will be interviewed by a probation officer who will prepare a pre-sentence report. 

He could do himself a lot of good by saying the right things in his interview.

A skill which he hasn't demonstrated up to now, but he might be able to pull something out of the bag as he staring down the barrel of a spell in prison.


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

CTC's view from the BBC new site repot:

_Duncan Dollimore, head of advocacy and campaigns at Cycling UK, said: "*Riding a fixed wheel bicycle on busy roads without a front brake is illegal, stupid and endangers other road users especially pedestrians. *_

_*"Charlie Alliston's actions had tragic consequences for Kim Briggs' family and it was entirely right that this led to his prosecution*."

_


----------



## User482 (23 Aug 2017)

Interesting view from the Cycling Silk: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge


----------



## TheJDog (23 Aug 2017)

I find it absolutely bizarre. If an identical accident had happened with a guy with a front brake (and little of what I've read makes me think it would have panned out differently had he had a front brake) there would have been none of this nonsense. I don't understand the prosecutor's actions nor the jury's decisions.

I realise it's an awful situation for him, but what law does the widower want changed? His wife stepped into the street on her phone without looking and just because the cyclist is a nob that removes all responsibility from her?


----------



## fossyant (23 Aug 2017)

I don't think the lads attitude and subsequent trail on social media helped at all. One nobber and we are guilty !


----------



## rliu (23 Aug 2017)

TheJDog said:


> I find it absolutely bizarre. If an identical accident had happened with a guy with a front brake (and little of what I've read makes me think it would have panned out differently had he had a front brake) there would have been none of this nonsense. I don't understand the prosecutor's actions nor the jury's decisions.
> 
> I realise it's an awful situation for him, but what law does the widower want changed? His wife stepped into the street on her phone without looking and just because the cyclist is a nob that removes all responsibility from her?



Campaigning is just a part and parcel of people's response to an unfortunate situation now, just look at the sheer volume of petitions out there, be it change.org or Government petitions website or any other similar platform. I don't blame the widower but objectively speaking Alliston got charged with the highest level of criminal offence possible in the circumstances.

This was alluded to in Martin Porter and RFDF's articles, but this is the comparable case concerning a motorcyclist http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Wells-killed-pensioner-crash-spared-jail.html - suspended sentence when there was excessive speeding and a dangerous manoeuvre.


----------



## TheJDog (23 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'm guessing it'll be near the top end.
> 
> Remember the case of Philip Benwell who injured a young girl on a pedestrian crossing and fled? He pled guilty to GBH and got a year, Alliston's victim died.



But that young girl had the right of way. The woman Alliston collided with stepped out in front of him without looking when he had a green light.


----------



## fossyant (23 Aug 2017)

BBC News reported he 'removed his front brake' - Erm the PX forks don't have a brake mounting point.


----------



## TheJDog (23 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> such blatant victim blaming here



If anything else had hit her, a car, a horse, a lorry, a bike with a front brake, no one would put one iota of blame anywhere apart from her.

It's terrible that she died, absolutely, there is no way around that, mother of two kids, jesus. But that does not absolve her of responsibility.


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

TheJDog said:


> I find it absolutely bizarre. If an identical accident had happened with a guy with a front brake (and little of what I've read makes me think it would have panned out differently had he had a front brake) there would have been none of this nonsense. I don't understand the prosecutor's actions nor the jury's decisions.
> 
> I realise it's an awful situation for him, but what law does the widower want changed? His wife stepped into the street on her phone without looking and just *because the cyclist is a nob that removes all responsibility from her?*




Had the cyclist had a front brake it would not have been identical

Plus, sad to see such blatant victim blaming here of all places


----------



## fossyant (23 Aug 2017)

Changing the law for just one death - god if that happened with motorists ?


----------



## User482 (23 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> Had the cyclist had a front brake it would not have been identical
> 
> Plus, sad to see such blatant victim blaming here of all places


It's not victim blaming to believe that the cyclist was possibly not guilty of the charges brought.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> in no way comparable.



I was inviting comparison of the publicity given.



PK99 said:


> a driver faces "causing death by dangerous/careless driving". there is no comparable "causing death by wanton and furious cycling" hence the resort to the manslaughter charge.



I know all that. I'm asking what tougher laws he wants.


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Aug 2017)

TheJDog said:


> If anything else had hit her, a car, a horse, a lorry, a bike with a front brake, no one would put one iota of blame anywhere apart from her.
> 
> It's terrible that she died, absolutely, there is no way around that, mother of two kids, jesus. *But that does not absolve her of responsibility*.


Sorry - but out of place. Way out of place.

Apart from me feeling deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming, the simple fact is ... the *guy* was on trial for *HIS* actions. There's no question of allocating responsibility to the victim, nor indeed of absolving her. She was not on trial.

The only other element that might be, conversationally speaking, have been on trial? I presume he and his legal team made (ahem!) "strategic" choices, first regarding whether to plead guilty or not, and second regarding the arguments to marshal in support of his "not guilty" plea. Let me be generous ... they "miscalculated". Badly.


----------



## classic33 (23 Aug 2017)

If it had been a car, in use on the road with no front brakes, what then.


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Aug 2017)

fossyant said:


> Changing the law for just one death - god if that happened with motorists ?


Whispers quietly - I wonder if this may soon morph into highly-charged campaigns for compulsory insurance?

[Edited to add] It's starting .... 'Lawyer Keith Barrett, of Fieldfisher law firm, said he was pursuing a civil claim on behalf of the Briggs family, adding: "I hope that the spotlight on this trial will encourage courier companies and others to insist that their agents are full insured, as they would a car or van driver, in the event they seriously injure or kill someone on the roads."'


----------



## TheJDog (23 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> the simple fact is ... the *guy* was on trial for *HIS* actions..



Yes. Was it beyond a reasonable doubt that if he'd had a front brake he'd have avoided the collision? No way you could prove that, and no way he should have been convicted of GBH. It's a tragic accident.


----------



## rliu (23 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Sorry - but out of place. Way out of place.
> 
> Apart from me feeling deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming, the simple fact is ... the *guy* was on trial for *HIS* actions. There's no question of allocating responsibility to the victim, nor indeed of absolving her. She was not on trial.
> 
> The only other element that might be, conversationally speaking, have been on trial? I presume he and his legal team made (ahem!) "strategic" choices, first regarding whether to plead guilty or not, and second regarding the arguments to marshal in support of his "not guilty" plea. Let me be generous ... they "miscalculated". Badly.



A part of making a defence of an accused's actions is to argue around how they reacted to a victim's actions, no actions exists in a vacuum of its own. That is not the same as victim blaming.


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Aug 2017)

TheJDog said:


> Yes. Was it beyond a reasonable doubt that if he'd had a front brake he'd have avoided the collision? No way you could prove that, and no way he should have been convicted of GBH. It's a tragic accident.


You are Mr Loophole, AICMFP.


----------



## srw (23 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> You are Mr Loophole, AICMFP.


Either that or a lawyer who's attended all 5 days of the trial and has spotted something the judge and the jury didn't....


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> A part of making a defence of an accused's actions is to argue around how they reacted to a victim's actions, no actions exists in a vacuum of its own. That is not the same as victim blaming.


I stick to my use of the phrase, written as it was, in response to this.


----------



## numbnuts (23 Aug 2017)

Just been reading the comments in the Mail, hung, draw and quartered comes to mind.......


----------



## Yellow Fang (23 Aug 2017)

I see Charlie Alliston got done for 'wanton and furious driving' for a cycle collision with a woman who stepped onto the road in front of him, leading to her death. It's true, legally speaking, he should have had a front brake. He was riding a fixed wheel track bike. Otherwise I can't see that he did too much wrong. He was on the road. 18mph is not too fast.


----------



## TheJDog (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> You can very reasonably prove, beyond any doubt at all, that, had he had and used a brake, the collision would have been at a very low speed, if it had occurred at all.



He had his legs. Can you really say with absolute certainty that a brake compared to his legs over the distance would have made that much difference to speed? 

It's such a freak accident that she was killed . If he'd been going faster, slower, had been slightly to either side, she'd have walked away. Prosecuting this freak accident as a certainty seems anti-cycling to me. 

I'm not even going to start into how anti cycling juries seem to usually be,and whether this was something similar.


----------



## classic33 (23 Aug 2017)

Vehicle in use, at the time, was unfit to be on the road.


----------



## vickster (23 Aug 2017)

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/c...-causing-pedestrian-death.207295/post-4928891


----------



## Arjimlad (23 Aug 2017)

Martin Porter's article on this nails the science. He'd not have been able to stop in a car either. It's a very unfortunate accident, it seems to me.


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> A part of making a defence of an accused's actions is to argue around how they reacted to a victim's actions, no actions exists in a vacuum of its own. That is not the same as victim blaming.



but some of the posts here have been blatant victim blaming.


----------



## User6179 (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> You can very reasonably prove, beyond any doubt at all, that, had he had and used a brake, the collision would have been at a very low speed, if it had occurred at all.




He was 6.75 metres away when he swerved to avoid a collision travelling at 18 mph which is less than one second away from the victim,

I think you could reasonably prove that swerving and not braking would be the better option in most cases at that speed and distance to avoid a collision. 

Go out on your bike and mark a line 6.75 metres away from a bollard then cycle towards it at 18mph and see for yourself.


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

Arjimlad said:


> Martin Porter's article on this nails the science. He'd not have been able to stop in a car either. It's a very unfortunate accident, it seems to me.



But she would more likely have seen/heard a car and not stepped out...?


----------



## Arjimlad (23 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> But she would more likely have seen/heard a car and not stepped out...?



Quite possibly, or had more respect for the damage a car can do. I had a lecturer eyeball me - look me straight in the eye - and step out right in front of me once. Thankfully I was going uphill slowly but even braking hard I still couldn't avoid my front wheel hitting her leg.


----------



## TheJDog (23 Aug 2017)

Witness David Callan said: 'I heard a shout... like a warning or alert. It made me look up immediately, just in time to see a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian.

It sounds to me like he had bugger all time to react after he saw her.


----------



## TheJDog (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Yes.



Everything is just black and white, isn't it?


----------



## srw (23 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4928916, member: 259"]If only he'd had been able to instinctively use the time to clutch something like a front brake lever[/QUOTE]
...or be travelling at an appropriate speed and with enough awareness of his surroundings to be able to spot her more quickly.


----------



## Yellow Fang (23 Aug 2017)

vickster said:


> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/c...-causing-pedestrian-death.207295/post-4928891



Oops, apologies. I did a search for Alliston and nothing came up.


----------



## Drago (23 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> Otherwise I can't see that he did too much wrong.



The "otherwise" was more than enough to kill someone.


----------



## TheJDog (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> You asked a question, and I answered it. I know as an absolute certainty that a fixed wheel bike stops way quicker if you use a brake.



That wasn't the question.


----------



## swansonj (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> You can very reasonably prove, beyond any doubt at all, that, had he had and used a brake, the collision would have been at a very low speed, if it had occurred at all.


But isn't that mixing up two different things?

At the point that the woman stepped into the road, he decided not to brake but to shout at her. That may or may not have been the right decision, but seems to have been independent of whether he had one mediocre braking system or one mediocre plus one good. 

At the subsequent point that the woman stepped backwards into his path, it seems that it would have been too late for any braking system, no matter how efficient, to reduce the impact speed significantly.


----------



## swansonj (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> He didn't have an either/or choice, shout or brake. He could have done both.


And I agree with that. I would have braked (not that there'd have been a cat in hell's chance of me going at 18 mph to start with). My point is that, once he decided not to brake, the effectiveness or not of his braking systems becomes irrelevant to the subsequent impact.


----------



## Yellow Fang (23 Aug 2017)

Personally I don't think he did a lot wrong. Still, having a front brake might have made some difference, and he should have had one. Minor offence * major outcome = moderate punishment. If he had managed to slow from 18 mph to 15 mph his kinetic energy would have been 70% what it was. They say ignorance is no defence in law, but that's for offences that you know are wrong anyway. For example, you might not know what the law of affray is, but you know when you are acting in a threatening manner in a public place. So I suppose it boils down to whether he should have known his bike was more dangerous for not having a front brake.

Still, if he'd been the the one killed in the accident, would she have been prosecuted? Even if he had a front brake?


----------



## Buddfox (23 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4928987, member: 259"]It would have made a huge difference.[/QUOTE]

Not if he hadn't used it


----------



## Origamist (23 Aug 2017)

Charlie comes across as an entitled, charmless tw*t. At his age, I'd like to think I was merely a tw*t.

I have found it difficult to follow the more technical aspects of the case, due to the limitations of the press coverage, particularly with reference to the testimony of the collision expert. However, as the jury heard all the evidence, I would not argue with the verdict.

As someone who has collided with a pedestrian at speed in London, it makes me think how things could have ended so differently for me and the child involved. My thoughts are with the friends and family of Mrs Briggs.


----------



## User482 (23 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4928987, member: 259"]It would have made a huge difference.[/QUOTE]
Probably, but not certainly. It was freakishly unlucky for her to die from the collision.


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4928987, member: 259"]It would have made a huge difference.[/QUOTE]

on a bike with front and back brakes, In an emergency stop peak breaking efficiency is at the point of almost doing and endo over the front wheel and rear breaking effect is zero.... check out Sheldon for the details.


----------



## User482 (23 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4929022, member: 259"]You

You never can say, but the slower he was traveling, the slower the impact, and the less potential to kill her. It wasn't freakishly unlucky to not have a front brake, it was really stupid.[/QUOTE]
There's no excuse for riding without a front brake. I guess I'm struggling to understand why travelling at 18mph and attempting to avoid the collision meets the definition of "wanton and furious".


----------



## Yellow Fang (23 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4928987, member: 259"]It would have made a huge difference.[/QUOTE]

Well, very possibly. I have only cycled a friend's fixie once around the block. Come to think of it, the front brake hardly worked. I thought it was a death trap. Emergency braking by suddenly stopping pedalling didn't appear very do-able. I gather fixie riders learn new techniques for stopping, such as lifting the back wheel and stopping pedalling before landing it, but I have not tried it. I would always put a front brake on a fixie if I had one. I don't suppose the jury had much experience with fixies either.

Some BMX riders take off both sets of brakes. I think because it is more cool that way, or maybe because they want to do tricks like spin their handlebars 360 degrees while jumping in the air. I've seen BMXers brake by putting their foot on their back tyre. BMX bikes tend not to travel that fast on the road. Dutch granny bikes with coaster brakes tend not to go that fast either, although they might down hill. In Sweden I saw lots of a certain type of bike that did not seem to have any brakes, but I suppose they must have had back brakes. Presumably they are considered reasonably safe over there.


----------



## User482 (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> It is similar to those deaths that occur from just one punch, where one of the parties hits their head on the floor.


In terms of the outcome, yes.


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Aug 2017)

TheJDog said:


> Prosecuting this freak accident as a certainty seems anti-cycling to me.


Nope.

Finding some sort of law, no matter how antiquated, to deal with a freak accident incident? Probably - simply because such collisions, with such devastating consequences, are so rare. 

What is it on average? Slightly less than two pedestrians every year, dying as a result of a collision involving a cyclist? With those stats, each and every case is hugely different ... and has not been thought a great basis for law-making.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Aug 2017)

I don't think anything useful will be achieved by giving this young man a custodial sentence.


----------



## gaijintendo (23 Aug 2017)

I more or less agree with everyone here. More or less.


----------



## TheJDog (23 Aug 2017)

I think he's massively unlucky (I'm not trying to belittle the fact that someone died). I think it's a freak accident, and but for the fact that he didn't have a front brake, which might not have made a lot of difference, he's going to get two years. 

I think this is an awful prosecution with only terrible results in terms of publicity for all cyclists.

If only car drivers were prosecuted with such zeal.


----------



## Origamist (23 Aug 2017)

User482 said:


> There's no excuse for riding without a front brake. I guess I'm struggling to understand why travelling at 18mph and attempting to avoid the collision meets the definition of "wanton and furious".



I think what did for him was the wilful misconduct/neglect aspect of the charge. 

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2017)

slowmotion said:


> I don't think anything useful will be achieved by giving this young man a custodial sentence.


Probably the logic applied to many drivers who kill.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2017)

Origamist said:


> I think what did for him was the wilful misconduct/neglect aspect of the charge.
> 
> "Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."


Wanton = deliberate and unprovoked. He deliberately rode with no front brake and caused bodily harm. He doesn't need to have been going furiously.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Probably the logic applied to many drivers who kill.


Possibly.


----------



## Slick (23 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4929121, member: 259"]Yes, me too. I can't feel any sympathy for him, but I've done really stupid things as well.[/QUOTE]
We all have, but nobody died.


----------



## Tim Hall (23 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> on a bike with front and back brakes, In an emergency stop peak breaking efficiency is at the point of almost doing and endo over the front wheel and rear breaking effect is zero.... check out Sheldon for the details.


But he didn't have a front brake so there's no chances of doing an endo.


----------



## albion (23 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> Personally I don't think he did a lot wrong. Still, having a front brake might have made some difference, and he should have had one. Minor offence * major outcome = moderate punishment. If he had managed to slow from 18 mph to 15 mph his kinetic energy would have been 70% what it was. They say ignorance is no defence in law, but that's for offences that you know are wrong anyway. For example, you might not know what the law of affray is, but you know when you are acting in a threatening manner in a public place. So I suppose it boils down to whether he should have known his bike was more dangerous for not having a front brake.
> 
> Still, if he'd been the the one killed in the accident, would she have been prosecuted? Even if he had a front brake?


There was a lot wrong. For starters he should not have been on the road. And 18mph is too fast,in pedestrian busy areas, with little braking.
However scapegoating a cyclist whilst continually letting off motorists' who kill thousands is serious prejudice.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge


----------



## DaveReading (23 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Wanton = deliberate and unprovoked. He deliberately rode with no front brake and caused bodily harm. He doesn't need to have been going furiously.



Yes he does.

The offence was wanton AND furious driving, not either/or.


----------



## User482 (23 Aug 2017)

Origamist said:


> I think what did for him was the wilful misconduct/neglect aspect of the charge.
> 
> "Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."


I'm no lawyer, but that seems to hinge on the harm occurring because of the wilful neglect.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2017)

DaveReading said:


> Yes he does.
> 
> The offence was wanton AND furious driving, not either/or.


Nope. Whosoever shall by either or.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2017)

User said:


> He wasn't scapegoated. He was prosecuted.
> 
> And he made a rod for his own back by being an ignorant, arrogant pr*ck.


You can't say that. He is young. He is a cyclist. He did nothing wrong. It was an accident.

'kin nobbers.


----------



## MacB (23 Aug 2017)

This is tough, I instinctively recoil from him due to his attitude but being a Nobber, apart from on CC, is no grounds for prosecution. I mentioned earlier in the thread he was 18, that wasn't to excuse him as a child but to highlight the level of ignorance and arrogance we all had at that sort of age...or at least I know I did. I know a lot has been made of his lack of remorse/empathy but that smacks of 'expectations' to me. Were he a model student, who was smart enough to blub and look distraught everything might have been different, though maybe the rampant cyclist hating media would still have had their field day.

Despite his failings intent matters to me and I actually believe he didn't know his bike wasn't street legal and that he believed in his 'skills' to an unreasonable level.


----------



## PK99 (23 Aug 2017)

MacB said:


> Despite his failings intent matters to me and I actually believe he didn't know his bike wasn't street legal and that he believed in his 'skills' to an unreasonable level.



The reported evidence that he told the guy he bought the bike from that he wanted it to ride on the track seems to indicate he did know it was not street legal.


----------



## Yellow Fang (23 Aug 2017)

albion said:


> There was a lot wrong. For starters he should not have been on the road. And 18mph is too fast,in pedestrian busy areas, with little braking.
> However scapegoating a cyclist whilst continually letting off motorists' who kill thousands is serious prejudice.
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge



I read that. It sounds like some irrelevant stuff was brought up at the trial, such as him not wearing a helmet. 
Why is 18 mph too fast for a cyclist when 20 mph is ok for other road traffic? 

He had less than a second to react. Even if he'd had a front brake he probably could not have halted, so he might have tried to swerve anyway. OTOH, he might have halved his speed with a front brake, but she would probably still have been knocked over.

I remember at college one of my friends got knocked off his bike when an old lady stepped on the road without looking. She got all the sympathy from the by-passers, but she was not hurt, unlike my friend who was.


----------



## MacB (23 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> The reported evidence that he told the guy he bought the bike from that he wanted it to ride on the track seems to indicate he did know it was not street legal.



That's an assumption I've seen no evidence for, you may be right but I'm not sure he'd have been smart enough to make that up.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Aug 2017)

He had a bike that wasn't street legal. I didn't hear the evidence in court, but apart from the lack of front brakes, none of the press reports that I've read indicated that his riding was reckless. If someone steps out in front of you, you can brake or you can change course suddenly. If you try and do both, you are probably on the tarmac. He made a bad decision. I see a dozen instances of riding each day that are far more reckless than his. Fortunately they have less tragic consequences.


Edit: Sorry. Cross post with Yellow Fang.


----------



## PK99 (24 Aug 2017)

"She was stupid and stepped out in front of a cyclist" Vs "She was stupid and rode up the inside of a left indicating HGV"


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> "She was stupid and stepped out in front of a cyclist" Vs "She was stupid and rode up the inside of a left indicating HGV"



We do get the 'victim blaming' point you are repeatedly making but you keep comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## PK99 (24 Aug 2017)

slowmotion said:


> He had a bike that wasn't street legal. I didn't hear the evidence in court, but apart from the lack of front brakes, *none of the press reports that I've read indicated that his riding was reckless*. If someone steps out in front of you, you can brake or your can change course suddenly. If you try and do both, you are probably on the tarmac. He made a bad decision. I see a dozen instances of riding each day that are far more reckless than his. Fortunately they have less tragic consequences.
> 
> 
> Edit: Sorry. Cross post with Yellow Fang.



Reckless = heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous.

riding a street illegal bike at speed in an area busy with pedestrians seems to meet the dictionary definition square on.


----------



## slowmotion (24 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> "She was s





PK99 said:


> Reckless = heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous.
> 
> riding a street illegal bike at speed in an area busy with pedestrians seems to meet the dictionary definition square on.


I gave my opinion on his lack of brakes. I have no idea if it contributed to the accident. I don't ride down busy urban roads at 18mph but I have heard that some of those motorists out there do.


----------



## lazybloke (24 Aug 2017)

The only thing that amazes me about this case is the 'expert' advice about stopping distances.
Hopelessly optimistic for my road bike (Tektro dual pivot brakes).
Not even realistic for my mountain bike (disc brakes, recent change of pads).

(based on some slow speed testing after work earlier)


----------



## Wobblers (24 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> Have you got a link?



According to the CTC, there were an average of 39 pedestrians killed on footways and verges each year. There's a reference to the DfT _Reported Road Casualties Great Britain _2010-2012, though I don't have the time to wade through the document. 

It's much better than I thought, which is good: I was probably confusing the cyclist fatality rate.


----------



## Wobblers (24 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> in no way comparable.
> 
> the case you cite involved a momentary lapse with tragic consequences.
> 
> ...



You're right. One was on the carriageway - where he should have been, and at least made some minimal effort at mitigation.

The other drove his large tipper truck onto what is supposed to be a protected space for pedestrians, where it is illegal for him to be, without due regard as to whether or not it was safe to do so. 

Which is worse, do you think?

Incidentally, had an incident of this nature happened on a building site or loading bay, you can be quite sure that the HSE would have been all over it with a view to prosecuting the driver or company (or both).


----------



## srw (24 Aug 2017)

McWobble said:


> According to the CTC, there were an average of 39 pedestrians killed on footways and verges each year. There's a reference to the DfT _Reported Road Casualties Great Britain _2010-2012, though I don't have the time to wade through the document.
> 
> It's much better than I thought, which is good: I was probably confusing the cyclist fatality rate.


Thank you. In the context of 400 pedestrian deaths a year, 40 on pavements sounds more likely than 100. I do remember once finding it, because I was curious about how many pedestrian deaths occurred on the roadway and crossings.


----------



## srw (24 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> Why is 18 mph too fast for a cyclist when 20 mph is ok for other road traffic?


20mph isn't OK for other road traffic in central London. It's freakishly fast.

Anyone who's ever ridden a bike in central London will know that 18mph is far too fast to be safe to be riding near unpredictable pedestrians. That's a speed to do on a clear road with decent visibility, or when you're riding in the middle of clear-flowing traffic, as traffic.

And to clear one other thing up - Alliston spent time working as a bike courier and was a fan of alley-cat racing. If he didn't understand more than most of us here about the law on brakes and the techniques of track riding then I've got a bridge I'd like to interest you in.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (24 Aug 2017)

Can't get my head around this. Other than being a prat the only offence he has committed is riding a bike that isn't road legal. I don't get how this translates to a charge of furious cycling. It makes me wonder, next time I'm freewheeling at 18mph down a gentle gradient, passing through green lights, and an inattentive pedestrian steps out in front of me, possibly looking at their phone...Regardless of whether I have 2 working brakes, if I swerve to avoid ped then ped steps back into my path, am I going to be looking at the same charge ?


----------



## User482 (24 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> 20mph isn't OK for other road traffic in central London. It's freakishly fast.
> 
> Anyone who's ever ridden a bike in central London will know that 18mph is far too fast to be safe to be riding near unpredictable pedestrians. That's a speed to do on a clear road with decent visibility, or when you're riding in the middle of clear-flowing traffic, as traffic.


In general, I agree, but no-one is going to be prosecuted for it.


----------



## srw (24 Aug 2017)

User482 said:


> In general, I agree, but no-one is going to be prosecuted for it.


They are when they knock someone down. Despite the hand-wringing, drivers are regularly prosecuted for injuring other road users.


----------



## User482 (24 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> They are when they knock someone down. Despite the hand-wringing, drivers are regularly prosecuted for injuring other road users.


You were referring to speed. No court will hold 18mph to be unreasonable. So we are left with whether or not he could've stopped with a front brake, or slowed sufficiently to prevent injury or death.


----------



## Tin Pot (24 Aug 2017)

I'd like to point out that *LBC* - normally known for wild populist tripe - put on a very rational balanced show last night, on this point.

They had a cycling rep on who rightly tried to focus the attention on people who behave badly, rather than the tribal labels cyclist, motorist, pedestrian. And the show host tried to keep that message throughout.

Obviously you had the frothing loons dialling in with the registration, license, helmet and they-are-all-the-same nonsense but the show hosts did a good job in my opinion.

Kudos to LBC.


----------



## srw (24 Aug 2017)

User482 said:


> You were referring to speed. No court will hold 18mph to be unreasonable. So we are left with whether or not he could've stopped with a front brake, or slowed sufficiently to prevent injury or death.


...either of which are easier at a slower, more appropriate speed. Speed is an integral part of the case.


----------



## User482 (24 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> ...Speed is an integral part of the case.


That's not my understanding of the prosecution's case.


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

User482 said:


> That's not my understanding of the prosecution's case.



No they did make a lot of the stopping distance variables but, as the article you linked to pointed out, even with a front brake it's doubtful stopping could have happened given speed and distance. For this the lack of a front brake is an issue, at least theoretically and the theoretical bit is whether he'd have even considered using it had one been on the bike. That's where my 'over estimating his skills' comment came in. He saw what was ahead, shouted twice, didn't get the reaction he wanted so swerved seemingly at the same time as the reaction he'd been looking for came. You could argue that had he not bothered shouting and stuck to swerving only then this could have been avoided...we'll never know.


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4929381, member: 1314"]There is, literally, a world of difference between 'freewheeling down a gentle gradient' at 18 mph somewhere quiet, and cycling at 18 mph through central London with very little space for pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles to navigate around each other due to the ancient London urban infrastructure.

It was Alliston's responsibility to make sure that, firstly, his bike was roadworthy; secondly, he was cycling defensively, not just for his safety but also that of more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians; and, thirdly, that if he was not going to do either that he had the skills to stop or avoid hazards.

Pedestrians commonly step out onto London roads without checking. It's not always their fault as they aren't put at the heart of London's transport policy as they should be. I worked in central London for ten years and walking around was a 'mare.

I don't think his age is an excuse.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree but still feel he's being scapegoated for his attitude as much as his actions, age is not an excuse just part of the explanation. I've ridden enough in London to be appalled by some other cyclists most obviously as they stream past when I stop at lights. I've also seen plenty weave through pedestrians who are crossing rather than wait.


----------



## Venod (24 Aug 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> Can't get my head around this. Other than being a prat the only offence he has committed is riding a bike that isn't road legal. I don't get how this translates to a charge of furious cycling.



I agree where does the furious cycling fit in with this, not having a front brake is stupid, but was he cycling furiously ?

[QUOTE 4929381, member: 1314"]Pedestrians commonly step out onto London roads* without checking*. It's not always their fault[/QUOTE]

I would say if you step into the road without checking there is a good chance its your fault.


----------



## User482 (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> It was, specifically the inability to control it.


Specifically related to the lack of front brake, not that his speed was held to be unreasonable.


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

Afnug said:


> I would say if you step into the road without checking there is a good chance its your fault.



This is true but I think the point being made is that most of us would be cycling more sensibly and defensively in keeping with the roads we were traversing. I know I would be but would I have been aged 18? well I can remember some hairy moments cycling when I was young, disaster only averted by the quick thinking of other road users. I've become a more considerate, less angry and more risk averse cyclist over the years. I'd actually say the same for my driving, in my 20s road rage could rear its ugly head but looking back the same incidents now wouldn't even cause me to raise an eyebrow.


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

User482 said:


> Specifically related to the lack of front brake, not that his speed was held to be unreasonable.



Yeah but I think that was the angle they used, speed reasonable if he had a front brake but unreasonable because he hadn't. whether this is factual or not didn't seem to come into it.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

MacB said:


> ... scapegoated ...


Wrong word. He was NOT "scapegoated".

[Pedantic? Yup . Important? Yup (imho) .]


----------



## Banjo (24 Aug 2017)

It is a complete tragedy but is no responsibility at all being put on the woman for not looking before stepping out onto the road?

If the bike was being ridden by a vicar and was completely roadworthy the collision could still have occurred.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

MacB said:


> This is true but I think the point being made is that most of us would be cycling more sensibly and defensively in keeping with the roads we were traversing.


^^^ This. 

Just listened to Mr Briggs on R4 - he made pretty much the same point, fairly and eloquently, talking about how he wanted legislation brought up to date.

[ @User13710 types faster]


----------



## robjh (24 Aug 2017)

User13710 said:


> Mr Briggs has just been on R4, explaining that his campaign is for cycling to be included in the Road Traffic Act. He was very restrained and dignified, given what happened.


I thought what he was saying made a good deal of sense - the creation of offences such as 'causing death by dangerous/careless cycling', thus bringing cycling legislation in this area into line with that for motoring, and thus avoiding the risk of the more serious (and hard to convict) charge of manslaughter being brought for what is a less risky activity.

Of course the alternative would be to scrap the special laws for motorists who kill, and charge them with manslaughter too, but that would likely result in fewer convictions all round.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

Banjo said:


> It is a complete tragedy but is no responsibility at all being put on the woman for not looking before stepping out onto the road?


Nope. She was not on trial. 

Alliston was - and being held accountable for *his* decisions and actions, and their consequences.


----------



## Venod (24 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> I thought what he was saying made a good deal of sense - the creation of offences such as 'causing death by dangerous/careless cycling', thus bringing cycling legislation in this area into line with that for motoring



It would have made more sense if he could have been charged with dangerous/careless cycling, the prosecution would have no problem pointing out that cycling on a non roadworthy bicycle is dangerous/careless.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

Mr Briggs' statement - for those who missed hearing him on R4. 

From the Daily Wail - I read, copied and pasted so you don't have to go there!  And so you don't "get heated" about the poisonous "reporting" on the rest of the page.

"The husband of Kim Briggs has made an impassioned plea for a change in the law - and the attitude of some cyclists .....

Matt Briggs, who is a cyclist himself, called for a new offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling and said: 'We all have to share these imperfect streets, let's do so with care and due regard for each other.'

He also urged retailers to do more to make clear to customers that fixed wheel bikes without proper brakes are dangerous and illegal to use on the road.

In a powerful statement he said: 'I am now determined to do what I can to prevent others from going through the heartache we have had to bear following Kim's needless death.

We need to radically change some aspects of our cycling culture. This is not a witch hunt against all cyclists (I, myself cycle in London) only the irresponsible and reckless. We all have to share these imperfect streets, let's do so with care and due regard for each other.

'The current law is outdated and has not kept pace with the huge increase in the number of people cycling and the associated increased risk of collisions, nor the attitude of some cyclists. We need to change the way the law deals with this.

'I am calling for an introduction of laws of causing Death or Serious Injury by Dangerous or Careless Cycling, thereby bringing cycling laws into line with the Road Traffic Act.

'I also want people to understand that riding any bike without two brakes is illegal and, as we have seen, potentially lethal. I want bike retailers and, in particular, courier companies to communicate clearly and forcefully that these bikes are not legal or fit for road use'.


----------



## Banjo (24 Aug 2017)

How many bikes have bells these days ?
Mine dont because I believe a shout is quicker and louder .

In the same situation after a collision could it be possible someone could be jailed for wilfully riding without a bell?


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

Banjo said:


> In the same situation after a collision could it be possible someone could be jailed for wilfully riding without a bell?


No - because the legal requirement is only that the bike exit the shop door with a bell.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Aug 2017)

Banjo said:


> How many bikes have bells these days ?
> Mine dont because I believe a shout is quicker and louder .
> 
> In the same situation after a collision could it be possible someone could be jailed for wilfully riding without a bell?



No, a bell's not a legal requirement for riding on the road.


----------



## DaveReading (24 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Wrong word. He was NOT "scapegoated".
> 
> [Pedantic? Yup . Important? Yup (imho) .]



Good luck trying to divine the CPS's reasons for proceeding with a prosecution and their choice of charge(s).

Would you settle for "he was being made an example of" ?


----------



## User482 (24 Aug 2017)

I think that Mr Alliston's actions fell well below the standard that most of us here would advocate and practise. That, including his belligerent attitude is, I suggest, at the root of some of the opprobrium seen in this thread. There is though a gulf between best practice and illegality, and I remain to be convinced, that - Construction and Use Regulations aside - his actions were illegal. The prosecution's case seemed to hinge on expert evidence that had a front brake been fitted, then he would've avoided the collision, and that evidence seems to be in considerable doubt. Given that - at best - it was marginal as to whether he could've avoided the collision by using a front brake, then it seems to me that swerving to avoid her was a reasonable course of action. Clearly, he should've been travelling more slowly, but again that brings us back to the gap between good practice and illegality. I can't escape the feeling that he has been held to a higher standard than would be expected of a motorist in a similar situation.

Finally, an anecdote: cycling to work this morning, a pedestrian stepped off the kerb in front of me. I was travelling slowly, and have disc brakes front and rear. My instinctive reaction was to swerve round her. Food for thought?


----------



## MacB (24 Aug 2017)

User3094 said:


> I agree as much as this contemptible little shoot deserves a short prison sentence how many of us can honestly say having no front brake was illegal before this case?



I knew it but only from cycling forums, wouldn't have had a Scooby otherwise


----------



## User482 (24 Aug 2017)

User3094 said:


> I agree as much as this contemptible little shoot deserves a short prison sentence how many of us can honestly say having no front brake was illegal before this case?


I did know, but at age 18? I would've known that it was a stupid idea, though.


----------



## gaijintendo (24 Aug 2017)

User482 said:


> Finally, an anecdote: cycling to work this morning, a pedestrian stepped off the kerb in front of me. I was travelling slowly, and have disc brakes front and rear. My instinctive reaction was to swerve round her. Food for thought?


The day I heard about this story, someone ran between traffic across the road, finally in front of me. I didn't have anywhere to swerve to safely, and was accelerating at the time. I applied my disc brakes and made gentle contact with her. She claimed no injuries, but I had a chat with her to make sure it wasn't just the adrenaline. She was very apologetic, and I insisted she had no need to apologise, just to be more careful in the future because it's so easy to get flattened. 
Very amicable.
Horrific.


----------



## Yellow Fang (24 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> I thought what he was saying made a good deal of sense - the creation of offences such as 'causing death by dangerous/careless cycling', thus bringing cycling legislation in this area into line with that for motoring, and thus avoiding the risk of the more serious (and hard to convict) charge of manslaughter being brought for what is a less risky activity.
> 
> Of course the alternative would be to scrap the special laws for motorists who kill, and charge them with manslaughter too, but that would likely result in fewer convictions all round.



Maybe bringing cycling offences into the road traffic act or creating a new offence is not necessary now there's a precedent for convicting a cyclist for 'wanton and furious driving'.


----------



## User482 (24 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> I thought what he was saying made a good deal of sense - the creation of offences such as 'causing death by dangerous/careless cycling', thus bringing cycling legislation in this area into line with that for motoring, and thus avoiding the risk of the more serious (and hard to convict) charge of manslaughter being brought for what is a less risky activity.
> 
> Of course the alternative would be to scrap the special laws for motorists who kill, and charge them with manslaughter too, but that would likely result in fewer convictions all round.


I'm not so sure. A family friend was convicted of death by careless driving last year. Would you like to guess what his sentence was?


----------



## rliu (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> He's not. Insight and remorse are routinely taken into account in legal proceedings. He showed neither. He was an arrogant cock, who displayed callous disregard for what he did, and I hope the judge reflects that in her sentencing.



Attitude is relevant at sentencing stage, not when a court and jury are deciding if somebody is guilty of a crime in the first place.


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Aug 2017)

I though this an interesting article for debate....only had a quick read so far.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge


----------



## Tin Pot (24 Aug 2017)

User482 said:


> I did know, but at age 18? I would've known that it was a stupid idea, though.



+1


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Aug 2017)

User3094 said:


> I agree as much as this contemptible little shoot deserves a short prison sentence how many of us can honestly say having no front brake was illegal before this case?


As per User482, common-sense would make me realise it was a dumb idea. But this guy was part of the Courier/fixed wheel fraternity and I'm pretty certain this must have been mentioned at some time. Apart from Bravado and fashion, there's no good reason not to have a front brake on a road bike.
Interesting interview from the m,echanic at 'Look mum no hands' this morning on R4.


----------



## Tin Pot (24 Aug 2017)

What's the point in changing the law due to this case?

He was prosecuted successfully.

I'm tired of hearing about new laws that change nothing materially. Simplifying the law is different - e.g. Killing people and their death being your fault should be covered by a single law, whether a bike, car or spoon is involved.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

DaveReading said:


> Good luck trying to divine the CPS's reasons for proceeding with a prosecution ...


... a woman died, as a result of a collision which could have been avoided? Arguable - "could have been avoided", and a court of law was the appropriate place for the argument?



DaveReading said:


> ... and their choice of charge(s).


Arguably - because of gaps, incongruities, and archaisms in the law?


----------



## voyager (24 Aug 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> Maybe bringing cycling offences into the road traffic act or creating a new offence is not necessary now there's a precedent for convicting a cyclist for 'wanton and furious driving'.


this has always been on the books , but was rarely used


----------



## swansonj (24 Aug 2017)

robjh said:


> I thought what he was saying made a good deal of sense -
> ....


It made a good deal of sense - if you regard the perhaps one case a year in which a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist, and the fraction of that one case a year in which the cyclist merits prosecution, and the fraction of that fraction of that one case per year in which the existing laws are not adequate, as sufficient basis for campaigning for a change in the law.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Aug 2017)

Are there sentencing guidelines for the conviction under wanton & furious? Or will the judge be guided by those available for causing death by dangerous/careless driving?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Aug 2017)

User3094 said:


> I love being noticed...
> 
> View attachment 369761



I'd love it if people read the question being asked!

I know what the maximum sentence available is.

There are sentencing guidelines for equivalent offences by motorists where thresholds for the various options are to be considered by the sentencing judge, such as: has the threshold for a custodial sentence been passed?

That's what I'm asking about.


----------



## rliu (24 Aug 2017)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4295825/cyclist-charlie-alliston-kim-briggs/

This is the level of media hysteria being whipped up now, automatically assuming the only reason he didn't have a haircut a few weeks earlier is to hide a skull tattoo from the jury. In any case you can still see that tattoo poking out in the longer haired photo.

I'm not going to argue Alliston wasn't guilty of a crime, but the media reaction, particularly the tabloid rags like Sun and Daily Mail, has been totally to use this tragic case to peddle their general hatred of cyclists.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4295825/cyclist-charlie-alliston-kim-briggs/
> 
> This is the level of media hysteria being whipped up now, automatically assuming the only reason he didn't have a haircut a few weeks earlier is to hide a skull tattoo from the jury. In any case you can still see that tattoo poking out in the longer haired photo.
> 
> I'm not going to argue Alliston wasn't guilty of a crime, but the media reaction, particularly the tabloid rags like Sun and Daily Mail, has been totally to use this tragic case to peddle their general hatred of cyclists.



And they'll string it out as long as possible. I've already seen an article headed "Who is Charlie Alliston?" in one of the gutter rags.

Get ready for the whole thing to be repeated at sentencing next month.


----------



## MiK1138 (24 Aug 2017)

Banjo said:


> How many bikes have bells these days ?
> Mine dont because I believe a shout is quicker and louder .
> 
> In the same situation after a collision could it be possible someone could be jailed for wilfully riding without a bell?


Mine does but is only used for alerting pedestrians on a shared path that i am approaching, someone stepping out in front of me would get a shout(probably a rather sweary shout)


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'd love it if people read the question being asked!
> 
> I know what the maximum sentence available is.
> 
> ...



No guidelines.

The chances are the judge will have invited both barristers to refer her to other similar cases which have been dealt with, if they want to.

There's a couple in one of the BBC stories which both resulted in immediate custody.

The prosecutor might refer to those on sentencing day, the defending barrister might be able to dig up other cases in which a more lenient sentence was passed.


----------



## bugbear (24 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> a bike courier and was a fan of alley-cat racing. If he didn't understand more than most of us here about the law on brakes and the techniques of track riding then I've got a bridge I'd like to interest you in.


I just joined the forum to agree with this, and express my surprise that the prosecution didn't make more of it. I guess they concentrated on the most clearly provable point.

BugBear


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> No guidelines.
> 
> The chances are the judge will have invited both barristers to refer her to other similar cases which have been dealt with, if they want to.
> 
> ...



Thanks. That's what I wanted to know.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (24 Aug 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> What's the point in changing the law due to this case?
> 
> He was prosecuted successfully.
> 
> I'm tired of hearing about new laws that change nothing materially. Simplifying the law is different - e.g. Killing people and their death being your fault should be covered by a single law, whether a bike, car or spoon is involved.


Yes but it's a moot point whether his actions killed her or not. The main contributory factor in her death was that she stepped out into the road into his path. Whether his lack of a front brake was also a contributory factor is mostly a matter of conjecture. We know that he shouted an audible warning, we know that he slowed down, we know that he changed course to avoid her. But then in a split second just as he was about to safely pass her she took the action to step back into his path. In the split second that followed it must be questionable whether brakes or no brakes would have made any difference.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Aug 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> Can't get my head around this. Other than being a prat the only offence he has committed is riding a bike that isn't road legal. I don't get how this translates to a charge of furious cycling. It makes me wonder, next time I'm freewheeling at 18mph down a gentle gradient, passing through green lights, and an inattentive pedestrian steps out in front of me, possibly looking at their phone...Regardless of whether I have 2 working brakes, if I swerve to avoid ped then ped steps back into my path, am I going to be looking at the same charge ?


wanton not furious.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Aug 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> What's the point in changing the law due to this case?
> 
> He was prosecuted successfully.
> 
> I'm tired of hearing about new laws that change nothing materially. Simplifying the law is different - e.g. Killing people and their death being your fault should be covered by a single law, whether a bike, car or spoon is involved.


wishful thinking in a world where killing people with a motor vehicle is third class killing people and thus the acceptable price we pay for folks love of motors.


----------



## mjr (24 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> CTC's view from the BBC new site repot:
> 
> _Duncan Dollimore, head of advocacy and campaigns at Cycling UK, said: "*Riding a fixed wheel bicycle on busy roads without a front brake is illegal, stupid and endangers other road users especially pedestrians. *_
> 
> ...


Good old CTC, spending your subscriptions on piling into the attack on the cyclist  He should have been arguing mainly that bicycle legality should be covered at school as part of Bikeability or similar, which far too many schools still don't teach.



classic33 said:


> If it had been a car, in use on the road with no front brakes, what then.


You get a Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme ticket (aka a stripey) and two weeks to prove you've fixed it?



User said:


> You can very reasonably prove, beyond any doubt at all, that, had he had and used a brake, the collision would have been at a very low speed, if it had occurred at all.


No, you can argue it (although I don't think it's convincing) but you can't prove it because there are too many undocumented elements to the collision.



albion said:


> And 18mph is too fast,in pedestrian busy areas, with little braking.


 Pull the other one, it's got a car accelerator pedal on!

[QUOTE 4929215, member: 259"]I agree with everything you say apart from him not knowing his bike wasn't legal. He isn't daft. If he really didn't know, at that age, then I don't know what. Compulsory test for cyclists?[/QUOTE]
Nobber Hayles on BBC Breakfast was basically in favour in principle, but thought it unworkable because of child cyclists.



srw said:


> They are when they knock someone down. Despite the hand-wringing, drivers are regularly prosecuted for injuring other road users.


When was the last time a driver was prosecuted for manslaughter? And how many get two years because they were doing 18mph and collided with someone crossing the road? This seems skewed badly the wrong way, with the lighter vehicle's operator being held to a higher standard and facing stiffer penalties.

[QUOTE 4929381, member: 1314"]There is, literally, a world of difference between 'freewheeling down a gentle gradient' at 18 mph somewhere quiet, and cycling at 18 mph through central London with very little space for pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles to navigate around each other due to the ancient London urban infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
Even a fossil like me sometimes manages 18mph peak speeds in central London (well away from the kerb, though) and Old Street at Charlotte Street is one of the wider bits, isn't it?



growingvegetables said:


> Matt Briggs, who is a cyclist himself


You couldn't make it up! Does he also have friends who are cyclists? 



Flick of the Elbow said:


> But then in a split second just as he was about to safely pass her she took the action to step back into his path.


If she could step back into his path in a split-second, then he wasn't about to pass her safely. He was passing dangerously close and fast.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> When was the last time a driver was prosecuted for manslaughter?



The only one I can think of was the guy who killed Sam Harding by dooring him into the path of a bus.
The jury deliberated for a good 60 minutes before acquitting him.


----------



## Tim Hall (24 Aug 2017)

Fab Foodie said:


> As per User482, common-sense would make me realise it was a dumb idea. But this guy was part of the Courier/fixed wheel fraternity and I'm pretty certain this must have been mentioned at some time. Apart from Bravado and fashion, there's no good reason not to have a front brake on a road bike.
> Interesting interview from the m,echanic at 'Look mum no hands' this morning on R4.


Got a link? Or failing that, which programme was it on?


----------



## youngoldbloke (24 Aug 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> Got a link? Or failing that, which programme was it on?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091s82b
- at about 49 min in (6.50 am) - suggests a bike 'MOT' at 52 min. Presumably performed by 'qualified' mechanics (but then he would wouldn't he?) - beware what they wish for.


----------



## Tim Hall (24 Aug 2017)

Thanks both. That's before my alarm, which is why I missed it, so Listening Again now.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Rather shabby bit of victim-blaming there...


He was also a victim.


----------



## mjr (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> They generally don't have to be prosecuted for manslaughter as there is a specific offence of causing death by dangerous driving (which carries up to 14 years imprisonment) - there is no such equivalent for non-motorists.


I'm aware of that. The current offence has only existed since 1988, hasn't it? A previous similarly-named offence existed 1972-1977. What I'm wondering is, was some motorist successfully prosecuted for manslaughter when CDbyDD didn't exist, if not since?



User said:


> That said, the CPS Guidance is clear - motorists can be prosecuted for manslaughter where the death by dangerous driving offence may not apply.


In other words, whenever the third-class homicide offence CDbyDD applies, CPS helps motorists get its softer sentences even if manslaughter would be a valid charge, but because this time it was only a cyclist, they went for the maximum?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Aug 2017)

Lovin' the way the nobber apologists for chummy's twattery sound just like the apologists for nobber drivers.

All the same tedious excuses for this knobjockey on the bike as get trotted out for the knobjockeys behind the wheel.

Couldn't make it up.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> No he wasn't, despite what he may have tried to make out. He was an arrogant, ignorant, victim-blaming little cock.


Loving your calm, logical, dispassionate assessment of the facts. Says it all.


----------



## mjr (24 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4929776, member: 1314"]Bells don't give a sense of direction, and too 'warningly', which is why I use my voice or whistle.[/QUOTE]
I suspect that depends on the bell and sometimes the manner of use.

[QUOTE 4929776, member: 1314"]For example, I may say, as I approach pedestrians from behind:

'Coming past on your right.'

This lets them know I'm, erm, coming past on their right. They move to their left and I say thanks as I cycle past. Job done.[/QUOTE]
Really? When I spent a while trying it a few years ago, they seemed to move to their right as often as their left. IMO you can't direct walkers, it's better not to try, and we should be prepared for them to do whatever.


----------



## Inertia (24 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> I suspect that depends on the bell and sometimes the manner of use.
> 
> 
> Really? When I spent a while trying it a few years ago, they seemed to move to their right as often as their left. IMO you can't direct walkers, it's better not to try, and we should be prepared for them to do whatever.


I have the same experience, normally because for me to talk to them, I have to get very close which feels Im like sneaking up on them. At that point, me speaking comes out of the blue so they don't hear what I said and usually end up looking around or jumping out of surprise.

That's if they even hear me, its a 50/50 chance that they have headphones in. In that situation I usually end behind them, at walking pace, trying to get their attention.

The tactic that works for me is to ring the bell loudly, but early so they have time to notice me, assess the situation and usually move to one side so I can pass on the other.


----------



## classic33 (24 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> You get a Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme ticket (aka a stripey) and two weeks to prove you've fixed it?


Somehow I doubt that would be the case.

Edited so the quote reads correctly.


----------



## mjr (24 Aug 2017)

Doubt all you like. If vehicles making the whole road unsafe for all nearby traffic by smoking thickly only get a stripey (as I've seen), I don't see half-knackered brakes that probably mainly endanger you and one other getting worse. At worst, it's got a handbrake and engine braking so it's still one up on the track bike.

It ain't right but it's what I suspect would happen.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

swansonj said:


> It made a good deal of sense - if you regard the perhaps one case a year in which a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist, and the fraction of that one case a year in which the cyclist merits prosecution, and the fraction of that fraction of that one case per year in which the existing laws are not adequate, as sufficient basis for campaigning for a change in the law.


Point taken.

There's another way of looking at it maybe? Why are cyclists so often disregarded when road laws are being legislated? Parking on double yellows, speed limits, overtaking on pedestrian crossings, the recent one on small claims limits for whiplash claims - four that come to mind very quickly. Two don't matter, but two of them "do my head in".

Causing death/serious injury by dangerous cycling? Could so easily have been included in some way ... when the legislation was being considered for drivers?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> I suspect that depends on the bell and sometimes the manner of use.
> 
> 
> Really? When I spent a while trying it a few years ago, they seemed to move to their right as often as their left. IMO you can't direct walkers, it's better not to try, and we should be prepared for them to do whatever.


have to say, when I ping my bell pedestrians in my locale generally stop, and, this is what kills me, look up at the sky before my cheery follow up greeting causes them to leap away as if I was coming at them with a large knife. If a couple, the furthest from me will almost invariably pull the nearest away with a huge tank of the arm. Even though my path will take me at least 1m away from them, and at trickle past speed too.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> Doubt all you like. If vehicles making the whole road unsafe for all nearby traffic by smoking thickly only get a stripey (as I've seen), I don't see half-knackered brakes that probably mainly endanger you and one other getting worse. At worst, it's got a handbrake and engine braking so it's still one up on the track bike.
> 
> It ain't right but it's what I suspect would happen.


Some forces would impound the car. Maybe only the ones whose traffic divisions feature on the tellybox.


----------



## rliu (24 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Point taken.
> 
> There's another way of looking at it maybe? Why are cyclists so often disregarded when road laws are being legislated? Parking on double yellows, speed limits, overtaking on pedestrian crossings, the recent one on small claims limits for whiplash claims - four that come to mind very quickly. Two don't matter, but two of them "do my head in".
> 
> Causing death/serious injury by dangerous cycling? Could so easily have been included in some way ... when the legislation was being considered for drivers?



Have a look at section 28-30 of the Road Traffic Act, covers dangerous cycling, careless cycling, and cycling under influence of drink or drugs.
It's just laziness that sentencing guidelines have not been created in tandem with these existing offences.
As regards the manslaughter charge in this case, I highly suspected someone at the CPS wanted the media coverage to boost their own CV and career progression potentials. They could have gone for far more mundane charges if they wanted to.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Aug 2017)

If I roller bladed or long boarded or even ran flat out down a busy London street, shouted at someone to get out of my way, collided with them and they died, what would people say?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> Have a look at section 28-30 of the Road Traffic Act, covers dangerous cycling, careless cycling, and cycling under influence of drink or drugs.
> It's just laziness that sentencing guidelines have not been created in tandem with these existing offences.
> As regards the manslaughter charge in this case, I highly suspected someone at the CPS wanted the media coverage to boost their own CV and career progression potentials. They could have gone for far more mundane charges if they wanted to.


Why would we want the cps to go for a mundane charge when someone was killed?


----------



## PK99 (24 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Lovin' the way the nobber apologists for chummy's twattery sound just like the apologists for nobber drivers.
> 
> All the same tedious excuses for this knobjockey on the bike as get trotted out for the knobjockeys behind the wheel.
> 
> Couldn't make it up.



Depressing isn't it?

When someone makes a mistake and rides up the inside of a left turning lorry, the phrase_ ".. the penalty for making a mistake should not be death.."_ or similar often appears.

yet we read in this thread;

_"The main contributory factor in her death was that she stepped out into the road into his path."_


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> Good old CTC, spending your subscriptions on piling into the attack on the cyclist  He should have been arguing mainly that bicycle legality should be covered at school as part of Bikeability or similar, which far too many schools still don't teach.


Should schools teach driving?

And sorry @mjr whilst I agree with you on a lot, if chummy twat is a 'cyclist' I'm glad I'm just a bloke who builds and rides bicycles. I want no part of any tribe he is a member of.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> Depressing isn't it?
> 
> When someone makes a mistake and rides up the inside of a left turning lorry, the phrase_ ".. the penalty for making a mistake should not be death.."_ or similar often appears.
> 
> ...


I blame the lead they used to put in petrol. It has retarded the intellectual development of so many.


----------



## rliu (24 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Why would we want the cps to go for a mundane charge when someone was killed?



More mundane charges mean higher odds of a conviction.
The media circus is a separate issue to justice or the law being enforced fairly. Did it help the widower to have his photo in the papers every day and the circumstances of his wife's death played out in day by day updates?


----------



## PK99 (24 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> And sorry @mjr whilst I agree with you on a lot, if chummy twat is a 'cyclist' I'm glad I'm just a bloke who builds and rides bicycles. I want no part of any tribe he is a member of.



Me neither. Nor the tribal support he is receiving here.


----------



## User482 (24 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> Me neither. Nor the tribal support he is receiving here.



A couple of people are doing that. A couple of people would have him hanged, drawn and quartered. Both groups are degrading the signal: noise ratio.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

albion said:


> And 18mph is too fast,in pedestrian busy areas, with little braking.


Agreed.


mjr said:


> Pull the other one, it's got a car accelerator pedal on!


Umm ... really?

I'm going to make extrapolations - yeah, I know. I wasn't there, and it's not in the reporting I've seen. 

Lunchtime central London street; motor vehicles moving (- but at NOTHING like 18mph); pedestrian steps out hoping to cross (- but motors are moving just fast enough to make it impossible; guesswork - 5-8mph?); pedestrian steps back (why, we can't know). 

And Alliston is "bombing along" at 18mph, in the space between the slow-moving traffic and the kerb. No escape, no evasion space. My phrase - and I stand by it; as I envision the situation, *18mph was far too fast, in that narrow space*.

Doubly so when his ability to brake is so compromised. 

Shouting a "warning" (although it was rather more aggressive than a warning, by his own account), or even two of them (again, by his account) is
a) useless, in such a noisy, distracted environment, and
b) probably a sign of HIS panic (given the words he claimed to have used) that a situation he had thought was under control (and could more or less ride through), was, suddenly and completely, out of his control.

On b) - all it took was a fraction of a second. And he was ****ed. *18mph was far too fast, in that context*.

Yes - I do appreciate I have made lazy assumptions. But (unlike some of the generalisations above), I hope they're pretty fairly based on the actual situation, at that time?


----------



## PK99 (24 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> And Alliston is "bombing along" at 18mph,



That was my view of his speed also, knowing the traffic and pedestrian environment of the area in question.

I was gobsmacked to red the Cycling Lawyer Blog:

"_*On any objective view, 18mph is a cautious speed *and on a busy London Street matching the speed of other traffic, rather than going much slower, is a wise precaution. _


----------



## swansonj (24 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Point taken.
> 
> There's another way of looking at it maybe? Why are cyclists so often disregarded when road laws are being legislated?
> ....


Perhaps because there's a bit of a general principle that laws are only introduced to deal with problems, and, generally speaking, cyclists don't cause problems of a level warranting legislation?


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> Have a look at section 28-30 of the Road Traffic Act, covers dangerous cycling, careless cycling, and cycling under influence of drink or drugs.


Oh dear. Did you read it?

"Driving offences
1. Causing death by dangerous driving.
1A.Causing serious injury by dangerous driving
2. Dangerous driving.
2A. Meaning of dangerous driving.
2B.Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving
3. Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.
3ZA.Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, driving
3ZB.Causing death by driving: unlicensed... or uninsured drivers
3ZC.Causing death by driving: disqualified drivers
3ZD.Causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers
3A. Causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs."

As compared to Section 28 (1988) - (watch the wording!) "“dangerous” refers to *danger* either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case." 

Modified to Section 28 (1991) - (guess a couple of MPs in the Grayling school of motoring have had their mirrors knocked off) " “dangerous” refers to *danger* either of injury to any person or of *serious damage to property* ..."

Spotted what's missing?


----------



## rliu (24 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Oh dear. Did you read it?
> 
> "Driving offences
> 1. Causing death by dangerous driving.
> ...



Yeah it's not good drafting and I alluded to this in the lack of any sentencing guidelines comment. But the framework is there which just needs amendments. The lack of any work done on these sections however is just a reflection of the rarity of cyclists causing death or serious injuries, and thus it's very low on the list of legislative priorities.


----------



## Bromptonaut (24 Aug 2017)

User said:


> I think we can all rest assured that nothing is going to happen on this one. Not with Brexit occupying parliament for the foreseeable.



Andrea Loathsome punted a private members bill for death my dangerous cycling following the last high profile case of this type (Rhiannon Bennett). It didn't go anywhere.


----------



## Wobblers (24 Aug 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> Yes but it's a moot point whether his actions killed her or not. The main contributory factor in her death was that she stepped out into the road into his path. Whether his lack of a front brake was also a contributory factor is mostly a matter of conjecture. We know that he shouted an audible warning, we know that he slowed down, we know that he changed course to avoid her. But then in a split second just as he was about to safely pass her she took the action to step back into his path. In the split second that followed it must be questionable whether brakes or no brakes would have made any difference.



If Alliston had started braking as soon as he saw her, at the moment she stepped backwards he'd have still have been some distance away from her, and travelling at a slower speed. He would have had enough time to take the appropriate avoiding actions.

His inappropriate speed and (more significantly) inability to control his bike adequately are central factors in how this collision took place.


----------



## Origamist (24 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> That was my view of his speed also, knowing the traffic and pedestrian environment of the area in question.
> 
> I was gobsmacked to red the Cycling Lawyer Blog:
> 
> "_*On any objective view, 18mph is a cautious speed *and on a busy London Street matching the speed of other traffic, rather than going much slower, is a wise precaution. _



If he had a working front brake, I would not have much of an issue with Martin Porter's statement, but without a front brake, it does seem odd to describe 18mph as a cautious speed in the circumstances.


----------



## Wobblers (24 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4929670, member: 43827"]Pedestrians hear a bell and know it's a cyclist coming towards them on the path/road. They hear a shout and may not be so specific about where to look for the noise.

But bells are not cool, are they?[/QUOTE]

Bells have three drawbacks. The first is that they signify "bike" - that is, something assumed to be slow and of little danger. The second is they don't instill any sense of urgency. Combined, that means they're likely to just be filtered out as something of no importance. That's if the bell can be heard at all: the third problem is that bells aren't vey loud. They just aren't that likely to be noticed in the cacaphony of a busy street.

From this I take it that you've never had a pedestrian step out in front of you? I can assure you, if someone does, you will yell. I've found myself doing just that, when a pedestrian stepped out in front of me, less than 30 feet away. And I was going faster than Alliston at the time (it was either that or be decorated by tyre marks courtesy of Hampden Cars). I do feel bad about startling her with my bloodcurdling scream of terror - but then, I'd have felt much worse if I'd actually hit her. Because she stopped dead when she heard me. It works, you see. Remarkably well; it's hard wired into our brains.

Nothing at all with being "cool". Everything to do with effectiveness.


----------



## DaveReading (24 Aug 2017)

When I rediscovered cycling a few years ago, I also found to my surprise and delight that I have a very loud and effective "Aaargh !!!" which has proved useful on a number of occasions since.


----------



## jarlrmai (24 Aug 2017)

i've had people push prams in front of me, usher kids across the road in front of me, braking and locking up (on my fully legally equipped road bike) I probably would have hit them if I hadn't yelled NOOOOOO!!!! very loudly.

This guy should have a had a front brake and he was only on trial because he didn't and I totally agree with that, but any comments on riding slower etc well the thing is you can always be safer, you can ride at 0.1 mph and never get anywhere, you can get a job working from home and never leave the house, there is inherent risk to every activity, if a society can't handle the risk posed by cyclists it certainly shouldn't be able to handle the one posed by cars, vans and lorries.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Aug 2017)

swansonj said:


> Perhaps because there's a bit of a general principle that laws are only introduced to deal with problems, and, generally speaking, cyclists don't cause problems of a level warranting legislation?


Hmmm - laws as a knee-jerk reaction? Gives us the the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act? 

I know I am unashamedly naive and simplistic, but I happen to think that law-makers might think about broader principles?


----------



## jarlrmai (24 Aug 2017)

Yeah about that... Psychoactive Substances Act.


----------



## rliu (24 Aug 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> Yeah about that... Psychoactive Substances Act.



What else did you expect from Theresa May's Home Office legacy?


----------



## albion (24 Aug 2017)

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...ho_knocked_down_and_killed_dog_walker_cleared


----------



## rliu (24 Aug 2017)

albion said:


> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...ho_knocked_down_and_killed_dog_walker_cleared


Jesus Christ


----------



## mjr (24 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Umm ... really?
> 
> ...


I agree that 18mph is probably too fast through a junction on Old Street at lunchtime and few motorists are doing that speed there much then.

I don't agree that many motorists are below 18mph in busy pedestrian areas in general. They're blasting through them at 30mph or 40mph if the speed limit permits and often faster than the permitted limit and woe betide anyone stepping onto the carriageway. Heck, you don't even need to be on the carriageway: a motorist launched their car across two footways and one conflicting carriageway at a fair height into the windows of Cabot Circus in Bristol a few years ago.


----------



## DRM (24 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4930427, member: 43827"]Having a bell does not stop you yelling in real emergencies when you may not have enough time to ring the bell. Everyday riding does not consist entirely of emergencies, at least mine doesn't.

I really believe that bells are seen like dork discs and reflectors, something real cyclists don't need.

A little bit irrelevant in this thread as I very much doubt a bell would have made any difference.[/QUOTE]
Personally I would rather be braking & yelling if someone stepped out in front of me, then messing about ringing a bell, if an emergency stop was needed, while your ringing your not braking.


----------



## mjr (24 Aug 2017)

DRM said:


> Personally I would rather be braking & yelling if someone stepped out in front of me, then messing about ringing a bell, if an emergency stop was needed, while your ringing your not braking.


My bell is controlled by the left thumb, which doesn't operate any brake, so I can do both.

I agree with others that a bell would probably be irrelevant to the collision in this case.


----------



## growingvegetables (25 Aug 2017)

mjr said:


> I agree that 18mph is probably too fast through a junction on Old Street at lunchtime and few motorists are doing that speed there much then.
> 
> I don't agree that many motorists are below 18mph in busy pedestrian areas in general. They're blasting through them at 30mph or 40mph if the speed limit permits and often faster than the permitted limit and woe betide anyone stepping onto the carriageway. Heck, you don't even need to be on the carriageway: a motorist launched their car across two footways and one conflicting carriageway at a fair height into the windows of Cabot Circus in Bristol a few years ago.


Left the bit relevant to this awful incident.

Signed with love and affection, egg-sucking granny


----------



## Dan B (25 Aug 2017)

Without wishing to take sides on any other point (I broadly agree with LCC/CTC statements) I want to remark only that my personal experience does not accord with that of the people insisting 18mph is too fast for the location. I quite regularly ride that way and, at least westbound, if the lights are green then the motor traffic is doing 20mph or above and the motorbikes often 30 or more. Perhaps this was not how it was on the day, but I've not seen any report saying si


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Aug 2017)

rliu said:


> More mundane charges mean higher odds of a conviction.
> The media circus is a separate issue to justice or the law being enforced fairly. Did it help the widower to have his photo in the papers every day and the circumstances of his wife's death played out in day by day updates?


Helping the bereaved is, unfortunately, not a priority of the legal system.


----------



## KneesUp (25 Aug 2017)

I expect that if he gets a custodial sentence this thread will be long enough to fill his days inside by the time he gets sent down if he can find enough paper to print it out.


----------



## DRM (25 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4930761, member: 43827"]As I said, having a bell doesn't stop you shouting. The two are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
Thats not my point, stopping quickly on a bike means concentrating on braking hard & getting up off the saddle with your backside over the rear wheel, whilst also possibly un clipping, you don't have time to ring a bell, a shout comes more naturally.


----------



## fossyant (25 Aug 2017)

The Daily Mail is continuing with the witch hunt. 'Militant Fixie rider's' and mentions the LFGSS forum specifically, and is quoting users comments.


----------



## midlife (25 Aug 2017)

I think that's because he posted on LFGSS after the event


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> in no way comparable.
> 
> the case you cite involved a momentary lapse with tragic consequences.


So, you believe the first time that lorry driver ever mounted the kerb without looking properly just happened to be the one time there was a child there?

Personally, I think we should have a zero tolerance policy for killing children on the footway. How many do you think you should be able to kill before getting convicted? Three strikes, maybe?


----------



## User269 (25 Aug 2017)

All respect and condolences to the victim, family & friends. 

The rider concerned has not been found guilty of causing anyone's death. Charlie Alliston was found guilty of causing bodily harm by "wanton or furious driving".

According to DfT figures, there are less than 3 pedestrian deaths a year caused by cyclists, as opposed to 430 caused by motor vehicles. 

So, what changes to the law, and to attitudes do we need here?


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2017)

I've just remembered I saw a pedestrian face down and presumably unconscious, being attended to by a paramedic on a pedestrian crossing in - wait for it - Old Street. Clearly from circumstances she'd been struck by a car. I could find no mention of it in the papers.


----------



## srw (25 Aug 2017)

fossyant said:


> The Daily Mail is continuing with the witch hunt. 'Militant Fixie rider's' and mentions the LFGSS forum specifically, and is quoting users comments.


The Daily Mail hates everyone. Be grateful it hasn't found this thread.


----------



## jarlrmai (25 Aug 2017)

The Mail clearly doesn't hate everyone, it has it's biases.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I've just remembered I saw a pedestrian face down and presumably unconscious, being attended to by a paramedic on a pedestrian crossing in - wait for it - Old Street. Clearly from circumstances she'd been struck by a car. I could find no mention of it in the papers.



The selective coverage is concerning.

This, too, happened last year in the same street Mrs Briggs was killed but there was no national outcry about it, despite a police error meaning no charges were brought against the driver:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...olice-messed-up-we-want-justice-a3513291.html

_The family of a student who died in a hit-and-run have today criticised a “disastrous” police blunder which led to the driver avoiding criminal charges.
Osman Ebrahim, 21, was crossing the road in east London with a friend when they were struck by Zanah Mohamed, who was driving a BMW. Mr Ebrahim suffered fatal head injuries. 
Coroner Mary Hassell ruled at an inquest that Mr Mohamed knew he had hit two people but still fled from outside Club Aquarium in Old Street.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided there was not enough evidence for Mr Mohamed to be charged with causing death by careless driving.
But at the inquest on Friday it emerged that police did not even bring the driver to court for failing to stop at the scene of a crash — because they missed the deadline for pressing charges._​


----------



## Ian H (25 Aug 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> The Mail clearly doesn't hate everyone, it has it's biases.



Everyone I might wish to consort with.


----------



## jarlrmai (25 Aug 2017)

Ian H said:


> Everyone I might wish to consort with.



Indeed, I see the comment about the Mail hating everyone as a passive view, kind of like the "all politicians are idiots" defense it's away of sort of not agreeing but not having the ability to argue your position.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Aug 2017)

User said:


> I think it also depends on the time of day.
> 
> I used to ride through that area quite regularly and, whilst you could get some speed up either side of rush hour, you wouldn't want to go bombing through there during lunch time.


20ish mph an appropriate speed around peds?

That cars are empowered by our bonkers society to go that fast around peds doesn't make it an appropriate speed for them either.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4931151, member: 43827"]I think we're arguing the same position. No time for bell - yell.[/QUOTE]
No time for bell, yell, whilst braking.

The parallel otherwise is knobber drivers hitting the horn instead of cutting their speed.


----------



## Origamist (26 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> 20ish mph an appropriate speed around peds?
> 
> That cars are empowered by our bonkers society to go that fast around peds doesn't make it an appropriate speed for them either.



Drivers are regularly doing far in excess of 20mph around pedestrians. I'd like 20km/12mph limits on many roads in our busy towns and cities.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Aug 2017)

Origamist said:


> Drivers are regularly doing far in excess of 20mph around pedestrians. I'd like 20km/12mph limits on many roads in our busy towns and cities.


simply convert all urban limits from mph to kph would work for me.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> simply convert all urban limits from mph to kph would work for me.



That's a thought, but for fitter riders it would raise the question of whether speed limits should apply to bicycles.

Mr Briggs seems to want push bikes brought fully under the road traffic acts, which would include speed limits.

Enforcement might not be easy, I believe some carbon dream machines don't trip some radar guns/cameras.

Then there's the question of how you find the speeding cyclist once you have a photo.

Which in turn raises the question of bicycle registration.

I think as cyclists, we need to be careful what we wish for.


----------



## jarlrmai (26 Aug 2017)

How can I be expected to know how fast I'm going on my bike? Apart from on very steep downhills there's only one speed limit I can easily break on the bike and that one isn't even enforced for cars. I'm confused as to how any of this would have prevented this tragedy?


----------



## TheDoctor (26 Aug 2017)

I still think that had this been about a car doing 18mph and killing someone, we'd never have heard about it.
Just like we didn't hear about the eight or so people killed on the roads yesterday.


----------



## growingvegetables (26 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Mr Briggs seems to want push bikes brought fully under the road traffic acts, which would include speed limits.


Not true. "Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Matthew Briggs, Briggs’s husband, said he was calling for cycling to be incorporated into the Road Traffic Act *to allow offences of death by dangerous cycling and death by careless cycling to be considered*."

Not surprising ... and (imho) not a big deal, in terms of legislation?



Pale Rider said:


> ... I think as cyclists, we need to be careful what we wish for.


... aware of Road Traffic Act (1988) 28-32 and Road Traffic Act (1991) 7. Cyclists are already covered. There are all sorts of mode-specific legislative requirements already - the motor-cycle helmet sections don't apply to cyclists, for example.

Fair enough, BTL loons on the DM may wish to express somewhat stronger views. But don't attribute such looniness to Mr Briggs?


----------



## growingvegetables (26 Aug 2017)

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...briggs-cyclists-traffic-bike-charlie-alliston - interesting reading.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Aug 2017)

It may be semantics, but 'incorporation' is not the same as 'partial incorporation' which would be required if you wanted cyclists to only be the subject of the 'death by' offences.

I've no idea if Mr Briggs would be happy for cyclists to be excused compliance with speed limits, in the event of the adoption of widespread lower limits in urban areas.

My guess is he wouldn't, given that speed played a part in the death of his wife.


----------



## jarlrmai (26 Aug 2017)

It's a bit odd really, my understanding is that the existence the "death by" laws is actually because drivers were not being found guilty by a jury of peers when charged with more serious offences. So adding these rules for cyclists would actually seem to be a reduction in the deterrent.

Given the cyclist was doing below the posted speed limits I'm not sure how that would have helped? Oh iI see you meant if it were reduced to 12mph for cars.

Would he be happy with US style "jay walking" laws for similar reasons?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> That's a thought, but for fitter riders it would raise the question of whether speed limits should apply to bicycles.
> 
> Mr Briggs seems to want push bikes brought fully under the road traffic acts, which would include speed limits.
> 
> ...


Illogical Jim.

Changing speed limits for motors doesn't bring up any questions about cyclists.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...briggs-cyclists-traffic-bike-charlie-alliston - interesting reading.




I had to laugh at this bit:

_"Drivers are rigorously tested and policed,"_​
Rigorous my arse.


----------



## Dan B (26 Aug 2017)

The testing (as I remember it) was moderately thorough, but the problem is that the habits and standards you are tested on do not seem to be the habits and standards observed by all the other road users you will thereafter encounter while driving. 

Policed, yeah, right


----------



## growingvegetables (27 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> It may be semantics, but 'incorporation' is not the same as 'partial incorporation' which would be required if you wanted cyclists to only be the subject of the 'death by' offences.
> 
> I've no idea if Mr Briggs would be happy for cyclists to be excused compliance with speed limits, in the event of the adoption of widespread lower limits in urban areas.
> 
> My guess is he wouldn't, given that speed played a part in the death of his wife.


I think that's a "whoosh", given the realities of the various Road Traffic Acts. Ah well.


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> I think that's a "whoosh", given the realities of the various Road Traffic Acts. Ah well.



@GrumpyGregry proposed a 30kph urban speed limit for cars.

That, strange to relate, is just over 18mph.

It seems unlikley to me motorists will be content to be restricted to 18mph if cyclists are allowed to, er, whoosh past.

A neutral observer might think the speed limit should apply to all vehicles, powered and unpowered.

It's inevitable bicycles would be considered by legislators if they were looking at a widespread 30kph limit for motor vehicles.


----------



## growingvegetables (27 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> @GrumpyGregry proposed a 30kph urban speed limit for cars.
> 
> That, strange to relate, is just over 18mph.
> 
> ...


Hate to be pedantic - but that's not where this started. 

You're throwing out straw men. As the dedicated local union rep for the local branch of undefended straw men, I protest. We deserve better.


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Hate to be pedantic - but that's not where this started.
> 
> You're throwing out straw men. As the dedicated local union rep for the local branch of undefended straw men, I protest. We deserve better.



It started when I commented on the proposal for 30kph speed limits, simple as that.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (27 Aug 2017)

As a matter of interest, just what can a pedestrian be charged with for stepping out into the road without due care and attention and causing an accident ? And have there been any successful prosecutions ?


----------



## albion (27 Aug 2017)

http://mattirving.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/fixies-worlds-second-most-stupid-form.html

Yet away from the stupidity of the young, lets realise that in a difficult economy, work stress applies to more and more jobs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/26/several-die-crash-m1-involving-two-lorries-minibus/
https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Aim-Logistics/reviews

That is certainly the increasing norm in this current economic climate and governance, a governance that even wants rid of speed bumps in pedestrianised and built up areas.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (27 Aug 2017)

albion said:


> http://mattirving.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/fixies-worlds-second-most-stupid-form.html
> 
> Yet away from the stupidity of the young, lets realise that in a difficult economy, work stress applies to more and more jobs.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/26/several-die-crash-m1-involving-two-lorries-minibus/
> ...


How true. 
I don't know how it developed in the UK, but in Australia, speed bumps used to be narrow and unforgiving, but after a few decades they evolved into wider ones that are far more gentle to car wheels, and so they have now been rendered virtually useless. Such is the power of the mighty car, all else must be reduced to make way.


----------



## srw (27 Aug 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> As a matter of interest, just what can a pedestrian be charged with for stepping out into the road without due care and attention and causing an accident ? And have there been any successful prosecutions ?


I don't know about the offence, but the penalty can be as high as death.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (27 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Taking that further, in London we now have some trompe l'oeil speed bumps.


I heard about those. Next they'll modify the illusion based on feedback that it upsets some motorists, then remove them completely.


----------



## classic33 (27 Aug 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> @GrumpyGregry proposed a 30kph urban speed limit for cars.
> 
> That, strange to relate, is just over 18mph.
> 
> ...


If they swap mph for kph, as done in Ireland, they'd have no choice. It's odd at first entering a 20 zone to find your the quickest thing on the road.


----------



## classic33 (27 Aug 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> How true.
> I don't know how it developed in the UK, but in Australia, speed bumps used to be narrow and unforgiving, but after a few decades they evolved into wider ones that are far more gentle to car wheels, and so they have now been rendered virtually useless. Such is the power of the mighty car, all else must be reduced to make way.


Locally:
Speed bumps, "sleeping policeman" style, replaced by slabs with sloping sides that a vehicle couldn't fully straddle forcing a change in speed(or that's what they said). Replaced by speed tables, ramp upto a flat surface at around kerb height.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (28 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> I don't know about the offence, but the penalty can be as high as death.


Yes but not necessarily that of the pedestrian.


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> Yes but not necessarily that of the pedestrian.


I'll let you produce the stats comparing number of driver and rider deaths caused by pedestrians compared with the number of pedestrian deaths caused by drivers....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Aug 2017)

User said:


> We don't even have a specific legal prohibition against crossing at a pelican crossing when the red man is showing.


Nor should we have imo.

Any form of jaywalking offence in law means your society has completely sold out to motor vehicles.


----------



## jefmcg (28 Aug 2017)

View: https://youtu.be/-AFn7MiJz_s


----------



## jefmcg (28 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4934751, member: 43827"]I couldn't believe being stopped and given a warning by a policeman in Las Vegas many years ago for crossing an empty road against a pedestrian stop light.

"The land of the free and the home of the brave" my arse![/QUOTE]
you got off lightly

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/11/highereducation.education


----------



## mjr (28 Aug 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I had to laugh at this bit:
> 
> _"Drivers are rigorously tested and policed,"_​
> Rigorous my arse.


I'll remember that when watching a nobber HGV driver trying to reverse out from the Gospel Hall drive onto the A10 after failing to spot the signs, closed gate or read their flaming directions to the industrial park ¼mile away. It used to be one a day on average but I reckon it's approaching two a day lately.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Aug 2017)

I wonder how the prosecution and sentencing of chuumy will compare with that of the driver in this tragedy...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...d-run-death-keen-cyclist-had-recently-ridden/


----------



## jefmcg (29 Aug 2017)

Is the UK really menaced by reckless cyclists?


The Guardian said:


> As an experiment I looked through the news feeds of all UK police forces for the fortnight following the first day of the Alliston trial, and compiled details of the serious road incidents they cited.
> 
> It found that over the period, eight pedestrians had been killed after being hit by car drivers, and 27 were seriously injured, in five of these cases the motorist fleeing the scene. Two cyclists were killed (one in a hit and run) and four badly hurt, two again by drivers who did not stop.
> 
> ...


----------



## albion (29 Aug 2017)

When the BBC did an interactive map of cycle fatalities I checked for a couple of fatalities I recalled on roads known to me.
They were both missing, one possibly not there because the guy had got off the bike to, possibly more safely, cross at, I think, lights.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (29 Aug 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Is the UK really menaced by reckless cyclists?


The same rubbish occurred in the state of Victoria in Australia recently, when, for the first time in 12 years, a bicycle-pedestrian collision resulted in the death of the pedestrian. The media beat-up was completely out of proportion and not particularly unbiased. In the meantime, close to 200 people are killed in incidents involving motor vehicles in Victoria every year, which is about 2400 over 12 years, 1200 times as many as the 2 pedestrians I just mentioned. Given that the percentage mode share by bicycle in Melbourne is about 2%, this makes the anti-cyclist media articles look more than a bit hypocritical.


----------



## GuyBoden (31 Aug 2017)

It's very sad when someone loses their life due to walking in front of a vehicle whilst not looking properly when crossing a road.


----------



## TheJDog (31 Aug 2017)

http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal

road.cc ' s article is pretty controversial (the first section, anyway). The rest is probably true.


----------



## jefmcg (31 Aug 2017)

GuyBoden said:


> It's very sad when someone loses their life due to walking in front of a vehicle whilst not looking properly when crossing a road.


Great. We are back to blaming the victim. <sigh>


----------



## GuyBoden (31 Aug 2017)

TheJDog said:


> http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal
> 
> road.cc ' s article is pretty controversial (the first section, anyway). The rest is probably true.



Thanks........ 



jefmcg said:


> Great. We are back to blaming the victim. <sigh>


It was a very tragic event, she walked in front of a moving vehicle and that vehicle had illegal brakes.


----------



## albion (31 Aug 2017)

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...a-bike-on-uk-roads-feels-too-dangerous-for-me

"proper lynch mob" likely describes soft media who prefer easy targets.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2017)

GuyBoden said:


> It's very sad when someone loses their life due to walking in front of a vehicle whilst not looking properly when crossing a road.


It's even more sad that society has degenerated to the point where pedestrians must be herded like cattle to designated crossing points, and controlled with coloured lights, and are expected to adopt a defensive posture at all times, even when on the pavement, when doing that most natural of human activities; walking about, because nobber twats who operate heavy machinery can't be trusted to operate it carefully around vulnerable people. Or each other.

A pedestrian in an urban setting shouldn't have to "look properly" whatever the heck that means, they should expect to be able to walk where they want in safety. But the barbarians have taken over the city.


----------



## srw (31 Aug 2017)

TheJDog said:


> http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal
> 
> road.cc ' s article is pretty controversial (the first section, anyway). The rest is probably true.


No - it's complete bollocks from beginning to end.


----------



## GuyBoden (31 Aug 2017)

User said:


> Are you intending to add anything that has not already been said?


Below, is the reason why I've suddenly took an interest in this thread.

I was at a pedestrian crossing on Saturday, I pressed the button and waited, when the "Green Man" started flashing I walked into the road. Then a cyclist rode through with traffic lights on red, very close to me and shouted "Hard luck mate, bad timing". I shouted you're supposed to stop at red lights, he ignored me and cycled on.


----------



## PK99 (31 Aug 2017)

GuyBoden said:


> Below, is the reason why I've suddenly took an interest in this thread.
> 
> I was at a pedestrian crossing on Saturday, I pressed the button and waited, when the "Green Man" started flashing I walked into the road. Then a cyclist rode through with traffic lights on red, very close to me and shouted "Hard luck mate, bad timing". I shouted you're supposed to stop at red lights, he ignored me and cycled on.



I've been in Canada for the past week and driving standards are exemplary. Every road user I have seen has, without fail, stopped at crosswalks to let pedestrians cross. the one exception was a cyclist who passed less than a foot in front of and was mildly admonished by the lady waiting to cross - she was met with a mouthful of abuse.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2017)

srw said:


> No - it's complete bollocks from beginning to end.


It is an egotistical wankfest of charmless idiocy.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2017)

GuyBoden said:


> Below, is the reason why I've suddenly took an interest in this thread.
> 
> I was at a pedestrian crossing on Saturday, I pressed the button and waited, when the "Green Man" started flashing I walked into the road. Then a cyclist rode through with traffic lights on red, very close to me and shouted "Hard luck mate, bad timing". I shouted you're supposed to stop at red lights, he ignored me and cycled on.


Don't shout. Drop your shoulder and off the tosser.


----------



## T4tomo (31 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> A pedestrian in an urban setting shouldn't have to "look properly" whatever the heck that means, they should expect to be able to walk where they want in safety. But the barbarians have taken over the city.


If they want to live they should.we have pavements for a reason, they separate pedestrians from cars and lorries etc. If you step into the road without looking (and possibly listening) then don't be surprised if you're run over.


----------



## srw (31 Aug 2017)

PK99 said:


> I've been in Canada for the past week and driving standards are exemplary. Every road user I have seen has, without fail, stopped at crosswalks to let pedestrians cross. the one exception was a cyclist who passed less than a foot in front of and was mildly admonished by the lady waiting to cross - she was met with a mouthful of abuse.


Are you sure you're not in London, England rather than London, Ontario? That sounds rather familiar to me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2017)

T4tomo said:


> If they want to live they should.we have pavements for a reason, they separate pedestrians from cars and lorries etc. If you step into the road without looking (and possibly listening) then don't be surprised if you're run over.


We have pavements because motorists drive like unconscious entitled nobbers, because our society educated them to behave that way. It is barbaric. Cities are for people not vehicles.


----------



## Buck (31 Aug 2017)

TheJDog said:


> http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal
> 
> road.cc ' s article is pretty controversial (the first section, anyway). The rest is probably true.



Is he trying to be the Jeremy Clarkson of the cycling world? Intentionally controversial but lacking substance. I didn't read past the first section. 

Comes across as a complete nobber.


----------



## T4tomo (31 Aug 2017)

Are you three seriously suggesting that if you jump out into the road in front of a lorry, then it's not your fault if you get run over?


----------



## T4tomo (31 Aug 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> We have pavements because motorists drive like unconscious entitled nobbers, because our society educated them to behave that way. It is barbaric. Cities are for people not vehicles.


People drive vehicles and ride cycles. cities are for everyone. The vast majority of vehicles are driven well, by considerate people. Yes there are some knobbers which is why, if you are a pedestrian, you shouldn't leap out into the road without looking. Because the road is where vehicles and cyclist are, and even a considerate driver might mow you down if you don't give them a chance to avoid you.

I believe in personal responsibility for your own actions


----------



## growingvegetables (31 Aug 2017)

T4tomo said:


> If they want to live they should.we have pavements for a reason, they separate pedestrians from cars and lorries etc. If you step into the road without looking (and possibly listening) then don't be surprised if you're run over.


FFS. 

Just guessing - you drive a skip lorry for a living, and a third-hand-souped-up Audi-with-exhaust-pots for your family.

Yeah - seen your type. Far too often.


----------



## T4tomo (31 Aug 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> FFS.
> 
> Just guessing - you drive a skip lorry for a living, and a third-hand-souped-up Audi-with-exhaust-pots for your family.
> 
> Yeah - seen your type. Far too often.


No, I cycle a lot, commute in London, I drive a car and I walk. But you or others I posted in response to, appear to be arguing that as a pedestrian you can do as you want and everyone else should avoid you or face the consequences. I'm merely saying that looking before crossing/ stepping into the road is kind of sensible?


----------



## DaveReading (31 Aug 2017)

T4tomo said:


> I'm merely saying that looking before crossing/ stepping into the road is kind of sensible?



Shame on you. Common sense has no place in this thread.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Aug 2017)

DaveReading said:


> Shame on you. Common sense has no place in this thread.



Quite so, far better to post silly pictures designed to ridicule and to call people names.

After all, we are only talking about one ended life and a handful of ruined ones, so it's not as if it's a serious topic.


----------



## growingvegetables (31 Aug 2017)

T4tomo said:


> No, I cycle a lot, commute in London, I drive a car and I walk. But you or others I posted in response to, appear to be arguing that as a pedestrian you can do as you want and everyone else should avoid you or face the consequences. I'm merely saying that looking before crossing/ stepping into the road is kind of sensible?


Utter b0ll0x. Nobody has argued that.

The most I have said, is that, as a a guy on a *silent* bike, riding at 18 mph between moving traffic and the kerb, with no space to "escape", is a pretty good definition of "riding wantonly". And I've been equally clear ... that's MY reading, with all the weaknesses involved in interpretation of a situation.

What does that mean? Personally, between moving traffic and the kerb, I cut my speed. Hard. I look out for pedestrians attempting to cross - and I really don't give a monkey's how "sensible" their choice may be - I just make damned sure I don't hit them.




I expect motor vehicles to look out for me as a vulnerable road user.

I *expect of myself* that I look out for road users even more vulnerable than me. And I really don't give a b*gg*r for your victim blaming.


----------



## FishFright (31 Aug 2017)

T4tomo said:


> No, I cycle a lot, *commute in London*, I drive a car and I walk. But you or others I posted in response to, appear to be arguing that as a pedestrian you can do as you want and everyone else should avoid you or face the consequences. I'm merely saying that looking before crossing/ stepping into the road is kind of sensible?



There we go


----------



## jefmcg (31 Aug 2017)

[QUOTE 4938935, member: 43827"]So that's why people in cities in the 21st century use them rather than walk in the road.[/QUOTE]
People walk on the road all the time, in London.

Which is why I would never cycle at 18mph through central London unless I could see the pavement was free of pedestrians close enough to the kerb to step out without warning. Because the do that, all the time. It's very annoying, but that doesn't give me the right to put their (or my) life at risk.

Note: I mostly don't cycle at 18mph anyway


----------



## Shut Up Legs (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4938960, member: 43827"]When I am a pedestrian I assume all road users have no sense. When I am a cyclist I assume all pedestrians, and other road users, have no sense.[/QUOTE]
In other words: "when I am a road user, I assume all road users have no sense" ? 

(sorry: I'm a software engineer, so reducing complex expressions down to simpler ones is part of the job)


----------



## Dan B (1 Sep 2017)

TheJDog said:


> http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal
> 
> road.cc ' s article is pretty controversial (the first section, anyway). The rest is probably true.



It's instructive insofar as it made me realise that apparently nobody on the internet has ever heard of Johnathan Swift


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Sep 2017)

Whatever vehicle I'm riding or driving, I always look out for those more vulnerable, be they horseriders, cyclists, motorcyclists or pedestrians. 
If that means adjusting my speed, course or position to accommodate an error on their part then, as the party with greater causative potency, I see that as my duty.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2017)

A pedestrian in an urban setting should not have to "look properly" whatever the heck that means, when walking about in a SHARED PUBLIC SPACE they should expect to be able to walk where they want in safety. That they cannot, and indeed probably ought not do so, simply shows what an effed up topsy-turvy urban environment we have allowed ourselves to create in our on going love affair with the almighty motor.

Urban shared spaces were originally, and in the main, and putting aside some ghastly 20th C aberrations like urban dual carriageways, created for people, not for their vehicles. Else why do most of our urban public shared spaces still retain their pre-motor-vehicular street patterns?

That so many folk think otherwise is

a) conclusive proof that lead induced intellectual impairment is widespread and persistent
b) ignorant of history
c) evidence of the triumph of the very barbarism that city life, civilised life, was originally intended to overcome.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Sep 2017)

I suspect that even when we shared our 'public spaces' with nothing other than horses and horse drawn vehicles that it would have been prudent to look before stepping into their path.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Sep 2017)

Edit - ..... to AVOID stepping into their path


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> That's more hyperbole. People should look out for each other, otherwise they'd be forever crashing into each other. Was it you that was moaning recently about people being absorbed in their smartphones and not looking where they're going, or was that someone else?


Not me guv. To the best of my recollection anyway.

But a non-smartphone toting pedestrian in an urban setting should not have to exercise extra vigilance when walking about in a SHARED PUBLIC SPACE in order to avoid nobbers on their smartphones. The non-nobber should expect to be able to walk where they want in safety without being on guard. The nobber needs to stop being a nobber and exercise ordinary pedestrian vigilance i.e. watch where they are going.


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Sep 2017)

I slowed down for a pregnant lady crossing the street when the lights turned green the other day... Not even a wave or a thank you


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Sep 2017)

RoubaixCube said:


> I slowed down for a pregnant lady crossing the street when the lights turned green the other day... Not even a wave or a thank you



Did you expect gratitude for doing what you're supposed to do?


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Did you expect gratitude for doing what you're supposed to do?



Not really but even a nod would of been nice. Im sure she would be a lot more vocal if some other ruffian had almost run her down. But i could se she was preggers and wqited patiently for her to cross before carrying on


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Did you expect gratitude for doing what you're supposed to do?



Not really but even a nod would of been nice. Im sure she would be a lot more vocal if some other ruffian had almost run her down. But i could see she was preggers and waited patiently for her to cross before carrying on


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939232, member: 45"]Do you thank every pedestrian waiting to cross at the side of the road as you pass?[/QUOTE]

No but i thank everyone of them that makes way for me on shared paths. Even if they are wearing headphones


----------



## T4tomo (1 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> A pedestrian in an urban setting should not have to "look properly" whatever the heck that means, when walking about in a SHARED PUBLIC SPACE they should expect to be able to walk where they want in safety. That they cannot, and indeed probably ought not do so, simply shows what an effed up topsy-turvy urban environment we have allowed ourselves to create in our on going love affair with the almighty motor.
> 
> Urban shared spaces were originally, and in the main, and putting aside some ghastly 20th C aberrations like urban dual carriageways, created for people, not for their vehicles. Else why do most of our urban public shared spaces still retain their pre-motor-vehicular street patterns?
> 
> ...


So is a road a shared public space in your definition?

For the record, I think that everyone should look out for each other and try to avoid "crashing" into each other, but also look for for themselves. If everyone wandered around expecting everyone else to avoid them, they wouldn't.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Sep 2017)

RoubaixCube said:


> No but i thank everyone of them that makes way for me on shared paths.



But that is a courtesy on their part whereas yours (in the previous example) is an obligation.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Sep 2017)

User said:


> It is an odd thing that you see, mostly with car drivers. We are so conditioned to going on green, and not holding up the traffic behind, that drivers will usually start moving despite the human being walking in front of them. They usually stop, rather than run the person down but they do start first.



Yes, I see that often. They're not likely to run someone over but that doesn't stop them trying to intimidate pedestrians out of the way by creeping forward or revving the engine. No need for it.


----------



## T4tomo (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939277, member: 45"]Yes. And vehicle users are responsible for not driving into people. Continuing on their path while shouting "get out of the way!" twice isn't acceptable. That shows an expectation of entitlement that doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree, I thought we'd moved onto more general rather than specifics.

Re,Specifics I think CA was an odious arrogant little scrote, probably lied about not knowing a front brake was needed to make his fixie legal and safe, was probably riding too fast for the urban environment, although ironically possibly slower than vehicles on same road, and was rightly convicted of wanton and furious etc, mainly as he was riding a bike he couldn't stop safely, had time to slow it down (he shouted twice by his own admission) and chose not too. BUT no way should he have been up on manslaughter charge. The fact that the lady died was extremely unlucky and unfortunate and tragic for her family and friends.


----------



## T4tomo (1 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Yes it is. We have some demarcation, in that we don't normally expect motor vehicles to be driven on the pavement part of the road.


Wasn't your definition, but I was referring to the carriage way part. 

Agree we don't expect mv's on the pavement, when they are they should be up for manslaughter if they kill someone, but rarely are; they are normally on a death by careless or reckless charge. One of the things the press in the main is ignoring in the coverage of this case.

In other news it's OK, if you are in a car to just run over a cyclist, as long as you "just didn't see them" (or indeed weren't looking where you were going insulated in your metal bubble, which surely falls into the definition of careless driving does it not???)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ed-prosecution-sees-defendant-acquitted-just/


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939269, member: 45"]So you don't thank pedestrians for allowing you to pass but expect them to thank you.[/QUOTE]

I pass when the lights turn green.

When i am on foot though i thank drivers for letting me pass if they give way


----------



## swansonj (1 Sep 2017)

If we say that roads are a shared public space (which I emphatically do) then aren't we accepting that all users have some responsibility to use that shared space in a cooperative way?

But surely the degree of responsibility on different users of that shared public space varies with the nature of the space?

On a rural A road, the driver of a car (or horse-drawn stage coach) who sees a pedestrian at the side of the road ahead still has a responsibility to consider the possibility that they may be about to step out. But if they do step out in front at the last minute and get hit, they have some responsibility too, and I don't regard acknowledging that as victim blaming. 

In a town, otoh, the nature of the shared space is different. It's no longer shared primarily for getting from A to B, it's shared primarily for the business of the daily life of a community. So imho the balance of responsibilities shifts. The responsibility is far more on the driver (whether of car, lorry, cycle or stage coach) to drive in a way that respects the nature of the use of the shared space, and far less on the pedestrian to adjust their sharing of the space to suit others.


----------



## classic33 (1 Sep 2017)

RoubaixCube said:


> I pass when the lights turn green.
> 
> When i am on foot though i thank drivers for letting me pass if they give way


Green means you may go/continue if it safe/clear to do so. Not Go.


----------



## mjr (1 Sep 2017)

T4tomo said:


> If they want to live they should.we have pavements for a reason, they separate pedestrians from cars and lorries etc.





User said:


> Yes it is. We have some demarcation, in that we don't normally expect motor vehicles to be driven on the pavement part of the road.


You don't? I see it far too often, especially in suburban areas when one motorist is waiting to turn right and there's not enough space on their left for other impatient motorists to push past - then they just mount the pavement without a second thought and barely slowing down and when they finally notice there's a person walking there with nowhere to go because they're not going to jump into a hedge with a solid palisade fence in it, it's a black tyre skid and brown trouser moment:







swansonj said:


> In a town, otoh, the nature of the shared space is different. It's no longer shared primarily for getting from A to B, it's shared primarily for the business of the daily life of a community.


You think it's primarily for business? Then you must love the current funding system introduced by Cameron's coalition government, with businesspeople from the unelected and unaccountable "Local Enterprise Partnerships" sitting on Local Transport Bodies and allocating almost all the money to motoring projects, which is part of the reason why walking is so ill-served with crossings put where they're best for motoring, not where walkers want them.


----------



## RoubaixCube (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939351, member: 45"]So when you're on the road and a pedestrian is waiting to cross, you don't thank them for allowing you to pass.

Yet you expect pedestrians to thank you for obeying crossing regulations.

That doesnt make sense.[/QUOTE]

Some do. Im not mad about it. I don't even care tbh but it would be nice


----------



## swansonj (1 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> ...
> You think it's primarily for business? Then you must love the current funding system introduced by Cameron's coalition government, with businesspeople from the unelected and unaccountable "Local Enterprise Partnerships" sitting on Local Transport Bodies and allocating almost all the money to motoring projects, which is part of the reason why walking is so ill-served with crossings put where they're best for motoring, not where walkers want them.


I chose the word "business" deliberately. I did not mean the restrictive meaning you appear to have taken.


----------



## classic33 (1 Sep 2017)

swansonj said:


> I chose the word "business" deliberately. I did not mean the restrictive meaning you appear to have taken.


As in going about your business, which is how I read it.


----------



## mjr (1 Sep 2017)

swansonj said:


> I chose the word "business" deliberately. I did not mean the restrictive meaning you appear to have taken.


And it stuck out like a sort thumb with its implication that only people carrying out business are worthy. It's easy to claim it's not what you meant when challenged, but it would be much more believable if you could just explain what you did mean without playing for time...


----------



## Dan B (1 Sep 2017)

business: things with which you/people are busy. Seems uncontroversial


----------



## theclaud (1 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> And it stuck out like a sort thumb with its implication that only people carrying out business are worthy. It's easy to claim it's not what you meant when challenged, but it would be much more believable if you could just explain what you did mean without playing for time...


Give over!


----------



## swansonj (1 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> And it stuck out like a sort thumb with its implication that only people carrying out business are worthy. It's easy to claim it's not what you meant when challenged, but it would be much more believable if you could just explain what you did mean without playing for time...


I wasn't playing for time, I was trying to avoid wasting time by explaining what I thought should have been clear enough. However, seeing as you ask so politely: 

The phrase I used was "the business of the daily life of the community". The daily life of the community includes going to work; going to school; shopping; going for a drink or a coffee or sandwich; drinking your coffee or eating your sandwich; getting drunk; meeting a friend by previous arrangement; bumping into a friend unexpectedly; snogging you lover; having an argument; taking an old person for a walk; going for a walk or cycle yourself; being happy; being depressed; and just aimlessly spending time being rather than doing. 

All of those things are part of what makes up a healthy community. They are therefore legitimately the business of a community. I used the term deliberately to indicate that these things are not fripperies to be subjugated to the "higher" purpose of driving a car on "business", but are at the core of what society - and therefore its use of its shared space - are all about.


----------



## mjr (1 Sep 2017)

Dan B said:


> business: things with which you/people are busy. Seems uncontroversial


Really? I think we should allow idleness too. But I'll stop this aside and suggest people return to the other part of my post, about motorists routinely using pavements too now - why should walkers thank motorists for not running them over when motorists rarely thank walkers for making space?


----------



## Dan B (1 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> I'll stop this aside


It was entirely within your gift to never have started it, but I suppose better late than never


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> Ah, right. So not "on guard" but "exercising ordinary pedestrian vigilance". Thanks. That's much clearer.


Contemporary pedestrian vigilance is extraordinary on account of the hazards we blithely accept pedestrians have to manage. Bonkers.


----------



## mjr (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939472, member: 43827"]What load of tosh that just makes you look petty. You choose to emphasis the meaning that supports your views rather than the meaning that the op clearly meant, and which most people would understand.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that the meaning given above is unusual, stretched to the point of distended, and not one shown in any dictionary, including such things as drunkenness and just aimlessly spending time being. I would have bet good money that no-one else would have given that definition (of course, now plenty would just to make a point).

Plenty of people do really suggest that town streets are for town business (Royston Vasey?) and not also for getting from A to B. Of course, that's a toxic idea and leads easily to quasimotorway bypasses cutting rural areas off from their local towns and people saying that 18mph is too fast to cycle along any town streets. So I'm sorry for aiming the boot at @swansonj if that really wasn't what was meant, but it did look like the argument put forward by the motoring lobby.

[QUOTE 4939472, member: 43827"]Edit: I just see that you realise how silly your point was and want us not to mention it.[/QUOTE]
Nah, I'd just rather that conversation returned more to considering the false belief that pavements aren't routinely used by motorists and the strange idea that walkers should thank motorists but not vice-versa... wouldn't you?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939397, member: 43827"]Probably me being dense as usual, but are you defining a road or street that is used by motor vehicles, plus non-motorized vehicles e.g. bikes, as a shared public space, and are you saying that a pedestrian should not be expected to look out for traffic before crossing?
.[/QUOTE]
Yes. If the public highway is not a public shared space, what is it?

Why should the very people the shared spaces were created to serve be expected to modify their behaviour because of barbaric invasions of that space?

The pedestrians were there first. It is their space. Bikes and motors are the interlopers and carve out their space only via the threat (of violence) they present to the more vulnerable user.


----------



## swansonj (1 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> ... I would have bet good money that no-one else would have given that definition (
> ...


Well, considering that, like most of the semi-intelligent things I occasionally come out with here, it was inspired by something originally said by @theclaud, I think I'm on reasonably safe ground in asserting that at least one other person would have done...


----------



## Buck (1 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> I'm pretty sure that the meaning given above is unusual, stretched to the point of distended, and not one shown in any dictionary, including such things as drunkenness and just aimlessly spending time being. I would have bet good money that no-one else would have given that definition (of course, now plenty would just to make a point).



Just making a point, but I would.

I understood @swansonj 's post to be very clear - people going about their business = going about their life. Certainly a common expression in my part of the world.

PS How much was that bet


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Sep 2017)

Buck said:


> I understood @swansonj 's post to be very clear - people going about their business = going about their life. Certainly a common expression in my part of the world.



Exactly.

How often do we hear of something bad befalling a person who was cycling/walking along "minding his own business"?
It's common usage.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939634, member: 43827"]No hyperbole there then.

My street and house were built in the 1930s. I have always assumed that they built the road for motorised and horse drawn transport and bikes, and built the pavements for pedestrians. Obviously I was wrong.[/QUOTE]
All aboard the hyperbole train is it?

Since pedestrians are allowed to use what you term "the road", indeed may walk down the middle of it if they want, play cricket on it if they wish, without any special permission, clearly, yes, you are wrong.

In your street where do the boundaries between the public and the private spaces actually lie.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939634, member: 43827"]No hyperbole there then.[/QUOTE]
Out of interest why do you think pedestrians are shunted to the margins of public shared spaces, and herded in cages, and forced to detour by fences, if it isn't to protect the poor wee things from the violence that will be exacted upon them by "traffic" if they don't steer clear? 

Somewhat in the manner of Lt Kaffey "If there is no danger, no threat of violence, why do they need to take care when they cross the road?"


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> All aboard the hyperbole train is it?
> 
> Since pedestrians are allowed to use what you term "the road", indeed may walk down the middle of it if they want, play cricket on it if they wish, without any special permission, clearly, yes, you are wrong.
> 
> In your street where do the boundaries between the public and the private spaces actually lie.


About 12" from the front door. The wall of the house abuts the pavement. I don't expect to be able to leave the safety of my porch and step into the 'shared public space' without looking to left, right and straight ahead, it's common sense really ........


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2017)

youngoldbloke said:


> About 12" from the front door. The wall of the house abuts the pavement.* I don't expect to be able to leave the safety of my porch* and step into the 'shared public space' *without looking to left, right *and straight ahead, it's common sense really ........


I call bs.

You can see at least 90 degrees either side without turning your head. Just how fast are the people on your pavements moving?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939824, member: 43827"]At my garden gate.

View attachment 371091
[/QUOTE]
Excellent. Then you agree that the public shared space is the whole of the space beyond your garden gate across to the boundary opposite.

Knew we'd get you there in the end.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939892, member: 43827"]
View attachment 371096
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE 4939397, member: 43827"]Probably me being dense as usual, but are you defining a road or street that is used by motor vehicles, plus non-motorized vehicles e.g. bikes, as a shared public space,[/QUOTE]
HTH


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I call bs.
> 
> You can see at least 90 degrees either side without turning your head. Just how fast are the people on your pavements moving?


WRONG - If the door was flush with the front wall of the house, maybe, but it is recessed by the thickness of the wall - actually 19". There is a very limited amount visible to the side without one joining the pavement. If you step out without looking there is a possibilty of collison with pedestrian, jogger, child on scooter, sometimes close to the wall.


----------



## youngoldbloke (1 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> When you step out of your house, though, watch out for all the balls flying about from people playing cricket in the road.


There is that too


----------



## Mr Celine (1 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> All aboard the hyperbole train is it?
> 
> Since pedestrians are allowed to use what you term "the road", indeed may walk down the middle of it if they want, play cricket on it if they wish, without any special permission, clearly, yes, you are wrong.


Walking up the middle of the road can get you an ASBO.

http://www.bordertelegraph.com/news...SBO_by_walking_home_from_hospital_on_the_A68/


----------



## Mr Celine (1 Sep 2017)

User said:


> "The same offence"?


I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the reporting in the Border Telegraph.

However ISTR he had previously been charged with obstructing the highway.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Sep 2017)

Mr Celine said:


> Walking up the middle of the road can get you an ASBO.
> 
> http://www.bordertelegraph.com/news...SBO_by_walking_home_from_hospital_on_the_A68/


Nope. Repeatedly obstructing the highway, and doing so in a way that endangers (EDIT: or inconveniences) other highway users can get you an ASBO.

Perhaps they could issue ASBOs to pavement parkers, speeders, drink drivers, the uninsured, those with illegally loud exhausts, amber gamblers, red light jumpers, those who sail through pedestrian crossings when the lights are agin them, those who overtake on the zig zags, and the nobbers that don't allow pedestrians to cross side roads. To name but a few of the anti-social behaviours to be seen every day in our public shared spaces.

But it is ok because operating a motor vehicle entitles you to behave like an anti-social nobber, doesn't it..
.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4939910, member: 43827"]Your selective bit of my post asks the questions to clarify your point of view. The full post, if you read that far, did not disagree that a carriageway is a shared space.[/QUOTE]
My pov needed no clarification. It was clear. If you agree with it why question it?


----------



## jarlrmai (4 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Nope. Repeatedly obstructing the highway, and doing so in a way that endangers other highway users can get you an ASBO.
> 
> Perhaps they could issue ASBOs to pavement parkers, speeders, drink drivers, the uninsured, those with illegally loud exhausts, amber gamblers, red light jumpers, those who sail through pedestrian crossings when the lights are agin them, those who overtake on the zig zags, and the nobbers that don't allow pedestrians to cross side roads. To name but a few of the anti-social behaviours to be seen every day in our public shared spaces.
> 
> ...



I could not have said it better myself.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Sep 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> I could not have said it better myself.


Can you imagine the furore, the absolute uproar. that would result if motorists were given ASBO's for their anti-social behaviour. Which they regard as perfectly normal. One of our neighbours households now parks five motor vehicles in the street. If I needed more room to store my property...


----------



## mjr (4 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> Yes, a load of balls .


I cycled along a small suburban road today which had full-size basketball hoops set up on either side (at an angle across it, plus it's a wide bit of road anyway, as I think it used to be a turning head before the road was continued). It's nice that some places still have children playing ball games in the street like when I grew up, rather than bullied off by motorists as they seem to be in most places now. I'll try to remember to take a picture next time I'm there, if the hoops are still up.


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (7 Sep 2017)

I wonder if John was being tongue in cheek here?

http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal

Him, & Brant, were always the shop jokers, when they worked in _Two Wheels Good_, in the early 90's


----------



## rliu (8 Sep 2017)

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-...edestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest

Relevant story today on road.cc to this continuing debate about if a pedestrian is indeed a more vulnerable road user than a cyclist.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Sep 2017)

rliu said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/228969-...edestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest
> 
> Relevant story today on road.cc to this continuing debate about if a pedestrian is indeed a more vulnerable road user than a cyclist.


Which, generally, carries the greater kinetic energy and thus represents the greater risk to the other?


----------



## srw (8 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> thus


Are you sure?

I'm no physicist, but I'd have thought it's rapid changes in kinetic energy which bring the risk. The statistics would suggest that neither is a meaningful risk to the other.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Sep 2017)

In reply to srw and grumpy, and thinking about the physics / ethics...

It is the cyclist who brings the most kinetic energy into things and thus the source of essentially all the danger.

However, I'd suggest the cyclist would still be the one most likely to be hurt as a glancing blow would only be a shove to the pedestrian yet cause the cyclist to fall off at speed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I'm no physicist, but I'd have thought it's rapid changes in kinetic energy which bring the risk. The statistics would suggest that neither is a meaningful risk to the other.


Yes, rapid transfer of kinetic energy from one to other is what does the damage. aka a collision. Sloppy wording in my part. In the presence of one who deals with risk.


----------



## rliu (8 Sep 2017)

I got a pretty nervous brush with a fox that ran across my path on a slight uphill once when I was going 15mph. Sure the fox would've come off worse if I hadn't swerved but I still didn't fancy getting brought down.

The case now has provoked calls for new legislation for cyclists. You could say fair enough law breakers in any form of transport should be punished, but it just runs counter to common sense for any cyclists to try and mow down any object more hefty than a plastic cup. It's really a mis direction of parliamentary time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Sep 2017)

Profpointy said:


> In reply to srw and grumpy, and thinking about the physics / ethics...
> 
> It is the cyclist who brings the most kinetic energy into things and thus the source of essentially all the danger.
> 
> However, I'd suggest the cyclist would still be the one most likely to be hurt as a glancing blow would only be a shove to the pedestrian yet cause the cyclist to fall off at speed.


In my experience of watching three cyclist pedestrian collisions in that lahndahn the glancing blow has dumped ped on deck with suspected broken bones whilst chummy has ridden furiously away shouting obscenities at his victim. apart from the one guy who rode into the back of a taxi. Now that _was_ funny.

In my experience as a pedestrian who has been collided with three times, all avoidable but I'm an obstinate old bugger, my dropped shoulder has been bruised twice. On two occasions chummy fell off and I didn't enquire, the other wobbled like a bandit but rode off. One guy who I missed skidded to a halt on his fixie and attempted to start a fist fight but was a) 8-stone-wet-thru and b) unable to easily stand on his cleats c) easily distracted when I shouted "They're nicking your bike." They weren't. But by then I'd trotted off into the station.


----------



## bigjim (8 Sep 2017)

T4tomo said:


> Completely agree, I thought we'd moved onto more general rather than specifics.
> 
> Re,Specifics I think CA was an odious arrogant little scrote, probably lied about not knowing a front brake was needed to make his fixie legal and safe, was probably riding too fast for the urban environment, although ironically possibly slower than vehicles on same road, and was rightly convicted of wanton and furious etc, mainly as he was riding a bike he couldn't stop safely, had time to slow it down (he shouted twice by his own admission) and chose not too. BUT no way should he have been up on manslaughter charge. The fact that the lady died was extremely unlucky and unfortunate and tragic for her family and friends.


Is that correct? I thought he did slow down and attempt to go around her, [which is what I normally do] but she stepped back into his path?


----------



## MacB (8 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> Is that correct? I thought he did slow down and attempt to go around her, [which is what I normally do] but she stepped back into his path?



That was my understanding as well, sounded as if he yelled a couple of times, didn't get the reaction he wanted fast enough so swerved, then got the reaction he'd hoped for when he yelled. If he'd been smart enough to allow for slower reaction times in older people it might have been different.


----------



## Poacher (8 Sep 2017)

rliu said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/228969-...edestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest
> 
> Relevant story today on road.cc to this continuing debate about if a pedestrian is indeed a more vulnerable road user than a cyclist.


Predictable coverage from the Daily Wail Online: "
*Cyclist died after running down pedestrian who stepped into his path as he raced through busy junction as lights changed to red*


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cyclist-died-running-pedestrian.html#ixzz4s6tOHFka "

Of course, no mention of the fact that his organ donations saved 5 lives.


----------



## bigjim (8 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> That was my understanding as well, sounded as if he yelled a couple of times, didn't get the reaction he wanted fast enough so swerved, then got the reaction he'd hoped for when he yelled. If he'd been smart enough to allow for slower reaction times in older people it might have been different.


I think the mistake he made was shouting. She would not have moved back.


----------



## bigjim (8 Sep 2017)

Poacher said:


> Predictable coverage from the Daily Wail Online: "
> *Cyclist died after running down pedestrian who stepped into his path as he raced through busy junction as lights changed to red*
> 
> 
> ...


The Mail really needs taking to task for it's stirring up of hatred towards cyclists. They are playing a dangerous game and putting our lives at risk, IMO.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> The Mail really needs taking to task for it's stirring up of hatred towards cyclists. They are playing a dangerous game and putting our lives at risk, IMO.



It's an inquest report.

The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.

The coroner described the cyclist as 'speeding'.

If you have any beef with that, you need to take it up with the expert who assessed the speed and the coroner who made the remarks.

Coroners - like judges - are fiercely independent and tell it like it is, not how one interested party or another wants it told.

The cyclist's family were not keen on the inquest's conclusions, but they have had their say in the Mail - and probably other - articles.


----------



## bigjim (8 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> It's an inquest report.
> 
> The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.
> 
> ...


Err.. The headline is not the inquest report!
The Mail are notorious for headlining cycling offences and disregarding similar stories regarding motor vehicles. It is very good clickbait for them knowing the mindset of their readers. Just a look at the comments will support this. That is what I am alluding to.


----------



## Poacher (8 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> It's an inquest report.
> 
> The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.
> 
> ...


As @bigjim has pointed out, the headline is not the inquest report - the "collision investigator Kevin Spiller said CCTV showed the cyclist was travelling at around 24mph on Church Road, but he was *unable to tell *whether Mr Pedley had just ridden past a green or red light." according to the GloucestershireLive report of the inquest proceedings, but this wasn't good enough for the Mail, which had the cyclist running a red.
"A cyclist who died after running down a pedestrian near a busy junction may have jumped a red light moments before the collision, an inquest has heard."

(OK, it says "may have", but that's good enough for Mail readers to make the obvious conclusion!)


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> Err.. The headline is not the inquest report!
> The Mail are notorious for headlining cycling offences and disregarding similar stories regarding motor vehicles. It is very good clickbait for them knowing the mindset of their readers. Just a look at the comments will support this. That is what I am alluding to.



Not many cyclists die in cyclist/pedestrian collisions, the pedestrian usually comes off worst.

Thus the story is newsworthy.

Even then the Mail doesn't have to run it, but they can't change the narrative of the inquest - it is what it is.

I've no idea if the Mail 'disregards' similar stories regarding motor vehicles, but their perception of newsworthiness trumps all, if they deem a story newsworthy it gets used.

All of which is irrelevant to the various points raised in the story, not least the cyclist's family's contention the pedestrian should be held in some way accountable for his actions.


----------



## Poacher (8 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Not many cyclists die in cyclist/pedestrian collisions, the pedestrian usually comes off worst.


Anecdata, but this doesn't match my experience - in the three collisions I've had with pedestrians who stepped/ran straight in front of me, they sustained very minor injuries compared to mine.


----------



## bigjim (8 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Not many cyclists die in cyclist/pedestrian collisions, the pedestrian usually comes off worst.
> 
> Thus the story is newsworthy.
> 
> ...


They can change the narrative of the headline. If I remember correctly, in the case of Charlie Alliston the Mail ran such headlines as "He Smashed into her" and "He mowed her down".
I think you are confusing newsworthy with clickbait. Rare to find a cyclist so intent on supporting the Daily Mail. Interesting.


----------



## Wobblers (8 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> It's an inquest report.
> 
> The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.
> 
> The coroner described the cyclist as 'speeding'.



24 mph for a motor vehicle would not be classed as "speeding". Interesting applicaiton of double standards here. 

Just because a coroner says so does not make it so.


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Sep 2017)

Interesting that the Mail don't mention that the pedestrian had just exited a pub. Surely if they were putting 2 and 2 together and making 5 from the cyclist's actions they could come up with 55 from the pedestrian's.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> They can change the narrative of the headline. If I remember correctly, in the case of Charlie Alliston the Mail ran such headlines as "He Smashed into her" and "He mowed her down".
> I think you are confusing newsworthy with clickbait. Rare to find a cyclist so intent on supporting the Daily Mail. Interesting.



And you are confusing the message with the messenger.

The inquest would have been just the same had the Mail not covered it.

@McWobble takes issue with the coroner's use of the word 'speeding'.

Fair enough, the coroner makes his findings which are there to be criticised if anyone wants to.

But, as usual on here, many posters have no interest in the story and are only interested in moaning about the Mail's coverage of it.

A clue is provided by the cyclist's family, they are not calling for a reform of the Mail, they are calling for a reform of the law relating to pedestrians using the carriageway.


----------



## r04DiE (8 Sep 2017)

The Mail is a hate-filled, bigoted pile of steaming poo and it is in everybody's interests to moan about it's coverage when said coverage is there only to stir up hatred toward vulnerable road users like us and make money.


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> But, as usual on here, many posters have no interest in the story and are only interested in moaning about the Mail's coverage of it.


Stories only exist in the telling.


----------



## mjr (9 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> And you are confusing the message with the messenger.
> 
> The inquest would have been just the same had the Mail not covered it.
> 
> ...


Looks like most are interested in objecting to both. Also, a link to the Fail's coverage was posted here, not merely the coroner's report.


> A clue is provided by the cyclist's family, they are not calling for a reform of the Mail, they are calling for a reform of the law relating to pedestrians using the carriageway.


Aren't they? How do you know they're not www.StopFundingHate.org.uk supporters? It's not like the press would report that as much in this context.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4949825, member: 9609"]I sometimes take part in a lorry drivers forum and the Mail seems to be even more loathed there than here with its hatred for anything to do with the haulage industry. Presumably the mail just loves car drivers and attacks anything that may slow them down ?[/QUOTE]
The Mail panders to the very prejudices it helps to shape.


----------



## Origamist (9 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> It's an inquest report.
> 
> The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.
> 
> ...



Where did the coroner use the term 'speeding'? I can see he mentions 'high speed'.


----------



## oldstrath (9 Sep 2017)

The Guardian now doing its bit to keep the anti cyclist momentum going with a puff piece on the grieving widower. Complete with the inevitable "I'm not anti cycling" nonsense line. And the interesting news that May has personally expressed her grief to him. 

Mind you, if she did this for all road death victims she might not have the time to screw up the rest of the country.


----------



## DaveReading (9 Sep 2017)

Origamist said:


> Where did the coroner use the term 'speeding'? I can see he mentions 'high speed'.



Correct. And the "high speed" judgement is actually that of police vehicle examiner who conducted an assessment following the collision.

The photo of the scene in the DM needs careful interpretation. I cycle through that junction most days (alas, at nothing like 24 mph these days). The photo is taken facing south, the cyclist was travelling north and had crossed the intersection when he hit the pedestrian, who would have been crossing R to L at a point somewhere between the lights and the lamp post.

When waiting at those lights I've seen a few near misses between pedestrians and cars coming from the right and turning left, so you need to cross with care. But a cyclist coming straight across from the south would be clearly visible to anyone who looked before crossing.


----------



## bigjim (9 Sep 2017)

"_And you are confusing the message with the messenger._"
No I'm not! The messenger created the message. Where I am confused, is why a cyclist is an advocate of the dangerously, cyclist hating, Daily Mail.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> "_And you are confusing the message with the messenger._"
> No I'm not! The messenger created the message. Where I am confused, is why a cyclist is an advocate of the dangerously, cyclist hating, Daily Mail.



The Daily Mail - and what you or I think of it - has nothing to do with either road death.

There is a lot to compare and contrast in both incidents.

In case one, cyclist speeds into pedestrian, the pedestrian dies, and the cyclist faces criminal charges and widespread public criticism.

In case two, cyclist speeds (faster) into pedestrian, cyclist dies, and the pedestrian faces no charges or criticism, apart from 'having just left the pub' - shocking, build the gallows high, I say.

In both cases the pedestrian was jaywalking, and in both cases the grieving families want a change in the law.

All the above is far more interesting - and on thread topic - than tired, repetitive. bleating about the Daily Mail.


----------



## Inertia (9 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> And you are confusing the message with the messenger.


The Mail decides how it reports the message and it choose to do so with very emotive language, exaggerates and adds the worst possible scenario for its target of blame.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Sep 2017)

I see that a pedestrian injured during the Ride London sportive in July has died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212147

I'm sure the gutter press will latch onto this to fuel yet more anti-cycling sentiment, especially as the press insist on calling it a race. Let's see what tone their reporting takes...


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4949825, member: 9609"]Presumably the mail just loves car drivers and attacks anything that may slow them down ?[/QUOTE]
Nick Davies, in Flat Earth News (which has a chapter devoted to the Mail) suggests that it reflects its readers' prejudices back to them[1]. So if Mail readers were reasonable types who understood the pointlessness of shuttling private cars ever more swiftly between inevitable bottlenecks, its reporting would, presumably, reflect that.

[1] Assuming I've remembered that correctly, of course. My apologies to Mr Davies if not.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> In both cases the pedestrian was jaywalking, and in both cases the grieving families want a change in the law.


Strictly speaking, no - no such offence exists, and pedestrians, iirc, have absolute priority in the UK (although not on motorways and a few A roads, as any fule kno). The situation in which they are, for the most part, bullied off our roads is de facto, not de jure.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> One of our neighbours households now parks five motor vehicles in the street. If I needed more room to store my property...


We have similar problems, although not as bad as in the last place we lived. Our neighbours there had a car for everyone of driving age in the household (5 vehicles), plus a taxi. When the council put in verge protection along the road to stop the grass from being ruined by people parking on it, the section by their house was mysteriously removed, and their cars reappeared on the grass. I even came home early one day to find them using my drive as a sort of overflow car park. Where we live now, most people have offroad parking for one vehicle, but have two or more per household. I've yet to park my own vehicle in front of my own house as a result, although we do use our drive as long as someone hasn't blocked it for "just a moment".


Richard A Thackeray said:


> I wonder if John was being tongue in cheek here?
> 
> http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal
> 
> Him, & Brant, were always the shop jokers, when they worked in _Two Wheels Good_, in the early 90's


As one of the commenters points out, the fact that it's title includes "A Modest Proposal" suggests so. If cycling were big enough to have a Mr Loophole, I can imagine that fictitious character giving this advice though.


----------



## r04DiE (9 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4950814, member: 1314"]

Are you a troll?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I mean, exactly.

This is like saying "The pedestrian was putting one foot in front of the other, breathing, or eating an ice cream, or anything else that isn't illegal in the UK"

Do me a favour...


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4950814, member: 1314"]

Are you a troll?[/QUOTE]

And are you being deliberately dense?

Both pedestrians were crossing at a point otherwise than at a controlled crossing, commonly known as jaywalking.

A legal action in this country, but highly relevant to both cases.

Had Alliston knocked down a pedestrian while cycling on the pavement I doubt the jury would have had much trouble convicting him of manslaughter.

The family of the cyclist in the second case were frustrated by the fact the pedestrian was in the road where they thought he should not be.


----------



## theclaud (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Both pedestrians were crossing at a point otherwise than at a controlled crossing, commonly known as jaywalking.


Actually it's just called 'crossing the road'. HTH.


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Sep 2017)

theclaud said:


> Actually it's just called 'crossing the road'. HTH.



Actually, the distinction was made in both cases.

The coroner in the second case recommended the creation of a 'pedestrian crossing' at the accident site.

So the distinction is an important one.

But of course, it's not as important as making jibes at other members, is it?

Try discussing the topic - for a change.

Quote from the coroner: "I have made a recommendation to the higher authorities that they do make a pedestrian crossing on Church Road."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cyclist-died-running-pedestrian.html#ixzz4s6tOHFka


----------



## theclaud (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Actually, the distinction was made in both cases.
> 
> The coroner in the second case recommended the creation of a 'pedestrian crossing' at the accident site.
> 
> ...


Jibe? The concept of 'jaywalking' implies that crossing the road in places not recognised as legitimate by motorists is deviant or irresponsible behaviour. I don't recognise it and I think it's irresponsible to use it.


----------



## DaveReading (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> crossing at a point otherwise than at a controlled crossing, commonly known as jaywalking



Well in the columns of the Daily Mail or downtown New York City, perhaps.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Both pedestrians were crossing at a point otherwise than at a controlled crossing, commonly known as jaywalking.
> .


Only in the minds of the lead addled, and the American obsessed.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Sep 2017)

If we are going to introduce jaywalking in the UK, can we at least make up our own slur. 

May I suggest *chavwalking*?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFn7MiJz_s

(posted before)


----------



## winjim (10 Sep 2017)

The time to consider a jaywalking law would be at the point when we have correct enforcement of motorists driving and parking where they ought not to be.

Oh yeah, and _all other motoring offences_. Get those down to zero and we'll talk.


----------



## Dan B (10 Sep 2017)

winjim said:


> The time to consider a jaywalking law would be


never. Our common law right to pass and repass on the public highway should not be contingent on the behaviour of motorists


----------



## T4tomo (10 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I see that a pedestrian injured during the Ride London sportive in July has died.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212147
> 
> I'm sure the gutter press will latch onto this to fuel yet more anti-cycling sentiment, especially as the press insist on calling it a race. Let's see what tone their reporting takes...


Was the RL supposed to be closed roads, or is that only closed to traffic, and hence pedestrians take there chance crossing the road, with cyclists thinking they only have to avoid other cyclists, Andy presumably any pedestrian crossings zebra or pelican, not in operation?


----------



## winjim (10 Sep 2017)

Dan B said:


> never. Our common law right to pass and repass on the public highway should not be contingent on the behaviour of motorists


I see you've given the matter some consideration. You did get the point of the rest of my post?


----------



## srw (10 Sep 2017)

T4tomo said:


> Was the RL supposed to be closed roads, or is that only closed to traffic, and hence pedestrians take there chance crossing the road, with cyclists thinking they only have to avoid other cyclists, Andy presumably any pedestrian crossings zebra or pelican, not in operation?


Completely closed roads, with pedestrian crossing restricted to marshal-controlled crossing points - and in most places the stream of cyclists didn't really allow anything else. Having said that, the marshalling, particularly on Putney Hill and thereafter, was a bit rubbish, really, with pedestrians (and in some cases vehicles) crossing without much control.

If this is the woman I saw lying on the road (I think it is, given the location), matters seem to have been made more complicated by the presence of a small dog.


----------



## DaveReading (10 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> with pedestrian crossing restricted to marshal-controlled crossing points



You mean officially-sanctioned crossing points were restricted to those controlled by marshals.

Many of us stragglers will have seen peds crossing willy-nilly in the gaps between riders where there was nobody to stop them. I had a couple of occasions where I had to steer to pass being someone who was crossing. It was no big deal - it's unrealistic to expect the whole route to be sterile.


----------



## srw (10 Sep 2017)

DaveReading said:


> You mean officially-sanctioned crossing points were restricted to those controlled by marshals.
> 
> Many of us stragglers will have seen peds crossing willy-nilly in the gaps between riders where there was nobody to stop them. I had a couple of occasions where I had to steer to pass being someone who was crossing. It was no big deal - it's unrealistic to expect the whole route to be sterile.


Yes, fair enough. A couple of years ago we were in the stragglers too. But this year because we cut short to 46 miles we were rolling home through the busiest part of the bike traffic. There were plenty of official crossing points, so if they'd been more obvious, and better rehearsed, pedestrians could have been safe.


----------



## srw (10 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Yes, fair enough. A couple of years ago we were in the stragglers too. But this year because we cut short to 46 miles we were rolling home through the busiest part of the bike traffic. There were plenty of official crossing points, so if they'd been more obvious, and better rehearsed, pedestrians could have been safe.



[edit]

"To allow access across closed roads on the event route, pedestrian access will still be possible at designated crossings, where marshals will ensure you can cross the road safely."
https://www.prudentialridelondon.co.uk/about/faqs/

"PEDESTRIAN CROSSING POINTS These are located at the existing signalled crossings along the event route and will be under marshal supervision to help you across the road throughout the day. Pedestrian crossing points will be temporarily closed prior to the professional race passing through."
https://d1ffaecguugkl4.cloudfront.n...edia/890/Putney-Resident-Information-2017.pdf (A leaflet dropped to all local residents)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Sep 2017)

Dan B said:


> never. Our common law right to pass and repass on the public highway should not be contingent on the behaviour of motorists


Bloody right! I'd riot before I'd sit by and see my most basic and ancient rights as a freeborn Englishman eroded in the name of traffic.

Anyone who thinks pedestrians should be herded and penned like livestock is in need of a dramatic shift in outlook.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Yes, fair enough. A couple of years ago we were in the stragglers too. But this year because we cut short to 46 miles we were rolling home through the busiest part of the bike traffic. There were plenty of official crossing points, so if they'd been more obvious, and better rehearsed, pedestrians could have been safe.


Fairly sure, but happy to be corrected but I seem to remember some learned person or other advising that a closed road in this context in England means closed to motor traffic. Despite organisers puff pieces and FAQs staying otherwise.


----------



## r04DiE (10 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4951189, member: 1314"]No such thing as Jaywalking in the UK. If @Pale Rider did not know this, he's been educated, if he knew this, he's using diversionary tactics to victim blame.

Jaywalking was introduced in the States as their highways were in main built for cars, and the term Jaywalker was used as an insult to claim that space from non-motorised traffic, then made a legal definition.

In the UK the highways predate motorised vehicles (with the exception of Motorways and some A roads) and were designed for all road-users, with the expectancy that the more vulnerable had priority at, for example, turnpikes. This is the starting point of the law relating to pedestrian-use of the highways in this country.

Hence Jaywalking has no presence in this country.[/QUOTE]
Well put.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Sep 2017)

Controlled pedestrian crossings are designed to maintain the flow of traffic and minimise the inconvenience caused by interrupting motorists' journeys, not give pedestrians a convenient and safe crossing.


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Sep 2017)

r04DiE said:


> Well put.



Dreadfully put.

Too many incorrect assumptions to list.

It's a simple fact crossing otherwise than at a pedestrian crossing - aka jaywalking - featured heavily in both cases.

The jury at the Old Bailey heard the term 'jaywalking', but they presumably had enough common sense to realise it was being used in a descriptive manner and no offence was being alleged.

The coroner in the second case made a recommendation for the creation of a pedestrian crossing at the accident site - to limit the propensity for pedestrians to jaywalk/cross otherwise than at a crossing.



glasgowcyclist said:


> Controlled pedestrian crossings are designed to maintain the flow of traffic and minimise the inconvenience caused by interrupting motorists' journeys, not give pedestrians a convenient and safe crossing.



A more even-handed view is they are designed to do both.

Alliston would almost certainly have been convicted of manslaughter had he killed a pedestrian on a crossing, and the family of the cyclist in the second case couldn't really have any complaints had the pedestrian been using one.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I have lost count of the number of times I have said this.



Ah, sorry. Give yourself a countless bundle of TMNs for my oversight.


----------



## MacB (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> It's a simple fact crossing otherwise than at a pedestrian crossing - aka jaywalking - featured heavily in both cases.



It's a simple fact that the term jaywalking is American and is an offence in law over there. The term is neither common usage here nor is it an offence.

This has been explained to you in a variety of ways in this thread but you refuse to give over being a nobber and trying to single handedly introduce the term into common, CC at least, parlance.


----------



## MacB (10 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I have lost count of the number of times I have said this.



This will make it countless plus one then


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> It's a simple fact that the term jaywalking is American and is an offence in law over there. The term is neither common usage here nor is it an offence.
> 
> This has been explained to you in a variety of ways in this thread but you refuse to give over being a nobber and trying to single handedly introduce the term into common, CC at least, parlance.



Pointless hair splitting over terminology.

The pedestrians were either using a crossing or they were not.

In both cases, they were not.


----------



## MacB (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Pointless hair splitting over terminology.
> 
> The pedestrians were either using a crossing or they were not.
> 
> In both cases, they were not.



If it's so pointless then why don't you stop using a foreign term for an offence in law to describe something that happened here? Surely the fact that you've been pulled on it so many times may give the clue that a lot of people feel it's not pointless and, in this case, the terminology matters a great deal.

It's up to you, I know it's not easy to back down, especially when you're vying for a spot in the nobber premiership...but trust me, the glory will be short lived but the blowback won't be.


----------



## r04DiE (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Too many incorrect assumptions to list.


vs. the whole basis of your argument, that is the incorrect assumption that Jaywalking means anything-at-all in the UK.


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> If it's so pointless then why don't you stop using a foreign term for an offence in law to describe something that happened here? Surely the fact that you've been pulled on it so many times may give the clue that a lot of people feel it's not pointless and, in this case, the terminology matters a great deal.
> 
> It's up to you, I know it's not easy to back down, especially when you're vying for a spot in the nobber premiership...but trust me, the glory will be short lived but the blowback won't be.



So you agree neither pedestrian was using a crossing?

That's something.

Stick to that rather than name calling and you might get somewhere with the topic.


----------



## growingvegetables (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> A more even-handed view is they are designed to do both.


Wrong. Fact.


----------



## MacB (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> So you agree neither pedestrian was using a crossing?
> 
> That's something.
> 
> Stick to that rather than name calling and you might get somewhere with the topic.



and, there we have it, you can't back down and can't even acknowledge that the term 'nobber' in this instance is merely descriptive rather than name calling


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> and, there we have it, you can't back down and can't even acknowledge that the term 'nobber' in this instance is merely descriptive rather than name calling



If that means you've finally grasped I couldn't give a toss about the crummy little cliques on here, we may have made some progress.

But as entertaining as ganging up on a forum member is (for some), it's got nothing to do with the topic, so how about a few posts on that?

It would be a pity if the thread got locked, at least not until Alliston has been sentenced a week on Monday.


----------



## MacB (10 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> But as entertaining as ganging up on a forum member is (for some), it's got nothing to do with the topic



Wrong again, is this some sort of record? No-one is ganging up on a member they are ganging up on the use of a term that is both foreign and descriptive of an offence that DOESN'T EXIST IN THE UK but is trying to be used to describe something that happened in the UK. If you stopped using the term and maybe even acknowledged that you were wrong in the first place then this would all go away.

That you can't and instead keep doubling down and trying to throw in yet more irrelevant bollocks...that's what's got you riding that pale horse right into the centre of Nobbersville. You can still ride on through rather then making a play to be the new Nobbersheriff in Nobbersville...you know the right thing to do, but will your pride let you?


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> Wrong again, is this some sort of record? No-one is ganging up on a member they are ganging up on the use of a term that is both foreign and descriptive of an offence that DOESN'T EXIST IN THE UK but is trying to be used to describe something that happened in the UK. If you stopped using the term and maybe even acknowledged that you were wrong in the first place then this would all go away.
> 
> That you can't and instead keep doubling down and trying to throw in yet more irrelevant bollocks...that's what's got you riding that pale horse right into the centre of Nobbersville. You can still ride on through rather then making a play to be the new Nobbersheriff in Nobbersville...you know the right thing to do, but will your pride let you?



Calm down, dear, it's all big dos and little dos and will be forgotten about within a week.


----------



## MacB (11 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Calm down, dear, it's all big dos and little dos and will be forgotten about within a week.



It's not me screaming about everyone ganging up on me while trying to tell them that I don't care anyway....I love contradictions like that.

Now stop trying to make this all about you, the entity Pale Rider is unimportant in this discussion, anyone else using the term jaywalking in the manner you have would have met the same response.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> the entity Pale Rider is unimportant in this discussion.



More progress, carry on in this vein and we might get back on topic.


----------



## Buddfox (11 Sep 2017)

I don't know, the use of the term jaywalking in that context made perfect sense to me. Oh well!


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> It's not me screaming about everyone ganging up on me while trying to tell them that I don't care anyway....I love contradictions like that.
> 
> Now stop trying to make this all about you, the entity Pale Rider is unimportant in this discussion, anyone else using the term jaywalking in the manner you have would have met the same response.


Not sure. Not at all sure "the entity Pale Rider " considers himself "unimportant in this discussion".

But that's his problem. He chose his avatar. Nobody else.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Sep 2017)

Buddfox said:


> I don't know, the use of the term jaywalking in that context made perfect sense to me. Oh well!



Made sense to the Alliston jury as well - if their decision to acquit on manslaughter is anything to go by.



growingvegetables said:


> Not sure. Not at all sure "the entity Pale Rider " considers himself "unimportant in this discussion".
> 
> But that's his problem. He chose his avatar. Nobody else.



As a general point, we are all at the centre of our own universe, but I doubt anyone else gives a toss one way or the other.


----------



## Inertia (11 Sep 2017)

Buddfox said:


> I don't know, the use of the term jaywalking in that context made perfect sense to me. Oh well!


What did it mean to you?


----------



## swansonj (11 Sep 2017)

Let's try one more time. 

"The pedestrian was not on a pedestrian crossing" is a neutral descriptive fact and is acceptable because facts are always acceptable. 

""The pedestrian should have been on a pedestrian crossing" is a statement of opinion and is acceptable because statements of legitimate opinions are always acceptable. 

"The pedestrian was jaywalking" is a statement of opinion disguised as a fact, but the fact it is disguised as is an incorrect fact. It conveys your disapproval of the pedestrian's action by labelling it a crime when it is not a crime. That is being challenged because incorrect facts should not be acceptable - and because debate usually proceeds better when we present our opinions as such and don't try to claim a status for them that they don't have.


----------



## Dan B (11 Sep 2017)

"The pedestrian was crossing the road" / "the pedestrian was jay walking"

"The defendant was traveling at 18mph" / "The defendant was speeding"

"I an unable to say whether the traffic signal was red or green" / "the cyclist may have jumped a red light"

The facts in each pair of statements are the same but the implication in the mind of the audience is not


----------



## DaveReading (11 Sep 2017)

Interesting, and perhaps illuminating, article here:

Here’s Why People Won’t Admit They’re Wrong


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

Crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing when the red man shows is crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing, aka crossing the road, it isn't jaywalking.
Crossing the road near a pedestrian crossing is crossing the road near a pedestrian crossing, aka crossing the road, it ain't jaywalking.
Crossing the road nowhere near a pedestrian crossing is crossing the road nowhere near a pedestrian crossing, aka crossing the road, it ain't jaywalking.

Jaywalking is an American pejorative term. Jaywalking does not exist in the UK. (EDIT: GB) If lawyers and judges and coroners are now talking about jaywalking, as if it was a UK thing, then they are as colossally ignorant, and as guilty of attempted victim-blaming, as some folks in these parts, who also should know better.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

appaz it is an offence in NI. Sometimes.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

Whilst in local FFS! news http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news...after-car-collides-with-pedestrians-1-8143687


----------



## T4tomo (11 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> appaz it is an offence in NI. Sometimes.


And in Germany and Singapore I believe, but not GB


----------



## T4tomo (11 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> and, there we have it, you can't back down and can't even acknowledge that the term 'nobber' in this instance is merely descriptive rather than name calling


Whilst I'm with you that repeatedly referring to crossing the road as Jay walking is misleading and frustrating, to a neutral, repeatedly using 'nobber' and derivations thereof comes across as name calling and a bit 'playground'


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

T4tomo said:


> And in Germany and Singapore I believe, but not GB


My previous post was about the UK. NI is part of the UK. Hence the teeny clarification.


----------



## MacB (11 Sep 2017)

T4tomo said:


> Whilst I'm with you that repeatedly referring to crossing the road as Jay walking is misleading and frustrating, to a neutral, repeatedly using 'nobber' and derivations thereof comes across as name calling and a bit 'playground'



I know it was meant to, Mr P Rider had taken it upon himself to singlehandedly try to wreck this thread through his own sheer bloody mindedness. As it's a thread I've been following it irked me to find new activity was so often more of the PR nonsense. Trust me nobber and derivations thereof were far and away the most polite of the responses I considered.


----------



## Buddfox (11 Sep 2017)

Inertia said:


> What did it mean to you?



That the pedestrians were crossing the road without paying attention


----------



## Buddfox (11 Sep 2017)

swansonj said:


> "The pedestrian was jaywalking" is a statement of opinion disguised as a fact, but the fact it is disguised as is an incorrect fact. It conveys your disapproval of the pedestrian's action by labelling it a crime when it is not a crime. That is being challenged because incorrect facts should not be acceptable - and because debate usually proceeds better when we present our opinions as such and don't try to claim a status for them that they don't have.



I can't find one example in this thread of anyone claiming that jaywalking is a crime in the UK, so no-one is labelling the actions as a crime. In that regard, the statement is no different than saying "The pedestrian should have been on the crossing". Both are opinions, and both apportion some blame to the pedestrian. Perhaps let's try and keep the debate on whether the pedestrian should have been on the crossing or not, as opposed to over-worked criticism of a perfectly understandable word.


----------



## Inertia (11 Sep 2017)

Buddfox said:


> That the pedestrians were crossing the road without paying attention


This illustrates the problem, to you it meant that the pedestrians were crossing without paying attention.

Pale Rider seemed to define it as crossing the road anywhere other than at a pedestrian crossing.

Crossing the road in this country is not limited to pedestrian crossings and merely crossing the road somewhere else does not mean the pedestrian is not paying attention.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Sep 2017)

Inertia said:


> Pale Rider seemed to define it as crossing the road anywhere other than at a pedestrian crossing.



That is true, I only used the term 'jaywalking' because I prefer using one word to using 10 words.

To some others on here, jaywalking has a perjorative meaning.

To some others, it does not.

It's a matter of opinion, or rather perception, not a matter of right or wrong.


----------



## Buddfox (11 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> That's what we are doing. Pale Rider stated that 'the pedestrian was jaywalking' as somehow a contributory factor to what happened. The pedestrian was not jaywalking, the pedestrian was crossing the road. Being on a crossing or not is irrelevant.



I am reading the thread differently to you. In most cases (but not all), the criticism is of the use of the term, rather than its implications. "Jaywalking has no meaning in the UK" etc. etc.


----------



## Inertia (11 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> That is true, I only used the term 'jaywalking' because I prefer using one word to using 10 words.
> 
> To some others on here, jaywalking has a perjorative meaning.
> 
> ...


To be fair I think it has a perjorative meaning for many people including Buddfox, who I hope wont mind me mentioning him, whose definition is one that a lot of people would share. 

I think Jaywalking, as a definition for people who cross the road without using a crossing, is a minority definition.


----------



## Buddfox (11 Sep 2017)

Inertia said:


> This illustrates the problem, to you it meant that the pedestrians were crossing without paying attention.
> 
> Pale Rider seemed to define it as crossing the road anywhere other than at a pedestrian crossing.
> 
> Crossing the road in this country is not limited to pedestrian crossings and merely crossing the road somewhere else does not mean the pedestrian is not paying attention.



I just don't see it as a problem, that it is expressed in those terms. I have no information to determine whether the pedestrians were paying attention or not, and I don't consider it to be particularly relevant anyway, because I believe that other road users should be looking out for people stepping into the road, and not the other way around. But the tone of the conversation is sadly lowered when people just resort to insulting other users for giving an opinion.


----------



## Inertia (11 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> That is true, I only used the term 'jaywalking' because I prefer using one word to using 10 words.


Just to add, those 10 words could have saved you a lot more words down the line.


----------



## Inertia (11 Sep 2017)

User said:


> The word jaywalking was coined to be pejorative. Jay was an established American term for dullard, hick, or bumkin. Jaywalking was invented from that as part of a campaign by the motor industry to get rights to be on the road shifted from people to people in cars.
> They have pretty much won that in America but, as David Bowie wrote, this is not America and we can continue to hope for a better degree of civilization here.


Absolutely, we should fight the use of a word that helped to make american roads the way they are.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> A more even-handed view is they are designed to do both



If we're doing even-handed views, you wouldn't describe crossing a road elsewhere than at a crossing as jaywalking.


----------



## Buddfox (11 Sep 2017)

Inertia said:


> To be fair I think it has a perjorative meaning for many people including Buddfox, who I hope wont mind me mentioning him, whose definition is one that a lot of people would share.
> 
> I think Jaywalking, as a definition for people who cross the road without using a crossing, is a minority definition.



Of course no issue, but to be clear: I attach a pejorative meaning to the use of the term, but I do not agree that such negative connotations should be attached to either pedestrian in these cases, so far as I have understood the facts which are available.


----------



## MacB (11 Sep 2017)

I can't decide if the ignorance is wilfull or genuine but here's a theoretical that may clarify for some:-

The person was crossing the road and was.....
The person was jaywalking and was.....

If those mean the same to you then these do as well:-

The young lady was walking home when she was....
The young lady, dressed provocatively and having had too much to drink, was walking home when she was.....


----------



## MacB (11 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> That is true, I only used the term 'jaywalking' because I prefer using one word to using 10 words.
> 
> To some others on here, jaywalking has a perjorative meaning.
> 
> ...




Liar

or to keep the playground theme going

Liar liar pants on fire

There is no opinion or perception here, YOU WERE WRONG


----------



## Inertia (11 Sep 2017)

Buddfox said:


> Of course no issue, but to be clear: I attach a pejorative meaning to the use of the term, but I do not agree that such negative connotations should be attached to either pedestrian in these cases, so far as I have understood the facts which are available.


Noted but by using the term jaywalking a person can imply that the pedestrian was not paying attention, without actually saying it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> But those people were just walking along a rural road with no pavement, not attempting to cross, as far as we know.


Yep, and the victim blaming has already begun elsewhere.



> http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1552...for_life_after_being_hit_by_car_in_Portslade/
> Here's a link to the Brighton Argus, reporting how an 11-year-old is 'fighting for her life' after being hit by a car in Hove. The below-the-line comments (which are always extremely unpleasant in that paper) are already saying that she was 'jaywalking' because she seems not to have been on a crossing when she was hit, therefore it is her own fault that she was nearly killed. Pale Rider and his ilk should be proud. We all know that he thinks he speaks for the entire UK judicial system because he is or has been some minor court official, but 'nobber' isn't strong enough for some of the awful stuff he comes out with.


I never go BTL on The Argus. I wonder how far her detour would have had to be to find a traffic-light controlled crossing point? I don't say safe crossing point as my family's experience of the traffic-light crossing round ours shows it is anything but safe as stopping at the red light is increasingly optional.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

Buddfox said:


> I can't find one example in this thread of anyone claiming that jaywalking is a crime in the UK, so no-one is labelling the actions as a crime. In that regard, the statement is no different than saying "The pedestrian *should *have been on the crossing". Both are opinions, and both apportion some blame to the pedestrian. Perhaps let's try and keep the debate on whether the pedestrian should have been on the crossing or not, as opposed to over-worked criticism of a perfectly understandable word.


Why should?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

Inertia said:


> Absolutely, we should fight the use of a word that helped to make american roads the way they are.


Absolutely. The word expresses, and its use is characteristic of, a particular motor-centric mindset. It implies that pedestrians need to be controlled, corralled, hearded and fenced-in, forced to go out of their way to make way for King Car.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> To some others on here, jaywalking has a perjorative meaning.
> 
> To some others, it does not.
> 
> It's a matter of opinion, or rather perception, not a matter of right or wrong.


Those who claim jaywalking does not have a perjorative meaning continue to embarrass others by their ignorance. It is a matter of meaning not perception.

_"A campaign of ridicule directed toward the extermination of the "Jay Walker Family" was inaugurated [in Tacoma WA] today by the local automobile club. The "Jay Walker Family" according to explanations made today is numerous. It is composed of those pedestrians who cross congested streets without first looking to see if it is safe to do so. The local automobile club today adopted resolutions suggesting propaganda to be distributed all over the country to "kill off the Jay Walker Family." Automobile clubs all over the country ... will be asked to aid in exterminating "Mr. and Mrs. Jay Walker and all the little Walkers."_


----------



## jefmcg (11 Sep 2017)

Buddfox said:


> I can't find one example in this thread of anyone claiming that jaywalking is a crime in the UK,


And this is why we shouldn't use the term. Jaywalking means crossing the road without regard to traffic regulations. That has no meaning in the UK on Old Street, and using the term implicitly indicates that they are breaking a law.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

jefmcg said:


> And this is why we shouldn't use the term. Jaywalking means crossing the road without regard to traffic regulations. That has no meaning in the UK, and using the term implicitly indicates that they are breaking a law.


Apparently it is the law in NI. They are so much closer to America obvs.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Apparently it is the law in NI. They are so much closer to America obvs.


Edited


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

Just finished reading a fascinating piece from Ireland where they have unenforced jay walking laws (50m of a crossing - which is pretty much the same as in Denmark). Apparently pedestrians on the mobile phones are the main menace. Oddly the article was silent about the greater menace of drivers on their mobile phones.


----------



## Inertia (11 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Just finished reading a fascinating piece from Ireland where they have unenforced jay walking laws (50m of a crossing - which is pretty much the same as in Denmark). Apparently pedestrians on the mobile phones are the main menace. Oddly the article was silent about the greater menace of drivers on their mobile phones.


That's very strange, I feel sure it says something but I cant put my finger on it.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4951189, member: 1314"]Jaywalking was introduced in the States as their highways were in main built for cars,[/QUOTE]
That's not true. The term jay-walking dates back to the time when the roads were nearly entirely populated by walkers, riders and wagons. And the smooth surfaces required for motoring were introduced following lobbying by .... cyclists! So the highways were built for horses and bicycles, not for cars.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads

1913:





(note the charming language "kill off" and "exterminate")


----------



## mjr (11 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> This will make it countless plus one then


That still makes countless.



Buddfox said:


> I don't know, the use of the term jaywalking in that context made perfect sense to me. Oh well!


Henry Ford wants you for a spark plug :P



GrumpyGregry said:


> Whilst in local FFS! news http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news...after-car-collides-with-pedestrians-1-8143687


Naughty car, deciding to collide with pedestrians instead of doing what its driver told it


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

jefmcg said:


> That's not true. The term jay-walking dates back to the time when the roads were nearly entirely populated by walkers, riders and wagons. And the smooth surfaces required for motoring were introduced following lobbying by .... cyclists! So the highways were built for horses and bicycles, not for cars.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads
> 
> ...


Strange how jaydriver (the "nobber driver" of its day) died out whilst jaywalker got legs and persists to this day.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Sep 2017)

We keep talking as if crossings are a panacea, but I'm reflecting on the pedestrian collisions I have personal knowledge of -

There was a busy pelican crossing near St Paul's. I stopped for a red light and the pedestrians had stepped onto the road when a motorcyclist ran the red and knocked a woman down. I'd guess the woman sustained a broken wrist, and the motorcyclist came down heavily, but she seemed to be ok.
The aforementioned pedestrian unconscious and face down on a zebra crossing in old street.
My brother standing on the pavement waiting for the light to change when two cars collided in the junction and one of them spun into him, throwing him into the air, breaking his leg, and his laptop.
And two things from just today

Just half an hour ago I hesitated stepping off the kerb when the green man appeared as a car ran the light at speed.
From just upthread, 7 people walking legally on a country road, 2 dead, two badly injured. Jesus.
I wonder if we subtracted every example of "jaywalking"* from the road deaths, how much lower the total would actually be?

And without accusing CA of any further offences, I have seen cyclists (especially fixie riders) skimming around pedestrians on zebra crossings. I am not at all convinced that using a crossing would have saved her.

*FWIW, the definition of jaywalking from where I grew up would be something like (it's not a legal term):

Crossing against a red or amber OR
Crossing within 20m of a crossing point and not using it. Ie if the nearest pedestrian crossing is 21 metres away, you don't have to use it OR
Not choosing the most direct route across the road OR
Because it's Melbourne, extra rules about trams.


----------



## Inertia (11 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4952835, member: 43827"]Put pedestrian crossings every 20 yards on every road then it just might be worth debating introducing jaywalking as an offence.

Would motorists and cyclists consider that a fair price for its introduction?[/QUOTE]
what do the pedestrians get for giving up their rights?


----------



## jefmcg (11 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> I don't think we do though.


Some people do....


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Sep 2017)

Can we drop the term jay walking please? No such thing in this country.


----------



## MacB (11 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4952865, member: 43827"]

That's the last time I try reductio ad absurdum.[/QUOTE]

Didn't work for Harry Potter either


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Sep 2017)

Back to the implications of the OP, sort of. Good article (imho!). Kinda like the argument - "bring the law into order - cyclists and motor-drivers should be treated the same ............. so why not charge drivers with manslaughter?"


----------



## Inertia (11 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4952865, member: 43827"]

That's the last time I try reductio ad absurdum.[/QUOTE]
If it helps, I didn't think you were being entirely serious. I was trying to make my own point,that's the last time I try that!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

jefmcg said:


> We keep talking as if crossings are a panacea, but I'm reflecting on the pedestrian collisions I have personal knowledge of -
> 
> There was a busy pelican crossing near St Paul's. I stopped for a red light and the pedestrians had stepped onto the road when a motorcyclist ran the red and knocked a woman down. I'd guess the woman sustained a broken wrist, and the motorcyclist came down heavily, but she seemed to be ok.
> The aforementioned pedestrian unconscious and face down on a zebra crossing in old street.
> ...


In our house over the weekend we had five adults. All adults related to me have been in contact, at least, with a motor vehicle that has run the red light on the ped. crossing by ours. Turned out the fifth adult, no relative, had ended up in hospital as a VIth former as a result of car running red on the ped, crossing further up our road outside her then VIth college.


----------



## Profpointy (11 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> In our house over the weekend we had five adults. All adults related to me have been in contact, at least, with a motor vehicle that has run the red light on the ped. crossing by ours. Turned out the fifth adult, no relative, had ended up in hospital as a VIth former as a result of car running red on the ped, crossing further up our road outside her then VIth college.



Time to introduce cyclist registration to clamp down on red light jumping. Oh hang on...


----------



## Wobblers (12 Sep 2017)

... and now with all this talk of "jaywalking" we're right back to victim blaming.

Sigh.

It ignores two things.

The first is the simple, and perfectly fair, principle that the person who brings the greatest risk has the greatest responsibility for safe conduct. Since the cyclist is the one with the greatest danger of inflicting injury - usually! - then the responsibility is theirs to look out for pedestrians. And this is predicated on simple physics: cyclist plus bike is heavier than pedestrian, so it's the pedestrian who will experience the greatest forces in any impact. Plus of course a bicycle is a hard object with rather many sharp corners.

The second thing is that the issue of blame doesn't actually matter. Not when there's a body underneath your wheels (whether they be powered by engine or yourself). Most people in that situation would be assailed by guilt and remorse, no matter who was to blame [1]. Which is why I'll continue to look out for pedestrians, to the best of my abilities: because I have no wish to harm anyone else, even if they are "at fault". 

[1] And bluntly, anyone who isn't quite simply should not be allowed to operate any vehicle, powered or otherwise.


----------



## KnackeredBike (12 Sep 2017)

@McWobble, although I agree with your first point I don't agree that every cyclist should go at a speed that would allow them to stop if any pedestrian they passed walked without warning into their past. Simply that isn't the system we have, and if it was it would be impossible to make progress on most urban roads and combined pavement/cycle path.

We have a system where there is an expectation you will look and not unexpectedly cross in front of a cyclist or car. There are a few exceptions, such as around schools, but most of the time road users rely on each other to act predictably.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> We have a system where there is an expectation you will look and not unexpectedly cross in front of a cyclist or car.


Where? Fairly sure I've been educated to expect any and all pedestrians/cyclists/drivers to do stupid things and so must drive/ride accordingly.


----------



## DaveReading (12 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Where? Fairly sure I've been educated to expect any and all pedestrians/cyclists/drivers to do stupid things and so must drive/ride accordingly.



Very commendable. 

But I suspect the OP meant that if everyone were to cycle at the 5 mph necessary to avoid the risk of ever colliding with an unpredictable pedestrian, the traffic in all our major cities would grind to a halt and cyclists would be universally hated.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

DaveReading said:


> Very commendable.
> 
> But I suspect the OP meant that if everyone were to cycle at the 5 mph necessary to avoid the risk of ever colliding with an unpredictable pedestrian, the traffic in all our major cities would grind to a halt and cyclists would be universally hated.


You don't need to cycle everywhere at 5mph. Pedestrians don't get beamed down in front of you by Scottie.


----------



## DaveReading (12 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You don't need to cycle everywhere at 5mph.



So what's your stopping distance at 5 mph ?

You can hope and expect that a pedestrian will never enter that zone, but how do you guarantee it ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

DaveReading said:


> So what's your stopping distance at 5 mph ?
> 
> You can hope and expect that a pedestrian will never enter that zone, but how do you guarantee it ?


Is a dead stop my only option then?

A lot of the time the probability that a pedestrian will enter the zone wherein I need to take significant avoiding action is almost zero. They aren't fleas, they tend not to leap.


----------



## DaveReading (12 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> A lot of the time the probability that a pedestrian will enter the zone wherein I need to take significant avoiding action is almost zero.



True, but as Adrian points out "a lot of the time" and "almost zero" doesn't equate to a guarantee that it will never happen.

My point (and the OP's) was that the probability increases as speed increases.


----------



## KnackeredBike (12 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You don't need to cycle everywhere at 5mph. Pedestrians don't get beamed down in front of you by Scottie.


@McWobble suggested that it is cyclists job to look out for pedestrians implying that you should be able to stop if a pedestrian crosses the road in front of you with no warning.

And that does happen often - as is alleged in the CA case - if a ped is on the phone.


----------



## Inertia (12 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> @McWobble suggested that it is cyclists job to look out for pedestrians implying that you should be able to stop if a pedestrian crosses the road in front of you with no warning.
> 
> And that does happen often - as is alleged in the CA case - if a ped is on the phone.


I have been thinking what you have said and also thinking of the scenarios, I still don't think it changes that the bulk of the responsibility falls on the cyclist. 

Speaking from my own experience, if I see someone close to the curb, a group of kids especially, it makes me wary and I will pay them special attention. Usually I also move out to the centre of the lane away from them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> @McWobble suggested that it is cyclists job to look out for pedestrians implying that you should be able to stop if a pedestrian crosses the road in front of you with no warning.
> 
> And that does happen often - as is alleged in the CA case - if a ped is on the phone.


With no warning?

Surely enough warning to shout twice is not "no warning"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

DaveReading said:


> True, but as Adrian points out "a lot of the time" and "almost zero" doesn't equate to a guarantee that it will never happen.
> 
> My point (and the OP's) was that the probability increases as speed increases.


Nothing is guaranteed. If you want guarantees don't ride bikes on UK roads.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

Inertia said:


> I have been thinking what you have said and also thinking of the scenarios, I still don't think it changes that the bulk of the responsibility falls on the cyclist.
> 
> Speaking from my own experience, if I see someone close to the curb, a group of kids especially, it makes me wary and I will pay them special attention. Usually I also move out to the centre of the lane away from them.


In Ireland, in a hire car, I hit the brakes "for no reason" according to tlh and boo. Then the ball rolled out from between the parked cars.


----------



## jarlrmai (12 Sep 2017)

The pram that I nearly hit was pushed into the road from behind a van, I was outside the door zone but the person pushing the pram pushed it in front of them when they looked around the van to see if anything was coming.


----------



## Inertia (12 Sep 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> The pram that I nearly hit was pushed into the road from behind a van, I was outside the door zone but the person pushing the pram pushed it in front of them when they looked around the van to see if anything was coming.


But you managed not to hit them, you were also aware enough to the danger of someone unexpectedly opening a van door with no warning, and took precautions against it. Its not beyond our capabilities to be aware of pedestrians in the same way.


----------



## winjim (12 Sep 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> The pram that I nearly hit was pushed into the road from behind a van, I was outside the door zone but the person pushing the pram pushed it in front of them when they looked around the van to see if anything was coming.


I really don't understand why people thrust their infant offspring into the road in front of them before they've established if it's safe to cross. I mean obviously as the last sixty-odd pages have established, all road users _should_ be looking out for pedestrians crossing the road, and I will often assert my own right to cross when and where I like in the face of traffic, but I'm not going to take the chance with my daughter.

Having said that, I have found that pushing a pram, or more often just walking with a small child strapped to my person, is a remarkably effective means of getting others to give way.


----------



## DaveReading (12 Sep 2017)

winjim said:


> Having said that, I have found that pushing a pram, or more often just walking with a small child strapped to my person, is a remarkably effective means of getting others to give way.



Though I've found that the owners of said small child or pram usually object to them being borrowed for that purpose.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> If you're cycling past a parked high-sided vehicle that you can't see through (i.e., no windows), isn't it usual practice to be a bit more cautious in case what you describe should happen? That applies to car driving too, or so I was taught.


And if you see a bloke in vicinity of said parked high-sided vehicle expect his mate to walk out without looking.


----------



## winjim (12 Sep 2017)

DaveReading said:


> Though I've found that the owners of said small child or pram usually object to them being borrowed for that purpose.


And of course there are situations where it's much less convenient. Swings and roundabouts.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

winjim said:


> I really don't understand why people thrust their infant offspring into the road in front of them before they've established if it's safe to cross. I mean obviously as the last sixty-odd pages have established, all road users _should_ be looking out for pedestrians crossing the road, and I will often assert my own right to cross when and where I like in the face of traffic, but I'm not going to take the chance with my daughter.
> 
> Having said that, I have found that pushing a pram, or more often just walking with a small child strapped to my person, is a remarkably effective means of getting others to give way.


In a nearby former new town the norm seems to be for the parent to stand on the pavement with the buggy in the road.

When #1son and Boo were little they had a tandem buggy; Boo out front, #1son in back. Where we lived, in Llandysul, traffic was low and kids out front was not a problem. In Paris? Well let's say a couple of Parisian mothers gave me a piece of their mind from behind their wheels. As it happens Boo's bit of the buggy broke, in the wee small hours, on a walk back to our hotel and it ended up in a Parisian bin.


----------



## srw (12 Sep 2017)

winjim said:


> And of course there are situations where it's much less convenient. Swings and roundabouts.


I thought swings and roundabouts were mainly there for the convenience of those in pushchairs.


----------



## winjim (12 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> I thought swings and roundabouts were mainly there for the convenience of those in pushchairs.


Yes, but firstly I'm talking about the convenience of the person pushing the chair rather than the person sitting in it, secondly the joke required the situation to be a counterexample to that where the presence of the child was of benefit to the person accompanying them, and thirdly if you're in a hurry to get somewhere _the other side of_ a playground, in the presence of a toddler they're a massive inconvenience.


----------



## Wobblers (12 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> @McWobble, although I agree with your first point I don't agree that every cyclist should go at a speed that would allow them to stop if any pedestrian they passed walked without warning into their past. Simply that isn't the system we have, and if it was it would be impossible to make progress on most urban roads and combined pavement/cycle path.
> 
> We have a system where there is an expectation you will look and not unexpectedly cross in front of a cyclist or car. There are a few exceptions, such as around schools, but most of the time road users rely on each other to act predictably.



Sigh. (Again.)

A pedestrian really isn't going to be teleported right in front of you through quantum tunnelling. It means looking out for pedestrians and adapting your behaviour accordingly. Which may indeed mean slowing down if you see children playing by themselves - because running around unpredictably is what childhood's all about. More usually, moving out to the centre of the road suffices, as it makes me more visible and gives more time to react. @DaveReading's suggestion that we need to creep around at 5 mph is just argument _reductio ad absurdum_.

If you want presumed liability - this is what it means. The party bringing the greatest risk has the greatest duty of care. You don't get legal protection of cyclists against motorists' carelessness without it also applying in the other sense with regards to pedestrians. But even there - what about simple self preservation? Running into something _hurts _- coming up with weasel excuses of blame doesn't earn you excusal from the laws of physics. Surely looking to ensure you don't collide with anything else is sensible?


----------



## KnackeredBike (12 Sep 2017)

Cycling through Oxford city centre I tend to find pedestrians often do step out without any warning. Normally either a tourist or on their phone.

Normally it is possible to take evasive action but - again from the description - it seems like CA tried to do this but as can happen both the cyclist and ped had the same idea. I have hit someone once (who stepped backwards into the road to take a photo). Less than a second to react.

Of course around schools and playgrounds is a different ball game as you expect kids to act unpredictably and reduce speed accordingly.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> Cycling through Oxford city centre I tend to find pedestrians often do step out without any warning. Normally either a tourist or on their phone.
> 
> Normally it is possible to take evasive action but - again from the description - it seems like CA tried to do this but as can happen both the cyclist and ped had the same idea. I have hit someone once (who stepped backwards into the road to take a photo). Less than a second to react.
> 
> Of course around schools and playgrounds is a different ball game as you expect kids to act unpredictably and reduce speed accordingly.


Why it as as if you've never seen someone with a camera take a backwards step or five.

Best steer clear of those two guys from the glazing company.

I expect people to act entirely predictably in their unpredictability, react accordingly, and I still get caught out as they come up with new idiocies.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

McWobble said:


> Sigh. (Again.)
> 
> A pedestrian really isn't going to be teleported right in front of you through quantum tunnelling. It means looking out for pwedestrians and adapting your behaviour accordingly. Which may indeed mean slowing down if you see children playing by themselves - because running around unpredictably is what childhood's all about. More usually, moving out to the centre of the road suffices, as it makes me more visible and gives more time to react. @DaveReading's suggestion that we need to creep around at 5 mph is just argument _reductio ad absurdum_.
> 
> If you want presumed liability - this is what it means. The party bringing the greatest risk has the greatest duty of care. You don't get legal protection of cyclists against motorists' carelessness without it also applying in the other sense with regards to pedestrians. But even there - what about simple self preservation? Running into something _hurts _- coming up with weasel excuses of blame doesn't earn you excusal from the laws of physics. Surely looking to ensure you don't collide with anything else is sensible?


The laws of physics are merciless and gravity is a harsh mistress.

as the nice people at Canyon like to say.


----------



## srw (12 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> Cycling through Oxford city centre I tend to find pedestrians often do step out without any warning. Normally either a tourist or on their phone.
> 
> Normally it is possible to take evasive action but - again from the description - it seems like CA tried to do this but as can happen both the cyclist and ped had the same idea. I have hit someone once (who stepped backwards into the road to take a photo). Less than a second to react.


Oxford city centre (which I take to be the bit from the Plain to Carfax and down to the police station, and separately along George Street and St Giles) is _tiny._ It's about three minutes riding from top to bottom and left to right _if you are taking full account of the daft pedestrians_. I don't think your experience is particularly relevant to Alliston's.


----------



## KnackeredBike (13 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Oxford city centre (which I take to be the bit from the Plain to Carfax and down to the police station, and separately along George Street and St Giles) is _tiny._ It's about three minutes riding from top to bottom and left to right _if you are taking full account of the daft pedestrians_. I don't think your experience is particularly relevant to Alliston's.


Okay in future I will just get off and push in case some dippy ped walks out in front of me.


----------



## mjr (13 Sep 2017)

User said:


> What do you mean without warning? Is the person on their phone not visible on the pavement, on their phone, and moving towards the kerb in your direction?


Maybe the person on their phone was wearing dark clothes, so was invisible as soon as they stepped off the kerb in broad daylight 



KnackeredBike said:


> Okay in future I will just get off and push in case some dippy ped walks out in front of me.


Or you could, you know, just ride slowly, cover the brakes and gently ring the bell to warn people there are bicycles around. The choice isn't between full pelt and getting off.


----------



## iwantanewbike (13 Sep 2017)

https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/just-one-year/amp/


----------



## SteveF (14 Sep 2017)

Pedestrian killed in Oxford Street on Tuesday http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41263926


----------



## gaijintendo (14 Sep 2017)

SteveF said:


> Pedestrian killed in Oxford Street on Tuesday http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41263926



Be careful and observant out there people. That would be a horrible thing to have to head home after.


----------



## oldstrath (14 Sep 2017)

SteveF said:


> Pedestrian killed in Oxford Street on Tuesday http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41263926


Cyclist mashed by cars reported as "in a collision"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41239212

Pedestrian mashed by cyclist reported as "pedestrian struck by cyclist". BBC biased much?


----------



## jefmcg (14 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> Cyclist mashed by cars reported as "in a collision"
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41239212
> 
> Pedestrian mashed by cyclist reported as "pedestrian struck by cyclist". BBC biased much?


They've improved.

It used to be "cyclist killed when he collided with a HGV", so this is better

"The cyclist was thrown into the path of the second car after being hit by the first vehicle." 
But Jesus, what a nightmare! I hope he makes a quick and full recovery.


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Sep 2017)

View: https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/908316162198515712/photo/1


Duuuh! From the Times, now apologised for and removed (although not replaced with an accurate graph ).


----------



## Inertia (15 Sep 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> View: https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/908316162198515712/photo/1
> 
> 
> Duuuh! From the Times, now apologised for and removed (although not replaced with an accurate graph ).



Why didnt they just fix it? I guess it didn't fit the message they were trying to convey.


----------



## oldstrath (15 Sep 2017)

Inertia said:


> Why didnt they just fix it? I guess it didn't fit the message they were trying to convey.


They left it up for long enough to con a few more people. The lies will go on - our removal from the roads us too important to rich corporations to stop now.


----------



## oldstrath (16 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4958213, member: 43827"]It was clumsy, unprofessional journalism but I don't believe it was part of a deliberate offensive against cyclists. Cycling is increasing in popularity and is here to stay, despite some motorists' naysaying lobby, and without us playing the victim card.[/QUOTE]

If it was merely ' clumsy' they'd have replaced it with the correct version, rather than just losing it.

If you really don't think there's a concerted campaign, just look at the way Briggs' ridiculous efforts at revenge have been promoted. Any halfway rational and unbiased politician or journalist would simply tell him they are sorry for his loss, but more important issues exist.

Instead, his grief is parlayed into a concerted campaign to make people fear and hate cyclists. They want rid of us, to keep the streets clear for autonomous vehicles.


----------



## snorri (16 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4958213, member: 43827"], unprofessional journalism but I don't believe it was part of a deliberate offensive against cyclists. Cycling is increasing in popularity and is here to stay, despite some motorists' naysaying lobby, and without us playing the victim card.[/QUOTE]
I wish I could agree with you.
There are localised increases in the popularity of utility cycling, but this is by no means widespread.
I believe the press are influenced by the advertising revenue they earn from the car industry and are opposed to anything, including utility cycling, they see as threatening to diminish that industry.
Just this week a newspaper carried that hackneyed phrase "long suffering car users" to describe those enjoying a mode of private transport heavily subsidised from general taxation.


----------



## MacB (16 Sep 2017)

I would have said it was a bit tinfoil hattish but all the recent stuff on driverless cars/lorries has me wondering. The technology would certainly be a lot easier to achieve if roads were motorised vehicles only and pedestrians strictly limited to pavements and crossings.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> If it was merely ' clumsy' they'd have replaced it with the correct version, rather than just losing it.
> 
> If you really don't think there's a concerted campaign, just look at the way Briggs' ridiculous efforts at revenge have been promoted. Any halfway rational and unbiased politician or journalist would simply tell him they are sorry for his loss, but more important issues exist.
> 
> Instead, his grief is parlayed into a concerted campaign to make people fear and hate cyclists. They want rid of us, to keep the streets clear for autonomous vehicles.


This is just.so much nonsense.

Revenge? Get a grip.

Every carp outcome isn't evidence of a conspiracy.


----------



## snorri (16 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> I would have said it was a bit tinfoil hattish but all the recent stuff on driverless cars/lorries has me wondering. The technology would certainly be a lot easier to achieve if roads were motorised vehicles only and pedestrians strictly limited to pavements and crossings.


Like a rail network?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> I would have said it was a bit tinfoil hattish but all the recent stuff on driverless cars/lorries has me wondering. The technology would certainly be a lot easier to achieve if roads were motorised vehicles only and pedestrians strictly limited to pavements and crossings.


Far cheaper to give everyone a proximity tag and insist they carry it to avoid getting squashed.

Big Brother would love it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> I would have said it was a bit tinfoil hattish but all the recent stuff on driverless cars/lorries has me wondering. The technology would certainly be a lot easier to achieve if roads were motorised vehicles only and pedestrians strictly limited to pavements and crossings.


And again, do you really think the petrol heads are going to give up their driving 'rights' without a long and protracted fight?


----------



## oldstrath (16 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4958849, member: 43827"]That's one way of looking at it.......if you're trying to paint cyclists as victims. His wife died and clearly and understandably he feels strongly about it
[/QUOTE]

Of course he does, understandably so. Doesn't mean that his campaigns are in any way sensible, or useful, or that they should be promoted.

Brakeless fixies have killed at most one person in 2016. Mobile phones while driving have killed many more. Which should governments try to fix?

And I tell you what, when a bus driver tries to squash me, then says 'you bastards shouldn't be on the road, you kill people', I surely feel like a victim.


----------



## oldstrath (16 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> This is just.so much nonsense.
> 
> Revenge? Get a grip.
> 
> Every carp outcome isn't evidence of a conspiracy.


You think his goal is something other than revenge? He's clearly an intelligent guy - if it was road safety he would direct it better surely?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> You think his goal is something other than revenge? He's clearly an intelligent guy - if it was road safety he would direct it better surely?


I think his goal has NOTHING to do with revenge. The fact his head and heart are in a bad place explains the poor direction. He is sincere but misguided.


----------



## bigjim (17 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> Of course he does, understandably so. Doesn't mean that his campaigns are in any way sensible, or useful, or that they should be promoted.
> 
> Brakeless fixies have killed at most one person in 2016. Mobile phones while driving have killed many more. Which should governments try to fix?
> 
> And I tell you what, when a bus driver tries to squash me, then says 'you bastards shouldn't be on the road, you kill people', I surely feel like a victim.


On average, TFL bus drivers alone kill one person every three weeks.


----------



## srw (17 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> On average, TFL bus drivers alone kill one person every three weeks.


To my surprise you're right.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/q2-london-bus-safety-dashboard.pdf

Although when you realise that London buses drive half a billion km per year that puts it rather into perspective....
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-bus-network-statistics.pdf

You've fallen for exactly the same kind of denominator neglect as people who think that cycling in London is dangerous.


----------



## srw (17 Sep 2017)

User said:


> To be fair, he stated it as a fact


True. And I might have read a bit too much subtext, but frankly I doubt it.


----------



## bigjim (17 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> To my surprise you're right.
> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/q2-london-bus-safety-dashboard.pdf
> 
> Although when you realise that London buses drive half a billion km per year that puts it rather into perspective....
> ...


Not fallen for anything. It's just a fact that I would be happy to relate to any ignorant bus driver having a go at me.
Nothing deeper than that. Live with it.


----------



## srw (17 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> Not fallen for anything. It's just a fact that I would be happy to relate to any ignorant bus driver having a go at me.


It's also a fact that one cyclist dies in London every five weeks. But that doesn't make it a _useful_ fact.

Like I thought, there's a subtext going on.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> To my surprise you're right.
> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/q2-london-bus-safety-dashboard.pdf
> 
> Although when you realise that London buses drive half a billion km per year that puts it rather into perspective....
> ...


With respect you are in danger of sounding like you have fallen for the "acceptable price to pay" position.

So what if they drive even a billion km a year, that level of KSI should be unacceptable, and surely would not be in any other workplace but the roads of London.


----------



## bigjim (17 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> It's also a fact that one cyclist dies in London every five weeks. But that doesn't make it a _useful_ fact.
> 
> Like I thought, there's a subtext going on.


Useful to me in an altercation with a bus driver. What it is to you, I couldn't really care less. You seem to think a bit too much, IMO.


----------



## srw (17 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> With respect you are in danger of sounding like you have fallen for the "acceptable price to pay" position.
> 
> So what if they drive even a billion km a year, that level of KSI should be unacceptable, and surely would not be in any other workplace but the roads of London.


Unless you've got an infinite budget or don't travel anywhere _some_ level of risk is inevitable. It may be politically unpalatable, and lead to some conversations some people would rather not have, but it remains a fact that if we are to have transport we are going to be exposed to risk. I'd rather that risk level were lower than it is, but it seems to me that an adult conversation about the balance between affordable bus fares and public safety is a healthy conversation to be having.

If that gets caricatured as talking about "an acceptable price to pay" or (rather sweetly) "thinking too much", so be it.


----------



## srw (17 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> Useful to me in an altercation with a bus driver. What it is to you, I couldn't really care less. You seem to think a bit too much, IMO.


I don't suppose the bus drivers much like killing people either. You'd do better to have the conversation with politicians who control budgets.


----------



## numbnuts (17 Sep 2017)

Alliston will be sentenced on 18 September, tonight could be his last night of freedom for a while


----------



## theclaud (17 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Unless you've got an infinite budget or don't travel anywhere _some_ level of risk is inevitable. It may be politically unpalatable, and lead to some conversations some people would rather not have, but it remains a fact that if we are to have transport we are going to be exposed to risk. I'd rather that risk level were lower than it is, but it seems to me that an adult conversation about the balance between affordable bus fares and public safety is a healthy conversation to be having.
> 
> If that gets caricatured as talking about "an acceptable price to pay" or (rather sweetly) "thinking too much", so be it.



If I were you I'd have the thinking too much line as a sig. Surely the point is not that anyone expects bus drivers never to have killed anyone, but that when a bus driver _does _kill someone we will look at how it happened, the driver, operators and other responsible parties will be held accountable and steps will be taken to avoid repeat incidents. That isn't what happens, and we see the same pattern of killing and maiming repeated time and time again.


----------



## srw (17 Sep 2017)

theclaud said:


> That isn't what happens, and we see the same pattern of killing and maiming repeated time and time again.


Judging by the statistics I linked to, and the fact that TFL publishes fatal investigations it is beginning to. Which is a Good Thing.

And reviewing that data, of course @bigjim is wrong. TFL bus drivers _don't_ kill one person every three weeks. People die, on average, once every three weeks, in incidents involving TFL buses. Sometimes they are killed by buses, sometimes they are killed by other passengers, sometimes they just die on the bus of natural causes.

The parallels with cyclist deaths are instructive. It's not true that 100 people or so are killed while cycling each year. It's true that 100 people or so die and are flagged as cyclist deaths. But a good proportion of them just die, or suffer catastrophic bike failure, or overjudge their ability on gnarly downhill singletrack.


----------



## theclaud (17 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> overjudge their ability on gnarly downhill singletrack.



 I love it when you say stuff like that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Unless you've got an infinite budget or don't travel anywhere _some_ level of risk is inevitable. It may be politically unpalatable, and lead to some conversations some people would rather not have, but it remains a fact that if we are to have transport *we are going to be exposed to risk*. I'd rather that risk level were lower than it is, but it seems to me that an adult conversation about the balance between affordable bus fares and public safety is a healthy conversation to be having.
> 
> If that gets caricatured as talking about "an acceptable price to pay" or (rather sweetly) "thinking too much", so be it.


We are not talking about the risk of KSI's on our roads but the reality. The actual reality. We aren't talking about conversations but lives ruined, avoidably. The affordability of London bus fares is a bit of red herring. Govt is happy subsidise a great many things, and a great many things in London, that it regards as priorities, so why not the cost of the less dangerous transport system for London? Because a few ksi a year are the acceptable price to pay.


----------



## Arjimlad (18 Sep 2017)

18 months


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Sep 2017)

Sentence passed for causing bodily harm is 18 months in prison.

Be ready for the next two weeks of mainstream media piling on again and soundbites from peanuts calling for restrictive legislation against people cycling.


----------



## MacB (18 Sep 2017)

Shockingly bad decision IMO


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> Shockingly bad decision IMO


Too harsh, too lenient, et cetera?


----------



## MacB (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Too harsh, too lenient, et cetera?



Too harsh and, hateful a person as so many found him, do we think those 18 months are going to create an improvement?


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Too harsh, too lenient, et cetera?


It does feel like he has been held to a higher standard than would be expected of a motorist.


----------



## numbnuts (18 Sep 2017)

I bet now this won't be the last time we hear “wanton and furious driving” mainly aimed at cyclists
18 months out in 9 or less


----------



## adscrim (18 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> It does feel like he has been held to a higher standard than would be expected of a motorist.


It makes you wonder if the Judiciary view a 'short' custodial sentence as being comparable to points and a ban. If there were cycling licences, and I trust there never will be, would he have been given points, a fine and a ban instead?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> It does feel like he has been held to a higher standard than would be expected of a motorist.


3/4 of the maximum I believe. I feel like few motorists would get that for "Causing death by..."


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> Too harsh and, hateful a person as so many found him, do we think those 18 months are going to create an improvement?


I'm not a fan of prison - it's usually a way of making a bad person worse. But I think this is richly deserved. I hope he gets some insight into his behaviour while he's inside.



User482 said:


> It does feel like he has been held to a higher standard than would be expected of a motorist.


http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...ies-ramming-tree-faces-five-years-jail-329795
Five years for serious injuries - a driver. For example. "Motorist seriously injures someone and is jailed" just isn't news.

The court will have used standard sentencing guidelines. The fact he was on a bike rather than in a car or wielding a hammer would have been deemed irrelevant.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> Too harsh and, hateful a person as so many found him, do we think those 18 months are going to create an improvement?


No. For me not a case of too harsh but rather a case that had he been driving he would have likely got less....


----------



## Dan B (18 Sep 2017)

adscrim said:


> It makes you wonder if the Judiciary view a 'short' custodial sentence as being comparable to points and a ban. If there were cycling licences, and I trust there never will be, would he have been given points, a fine and a ban instead?


If there were parity between the way in which we consider motoring offences and the "equivalent" cycling offences, I am sure that he would be able to claim "exceptional hardship" and escape the ban


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> 3/4 of the maximum I believe. I feel like few motorists would get that for "Causing death by..."


http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/...ausing-death-by-driving-dangerously-1-5013399

Five years. For instance.

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/0...erous-driving-has-sentence-reduced-on-appeal/
Nine years. For instance.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/westmidlands/cps_west_midlands_news/motorist-jailed-for-causing-the-dea/
Four-and-a-half years. For instance.

(Yes, we can all google counter-examples.)


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> I'm not a fan of prison - it's usually a way of making a bad person worse. But I think this is richly deserved. I hope he gets some insight into his behaviour while he's inside.
> 
> 
> http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...ies-ramming-tree-faces-five-years-jail-329795
> ...


You're drawing a comparison with a motorist who used her vehicle as a weapon? Seriously? More realistic would be "death by careless driving" as there is no suggestion of intent on the part of Mr Alliston. As I've said before, I know someone who was convicted of that last year... do you suppose he's in prison?


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

Dan B said:


> If there were parity between the way in which we consider motoring offences and the "equivalent" cycling offences, I am sure that he would be able to claim "exceptional hardship" and escape the ban


It's news because it's rare. It's not the norm.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/...ausing-death-by-driving-dangerously-1-5013399
> 
> Five years. For instance.
> 
> ...


As googling counter-examples is all too easy I continue to feel like few motorists would get 18 months for "Causing death by..."


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> As googling counter-examples is all too easy I continue to feel like few motorists would get 18 months for "Causing death by..."


Precisely this. It's normalised in our society, and this is reflected in the sentencing. And we all know how rarely a "dangerous driving" conviction is secured, as opposed to the lesser "careless driving".


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> As googling counter-examples is all too easy I continue to feel like few motorists would get 18 months for "Causing death by..."


I'll add "hereabouts". It may be different elsewhere.


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> You're drawing a comparison with a motorist who used her vehicle as a weapon? Seriously? More realistic would be "death by careless driving" as there is no suggestion of intent on the part of Mr Alliston. As I've said before, I know someone who was convicted of that last year... do you suppose he's in prison?


https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf



User482 said:


> Precisely this. It's normalised in our society, and this is reflected in the sentencing. And we all know how rarely a "dangerous driving" conviction is secured, as opposed to the lesser "careless driving".


Do we? Do we _really_? Or do we just assume we do because of what gets reported by the press?

For what it's worth, the CPS guidelines are online: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf


----------



## rliu (18 Sep 2017)

The Guardian story alludes to Alliston having lost his father aged 15 and been in an 'emotionally flat' state since

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

rliu said:


> The Guardian story alludes to Alliston having lost his father aged 15 and been in an 'emotionally flat' state since
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian


As an old boss used to say "We've all got a ****ing story".


----------



## rliu (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> As an old boss used to say "We've all got a ****ing story".



What about the suicide attempt and Maudsley hospital stays then?


----------



## adscrim (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf
> 
> 
> Do we? Do we _really_? Or do we just assume we do because of what gets reported by the press?
> ...



Is death by dangerous driving the correct comparison? Surely, comparing his actions to someone in a car that wasn't road worthy is more appropriate. If you caused a death and it's found that you're brakes were defective, or you'd failed an MOT, or your tyres were worn beyond legal limits, etc - how likely is it that you'd get a custodial sentence.

EDIT - looks like driving a knowingly defective vehicle is considered 'Dangerous' for the purposes of death by convictions. Make sense when I think about it!


----------



## MacB (18 Sep 2017)

rliu said:


> What about the suicide attempt and Maudsley hospital stays then?



Do you think that matters to the 'hang em high' brigade that's emerging on here?


----------



## mjr (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Far cheaper to give everyone a proximity tag and insist they carry it to avoid getting squashed.
> 
> Big Brother would love it.


Do you mean Cycle Alert? https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/3554352

[QUOTE 4958986, member: 43827"]Agreed, and describing his actions as ridiculous (deserving ridicule or derision) shows a skewed perspective from oldstrath imo.[/QUOTE]
I think campaigning for disproportionate time and focus to be spent on that rare cause of death instead of the majority caused by motoring does deserve ridicule more than many initiatives, in the hope that it'll stop that distraction contributing to far more deaths from the common causes. I'm sorry for his loss but that shouldn't give him a free pass to be irrational with impunity. His suggestion that we should devote loads of time to legislative amendments to introduce yet more lesser offences than manslaughter for cycling should have been laughed out of existance by now - it would be more logical to remove the motorists' friends "causing death by..." offences, or at least make the CPS prosecute manslaughter alongside them whenever reasonable.



srw said:


> It's true that 100 people or so die and are flagged as cyclist deaths. But a good proportion of them just die, or suffer catastrophic bike failure, or overjudge their ability on gnarly downhill singletrack.


Aren't the ones who are found to "just die" excluded from official road casualty fatalities?



glasgowcyclist said:


> Sentence passed for causing bodily harm is 18 months in prison.


BBC reports young offenders' institution, not prison, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41306738


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

rliu said:


> What about the suicide attempt and Maudsley hospital stays then?


Tragically a great many teenagers attempt suicide*, and self-harm, in response to far less traumatic events than the unexpected death of a parent.

That a lawyer would attempt to use Charlie's back-story by way of mitigation comes as no surprise. They are paid to argue. He behaved oafishly in the aftermath of this tragedy and no doubt has regretted doing so since he went to court. We've all got a story. The trick is to let the story influence your behaviour before you **** up not to use it as an excuse afterwards.

*self included.


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

adscrim said:


> Is death by dangerous driving the correct comparison? Surely, comparing his actions to someone in a car that wasn't road worthy is more appropriate. If you caused a death and it's found that you're brakes were defective, or you'd failed an MOT, or your tyres were worn beyond legal limits, etc - how likely is it that you'd get a custodial sentence.


Those are the guidelines for causing death by driving - including the various flavours, including the ones Alliston was judged against.



mjr said:


> Aren't the ones who are found to "just die" excluded from official road casualty fatalities?



I don't believe so, but I've never found concrete proof one way or the other. I believe the stats are simply created by identifying road deaths tagged with a "cyclist" tag. Somewhere else, @GrumpyGregry recently posted statistics which implied that only a third of cyclist deaths involved a motor vehicle.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> Do you think that matters to the 'hang em high' brigade that's emerging on here?


Don't see anyone on here demanding a stiffer sentence. What he got is only 3/4 of the maximum. His actions had catastrophic consequences and no one compelled the foolish youth to behave in the way he did.


----------



## MacB (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Tragically a great many teenagers attempt suicide*, and self-harm, in response to far less traumatic events than the unexpected death of a parent.
> 
> That a lawyer would attempt to use Charlie's back-story by way of mitigation comes as no surprise. They are paid to argue. He behaved oafishly in the aftermath of this tragedy and no doubt has regretted doing so since he went to court. We've all got a story. The trick is to let the story influence your behaviour before you **** up not to use it as an excuse afterwards.
> 
> *self included.



Wow, all heart there buddy, I am really uncomfortable with the amount of focus on his oafish behaviour...anyone would think he really got the sentence for being a dick rather than the accident....still an accident IMO by the way


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Those are the guidelines for causing death by driving - including the various flavours, including the ones Alliston was judged against.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe so, but I've never found concrete proof one way or the other. I believe the stats are simply created by identifying road deaths tagged with a "cyclist" tag. Somewhere else, @GrumpyGregry recently posted statistics which implied that only a third of cyclist deaths involved a motor vehicle.


Less than 25% of my offs involve motor vehicles. I only need my own stupidity and clumsiness to harm myself.


----------



## MacB (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Don't see anyone on here demanding a stiffer sentence. What he got is only 3/4 of the maximum. His actions had catastrophic consequences and no one compelled the foolish youth to behave in the way he did.



Greg, really? read what you keep typing, clearly this has triggered something, but these posts don't seem like you.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> Wow, all heart there buddy, I am really uncomfortable with the amount of focus on his oafish behaviour...anyone would think he really got the sentence for being a dick rather than the accident....still an accident IMO by the way


Another person died. My sympathy lies with her and those she left behind.


----------



## rliu (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Tragically a great many teenagers attempt suicide*, and self-harm, in response to far less traumatic events than the unexpected death of a parent.
> 
> That a lawyer would attempt to use Charlie's back-story by way of mitigation comes as no surprise. They are paid to argue. He behaved oafishly in the aftermath of this tragedy and no doubt has regretted doing so since he went to court. We've all got a story. The trick is to let the story influence your behaviour before you **** up not to use it as an excuse afterwards.
> 
> *self included.



Well it'd be incredible for a 18 year old to show that level of self awareness.

The way I see it he's a damaged young man who took to thrill seeking via riding illegal fixed wheel bikes, as both a hobby and initially a part of a courier job. He didn't go out that day to kill someone or cause a collision. He acted stupidly to be riding an illegal bike but jailing a mentally vulnerable man for an accident is harsh to me.

And that's leaving aside the issue of the media smear campaign against him, which attacked him for having a neck tattoo and for not walking to court everyday with tears smeared all over his face.


----------



## MacB (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Another person died. My sympathy lies with her and those she left behind.



Ok then, I'm bowing out of this


----------



## mjr (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> I don't believe so, but I've never found concrete proof one way or the other.


Page 72 of the current (2011) STATS20: "'Fatal' injury includes only those cases where death occurs in less than 30 days as a result of the accident. 'Fatal' does not include death from natural causes or suicide" (thanks to Norfolk County Council's Analyst for the reference) - edit: and the Reported Road Casualties of GB figures compiled from such reports are what's usually reported as the headline figures.


----------



## Mr Celine (18 Sep 2017)

adscrim said:


> Is death by dangerous driving the correct comparison? Surely, comparing his actions to someone in a car that wasn't road worthy is more appropriate. If you caused a death and it's found that you're brakes were defective, or you'd failed an MOT, or your tyres were worn beyond legal limits, etc - how likely is it that you'd get a custodial sentence.


The going rate use to be a £45 fine per cyclist killed. That was in  2006.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

MacB said:


> Greg, really? read what you keep typing, clearly this has triggered something, but these posts don't seem like you.


did someone force him to ride a track bike on the road? To post what he posted after the accident. To blame the victim during the trial?


----------



## Milkfloat (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> did someone force him to ride a track bike on the road? To post what he posted after the accident. To blame the victim during the trial?



I look forward to seeing the thousands of cases that have occurred in the past and those that will happen in the future where a motorist does the same to have the same outcome of 18 months.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> I look forward to seeing the thousands of cases that have occurred in the past and those that will happen in the future where a motorist does the same to have the same outcome of 18 months.


Completely different argument. I don't agree with the unduly lenient sentences handed out to drivers that kill in "accidents" and have engaged with campaigns/activities that seek to address that. That some motorists - and it is only those that actually get prosecuted - get off lightly is not a reason for all other road users to get off lightly.


----------



## Milkfloat (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Completely different argument. I don't agree with the unduly lenient sentences handed out to drivers that kill in "accidents" and have engaged with campaigns/activities that seek to address that. That some motorists - and it is only those that actually get prosecuted - get off lightly is not a reason for all other road users to get off lightly.



Agreed - but it smacks of hypocrisy that because he was a knob on a bike he suffers far more than knob in a car.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

rliu said:


> Well it'd be incredible for a 18 year old to show that level of self awareness.
> 
> The way I see it he's a damaged young man who took to thrill seeking via riding illegal fixed wheel bikes, as both a hobby and initially a part of a courier job. He didn't go out that day to kill someone or cause a collision. He acted stupidly to be riding an illegal bike but jailing a mentally vulnerable man for an accident is harsh to me.
> 
> And that's leaving aside the issue of the media smear campaign against him, which attacked him for having a neck tattoo and for not walking to court everyday with tears smeared all over his face.



_"The way I see it he's a damaged young man who took to thrill seeking via driving cars illegally, as both a hobby and initially a part of a courier job. He didn't go out that day to kill someone or cause a collision. He acted stupidly to be driving an car illegally but jailing a mentally vulnerable man for an accident is harsh to me."_

Yeah, that could play out well in a court where everyone drives.

Our prisons are already chock full of mentally vulnerable people btw. I've met them. I've volunteered amongst them. If you aren't mentally vulnerable when you get there you likely will be once you sentence has started.

Seems we are in danger of arguing that we should make an exception because he is a cyclist and part of "our" tribe"...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> Agreed - but it smacks of hypocrisy that because he was a knob on a bike he suffers far more than knob in a car.


Agreed. 100%

I've already emailed my MP to complain that comparable sentences for drivers are often much more lenient and wasn't the govt. going do to a wholesale review before Brexit became the only game in town? A la the CTC.


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf
> 
> 
> Do we? Do we _really_? Or do we just assume we do because of what gets reported by the press?
> ...


Yes, we do know that. As the guidelines you link to make clear, it's far easier to establish careless driving than it is to establish dangerous driving. Mr Alliston wasn't drunk, wasn't on the phone, wasn't speeding, and made at least some attempt to avoid the victim. Unlike your absurd example, he didn't use his bicycle as a weapon in an attempt to deliberately injure her.

I think a combination of his attitude, questionable defence, questionable expert evidence and the unusual nature of the case were all important factors in this conviction.

I do have some sympathy with a point made by @GrumpyGregry earlier - that perhaps this is the kind of sentence that ought to be passed where a death has occurred because of a road user's carelessness (accepting for a moment that the causal link has been established). Yet there remains the problem of dual standards.

ETA: he wasn't found guilty of causing the death, was he? In which case, the comparisons with death by driving are invalid. What's the usual sentence for causing an injury by careless driving?


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Sep 2017)

Alliston was acquitted of manslaughter, so comparing his sentence to that for drivers convicted of killing is not properly valid.

It seems unsatisfactory to me for someone to be sentenced for 'causing grievous bodily harm' when they killed someone, but the judge cannot go behind the jury's verdict.

I'm aware it's the view of Alliston's barrister that the manslaughter laws are a mess and need reform.

I'm given to understand Alliston's legal team intend to make a statement to that effect.

But intricate reform of the law, while worthy, is essentially a dull topic so I'm not sure how much of any statement along those lines will get reported in mainstream media.


----------



## Yellow Fang (18 Sep 2017)

Ridiculous sentence, but any case that hits the headlines gets a swingeing sentence.


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Alliston's sentence probably reflects his lack of insight and remorse. He was his own worst enemy.


You are probably right, but I don't think being a dickhead is sufficient grounds for locking people up.


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> He's a dickhead who killed someone, and who has expressed no insight or remorse. I think that's grounds for giving him a custodial to contemplate his actions.


He wasn't found guilty of killing someone. He was found guilty of causing an injury by wilful neglect.



User said:


> Just as I would expect a motorist in the same position to be given a custodial sentence.


It's a reasonable point: what would we expect the sentence to be for a motorist who causes an injury through careless driving?


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> It's a reasonable point: what would we expect the sentence to be for a motorist who causes an injury through careless driving?


Because the offence exists, the driver would be charged with causing death by careless driving (or, quite possibly, dangerous driving - you'd need an expert to decide which one the right charge is). There is no equivalent offence for cylists, and the jury decided that manslaughter wasn't the right conviction for Alliston, so the only charge available was the one he got dinged for.

For causing death by careless driving, the sentencing guidelines are:







So if we pretend that Alliston was a driver, not a cyclist, what does this tell us? I think we can agree that Alliston's behaviour fell not far short of dangerous "driving" (he knew by calling out that he was in danger of hitting the victim and he didn't even slow down), and there are two aggravating factors:
1. Other offences - a bike which was wasn't road-legal
5. Irresponsible behaviour - he falsely claimed that the victim was responsible.

So I suspect the sentence wouldn't have been all that different. But you really need a sentencing expert to tell you.


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I didn't say he was found guilty of killing someone. I said he killed someone, which is a statement of fact.



You said



> He's a dickhead who killed someone, and who has expressed no insight or remorse. I think that's grounds for giving him a custodial to contemplate his actions.



He was tried and acquitted of manslaughter. Your point is not relevant to his sentence.



> I can't say specifically, as it would rely on lots of factors - including their insight and remorse.
> 
> I think it is fair to say that many motorists seem to get away with little or no sanction - but we don't address that by arguing that cyclists should be treated similarly leniently. We should be seeking for the sentencing of motorists to reflect the gravity of the situation rather than looking for a lowest common denominator solution.


The problem with that is duality of standards...


----------



## Buddfox (18 Sep 2017)

I am not sure the issue is with sentencing of drivers who kill others, whether by careless or dangerous driving. It is that they are found not guilty more often than seems reasonable, and receive no sentence. So just comparing the sentencing guidelines doesn't capture the whole story.


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Because the offence exists, the driver would be charged with causing death by careless driving (or, quite possibly, dangerous driving - you'd need an expert to decide which one the right charge is). There is no equivalent offence for cylists, and the jury decided that manslaughter wasn't the right conviction for Alliston, so the only charge available was the one he got dinged for.
> 
> For causing death by careless driving, the sentencing guidelines are:
> 
> ...



All you're doing is regurgitating sentencing guidelines for an offence that is not comparable with the offence Mr Alliston was convicted of. I might equally argue that if guilt was not established for manslaughter, there are grounds to believe it could not be established for "death by driving" either. And you're ignoring an important mitigating factor: it is not disputed that the actions of the victim contributed to the offence.


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Actually it is. When sentencing the judge can take into account:
> 
> the circumstances of the case
> the impact that the crime has had on the victim, and
> ...


I presume that in this case, where there are no specific guidelines, the court will have used something like causing death by dangerous driving as a starting point?


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Actually it is. When sentencing the judge can take into account:
> 
> the circumstances of the case
> the impact that the crime has had on the victim, and
> ...


Sorry, yes, good point. The written judgement will be interesting.


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> All you're doing is regurgitating sentencing guidelines for an offence that *is not comparable *with the offence Mr Alliston was convicted of


It is.
Here's what the CPS says:
"
*What other driving offences apply in cases involving death?*
Other driving offences causing death include:


causing death by driving when unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured;
wanton and furious driving - this old offence is used when traffic laws don't apply. For example, when not on a road or public place, or when the vehicle is not motorised."
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> It is.
> Here's what the CPS says:
> "
> *What other driving offences apply in cases involving death?*
> ...


He was not found guilty of causing death.


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

Anyway, here's the judgement: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf


----------



## jarlrmai (18 Sep 2017)

So if he'd not been such a dick then he might not have gone to prison?


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> She makes it clear it is his lack of insight and remorse that is at the heart of the sentence. And that there was little or no mitigation.


It hinges I think on the expert evidence that had he been riding a road-legal bike, he would've been able to stop. I still question that, but I guess we'll never know unless it forms the grounds for an appeal. As a cyclist, the judgement does worry me: I have on occasion, instinctively swerved to avoid a pedestrian - would I be guilty because I didn't try to brake? Would a lack of helmet and bell be counted against me?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Sep 2017)

I can't recall the confiscation of a motor vehicle in similar circumstances. Maybe we can look forward to that now...


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Does it? The judge seems to think otherwise:
> 
> "On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. *Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident*."​I don't think she could have been more explicit.



*"If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not."


"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance"
*


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> The judge is clear - this did not hinge "...on the expert evidence that had he been riding a road-legal bike, he would've been able to stop".



This:
* "But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance"*

Could not be clearer.


----------



## jefmcg (18 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> This:
> * "But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance"*
> 
> Could not be clearer.


Don't quote halve a sentence. If that was the entire point the judge was making, she'd have put a full stop there.

"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane. "

I.E. He rode a bike that couldn't be stopped in time AND he didn't try to stop it.


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Don't quote halve a sentence. If that was the entire point the judge was making, she'd have put a full stop there.
> 
> "But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane. "
> 
> I.E. He rode a bike that couldn't be stopped in time AND he didn't try to stop it.


...because he couldn't stop. That's the point.


----------



## Globalti (18 Sep 2017)

I've long wondered when one of the Lucas Brunelle school of cycling would come unstuck; I wonder if it's already happened in the USA? Here's one, with the rider seeming to display similar lack of concern for the safety of others:

http://road.cc/content/news/89218-u...an-guilty-vehicular-manslaughter-escapes-jail


----------



## vickster (18 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> ...because he couldn't stop. That's the point.


Through his own negligence riding a bike without the brakes that are legally required to ride on the road. He didn't mow down a Marshall at a velodrome. And clearly didn't care very much that he killed a woman


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

vickster said:


> Through his own negligence riding a bike without the brakes that are legally required to ride on the road. He didn't mow down a Marshall at a velodrome. And clearly didn't care very much that he killed a woman


I haven't seen anyone argue that his bike was legal, or that he has shown contrition.


----------



## mjr (18 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> I agree with those who suggest he might not have pulled the brake anyway.


Apparently including the judge... 



User said:


> Does it? The judge seems to think otherwise:
> 
> "On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. *Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident*."​I don't think she could have been more explicit.


----------



## mjr (18 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> Anyway, here's the judgement: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf


These bits seem interesting to me: "In two of those cases the sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal was one of 12 months in custody indicating a starting point of 18 months before reduction for the guilty plea" and "I have also read a recently compiled pre-sentence report in which it is right to note that you express what appears to the maker of the report to be true remorse. If this is right it is welcome no matter that it comes so very late in the day, but I note that in the same breath you continue to insist that you were not at fault and that you did nothing wrong in your riding. In so far as I can give you credit for some understanding and regret for what you have done, I do." and "I have concluded this is not a 
case where it could be right to suspend the sentence."

So was the judge actually fairly lenient on someone who didn't plead guilty and didn't fit the guidance for a non-custodial sentence? I wonder how this is going to be in tomorrow's newspapers.


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

It's pretty clear that the judge attaches no, or almost no, blame to the actions of the victim. And that she has spent rather more time examining and thinking about the case, and similar cases (including cases involving drivers) than anyone here.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> He wasn't found guilty of killing someone. He was found guilty of causing an injury by wilful neglect.
> 
> 
> It's a reasonable point: what would we expect the sentence to be for a motorist who causes an injury through careless driving?


He was found guilty of causing an injury by wilful neglect that cause the death of someone. The judge was aware than the victim died from the injury and took that into account. Had he been driving I doubt it would have got to court.


rliu said:


> What about the suicide attempt and Maudsley hospital stays then?


I now see the judge is of the view he uses suicide threats as a way to control others.


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Had he been driving I doubt it would have got to court.


A teenager driving too fast for the conditions in central London? Honking his horn twice and not braking - all captured on CCTV? Posting on pistonheads afterwards how it was nothing to do with him and all the victim's fault? An articulate middle-class victim's family?

_Really?
_
I think it would still have been front-page news, and would still have resulted in a custodial sentence.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> A teenager driving too fast for the conditions in central London? Honking his horn twice and not braking - all captured on CCTV? Posting on pistonheads afterwards how it was nothing to do with him and all the victim's fault? An articulate middle-class victim's family?
> 
> _Really?
> _
> I think it would still have been front-page news, and would still have resulted in a custodial sentence.



Quite so, a driver may even have got longer if convicted of one of the 'death by' offences.

Just as Alliston would have got longer if convicted of manslaughter.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> A teenager driving too fast for the conditions in central London? Honking his horn twice and not braking - all captured on CCTV? Posting on pistonheads afterwards how it was nothing to do with him and all the victim's fault? An articulate middle-class victim's family?
> 
> _Really?
> _
> I think it would still have been front-page news, and would still have resulted in a custodial sentence.


We will have to agree to differ. I doubt on anything other than very slow news day that it would be front page news beyond The Standard.


----------



## Tin Pot (18 Sep 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> So if he'd not been such a dick then he might not have gone to prison?



If he'd not been such a dick then he might not have killed her.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> Quite so, a driver may even have got longer if convicted of one of the 'death by' offences.



Have we all forgotten this one?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/04/transport.world


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> If he'd not been such a dick then he might not have killed her.


The judge seemed to conclude that was almost certainly the case.


----------



## Tin Pot (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Have we all forgotten this one?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/04/transport.world



Nope. It's well know. That current British justice allows the wilful slaughter of cyclists by motorists. As far as I'm concerned, malice aforethought is simply getting in the vehicle.


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Have we all forgotten this one?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/04/transport.world


Now 11 years ago, and got a terrible roasting for its leniency even then (even by the Mail, says google). Since then, attitudes have changed a lot - among the public, police and prosecutors.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

I wonder if this was front page news?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...veals-only-one-in-10-drivers-are-9034187.html


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Now 11 years ago, and got a terrible roasting for its leniency even then (even by the Mail, says google). Since then, attitudes have changed a lot - among the public, *police and prosecutors*.


Yer, right. Michael Mason.


----------



## User482 (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> A teenager driving too fast for the conditions in central London? Honking his horn twice and not braking - all captured on CCTV? Posting on pistonheads afterwards how it was nothing to do with him and all the victim's fault? An articulate middle-class victim's family?
> 
> _Really?
> _
> I think it would still have been front-page news, and would still have resulted in a custodial sentence.


He did brake and he wasn't speeding. Motorist driving defective car within speed limit, brakes but not enough, hits pedestrian who stepped out without looking, doesn't sound like a headline to me. Mostly because there are so many cases of egregious driver behaviour to choose from.


----------



## J1888 (18 Sep 2017)

Globalti said:


> I've long wondered when one of the Lucas Brunelle school of cycling would come unstuck; I wonder if it's already happened in the USA? Here's one, with the rider seeming to display similar lack of concern for the safety of others:
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/89218-u...an-guilty-vehicular-manslaughter-escapes-jail



I'd never heard of the guy until this case - watched a few vids on Youtube...cant quite find the right words...all I'm getting is 'knobhead'


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (18 Sep 2017)

An absolute travesty. I'm reminded of another example of British 'justice' in the case of the Appin murder. No surprise then that the Stewart accused was found guilty by the Campbell jury and sentenced to hang by the Campbell judge. I bet the judge in this case was wishing she had the option of the gibbet too.


----------



## rliu (18 Sep 2017)

Having now read the sentencing comments it does change my view somewhat of how much sympathy I want afford Alliston. I'm now of the opinion that he needs psychiatric treatment in an detained environment, as he clearly is showing psychopathic tendencies (the suicide threats to his girlfriend, the self justifying internet posts, maintaining his innocence up until being sentenced and most likely still now).
I would still like to refrain though from using the kind of 'he's a filthy killer' style comments I've seen on Twitter and DM comment section. Some people seem to want to ignore that he didn't set out to collide into someone.


----------



## slowmotion (18 Sep 2017)

Never mind his attitude after the event, I really don't think (for someone of his age at the time) that he behaved wickedly at the time of the accident. Stupidly maybe, but didn't we all? I think his sentence is pretty outrageous in the general context of road traffic offence penalties.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Sep 2017)

Some of the judge's comments are troubling even for sensible cyclists. Her reference to no helmet and no bell as indicative or recklessness and by implication guilt. Also the reference to watching videos of stunt riding as some kind of character flaw. I've watched videos of the Isle of Man TT - but am a very timid motorcylist. Hey I've even watched the car chase in the French Connection but I wouldn't drive like that. And for that matter I've watched Titus but that doesn't mean taking bloody revenge on all and sundry. The reported expert witness's talk of brake effectiveness seems close to perjury unless there's a wider caveat to what he said in full.

That said I have less issue with the verdict per se, as riding like a twat resulting in the poor woman's death is indefencable really even if it is extremely unlikely a motorist would even have been convicted for a similar level of blame.


----------



## srw (18 Sep 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Also the reference to watching videos of stunt riding as some kind of character flaw. I've watched videos of the Isle of Man TT - but am a very timid motorcylist. Hey I've even watched the car chase in the French Connection but I wouldn't drive like that. And for that matter I've watched Titus but that doesn't mean taking bloody revenge on all and sundry.


...whereas it's clear frpm the judgement that Alliston took exactly the opposite view. He himself drew an explicit parallel between what he watched and his own behaviour.

I'm slightly concerned about the helmet and bell comments, but only slightly - the judge is only rehashing the "common sense" "arguments" this place is chock-full of.


----------



## growingvegetables (18 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> ... I'm slightly concerned about the helmet and bell comments, but only slightly ...


+1. 

But I strongly suspect "insurance" may be a longer-running issue? Not yet out in the open?


----------



## PK99 (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> It is clear that some mental health issues were raised in mitigation but that these were found to be less than convincing.



from the sentencing comments, these were related to stress of the trial and threat of imprisonment, not remorse or regret over his actions.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Absolutely- but absence of remorse or regret doesn't make him a psychopath. It makes him a tosser.


Yeahbut he's "our" tosser so we are expected to side with him. Did you not get the memo?


----------



## Origamist (18 Sep 2017)

I found this part of the judge's sentencing remarks telling as it is another factor that might explain why the jury found Charlie Alliston guilty:

"but I am satisfied on the evidence that you saw her as she stepped off the kerb".

As it was stated he had 3.8 seconds to react when she stepped off the kerb, there was seemingly time to brake with or without a front brake.

I think the sentence is appropriate, but I do find various apsects of this tragic case concerning.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> An absolute travesty. I'm reminded of another example of British 'justice' in the case of the Appin murder. No surprise then that the Stewart accused was found guilty by the Campbell jury and sentenced to hang by the Campbell judge. *I bet the judge in this case was wishing she had the option of the gibbet too*.


So why did she not go for the maximum she felt able to?


----------



## slowmotion (18 Sep 2017)

Origamist said:


> I found this part of the judge's sentencing remarks telling as it is another factor that might explain why the jury found Charlie Alliston guilty:
> 
> "but I am satisfied on the evidence that you saw her as she stepped off the kerb".
> 
> ...


I don't want to go over old ground, but at risk of knee-jerk "victim blaming" accusations, she did have some responsibility to ensure her own safety.


----------



## PK99 (19 Sep 2017)

Apparently he is now being investigated for perjury - he was not an experienced bike courier, as he claimed under oath in court.


----------



## Globalti (19 Sep 2017)

Profpointy said:


> I've watched videos of the Isle of Man TT - but am a very timid motorcylist. Hey I've even watched the car chase in the French Connection but I wouldn't drive like that. And for that matter I've watched Titus but that doesn't mean taking bloody revenge on all and sundry.



Slightly disingenuous. You don't have any means of getting your hands on a fast racing motorbike or a fast American muscle car or the empty roads you would need. The Lucas Brunelle style of cycling is possible for anybody who feels reckless or arrogant enough. And on arrogance, I'm quite willing to admit that my teens to late twenties were a time of selfish arrogance, not the best time in my young adulthood and I don't look back on that time with pride at some of the things I did or decisions I took, but I don't think I was schizophrenic.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (19 Sep 2017)

The charge of 'furious cycling' is so open to interpretation that the anti cycling establishment could go after any one of us now. Cycling without pedal reflectors, cycling what they would see as too far out from the kerb, overtaking a line of parked traffic, not wearing what they deem to be bright enough clothing, swearing at them when they step or pull out in front of us, you name it, they can go after us for anything now.


----------



## Red17 (19 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Who says he's being investigated for perjury?



Daily Mail


----------



## graham bowers (19 Sep 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> The charge of 'furious cycling' is so open to interpretation that the anti cycling establishment could go after any one of us now. Cycling without pedal reflectors, cycling what they would see as too far out from the kerb, overtaking a line of parked traffic, not wearing what they deem to be bright enough clothing, swearing at them when they step or pull out in front of us, you name it, they can go after us for anything now.


Just 'cos I'm not paranoid doesn't mean the b@stards aren't out to get me ;-)


----------



## Red17 (19 Sep 2017)

User said:


> And you believed them?




No - just answering your question


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Sep 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> The charge of 'furious cycling' is so open to interpretation that the anti cycling establishment could go after any one of us now. Cycling without pedal reflectors, cycling what they would see as too far out from the kerb, overtaking a line of parked traffic, not wearing what they deem to be bright enough clothing, swearing at them when they step or pull out in front of us, you name it, they can go after us for anything now.


That isn't going to happen. And the charge is well understood and will continue to be applied appropriately.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Sep 2017)

Red17 said:


> Daily Mail


No they don't. 

They just say he *could* face perjury charges.


----------



## DaveReading (19 Sep 2017)

jefmcg said:


> They just say he *could* face perjury charges.



If that were to happen, it would presumably follow the investigation that the OP referred to. Neither he nor the DM said charges were inevitable.


----------



## chriswoody (19 Sep 2017)

Road cc are also reporting the Perjury story. Seems the judge also made a passing comment in her sentencing.

http://road.cc/content/news/229482-...g-perjury-charge-over-claim-he-worked-courier


----------



## Venod (19 Sep 2017)

@Flick of the Elbow said



Flick of the Elbow said:


> The charge of 'furious cycling' is so open to interpretation



@User said



User said:


> No it's not



@GrumpyGregry said



GrumpyGregry said:


> And the charge is well understood and will continue to be applied appropriately



I think the title " Wanton and Furious cycling" is not understood by a lot of cyclists including me, from what I can gather its only applied when when someone is injured or killed by a cyclist, if ever a charge needed renaming to bring it up to date this does.


----------



## Milkfloat (19 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4962646, member: 45"]Here's an example of what some might think an excessive sentence for another type of road user.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...biker-who-pulled-wheelies-on-the-m6-is-jailed

The bikers are all complaining that he didn't hurt anyone.[/QUOTE]

It does make me wonder if the why if the police were that concerned for his and others safely that they followed him for 16 minutes filming rather than pulling him. But I guess that is another thread on its own.


----------



## Alan O (19 Sep 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> It does make me wonder if the why if the police were that concerned for his and others safely that they followed him for 16 minutes filming rather than pulling him. But I guess that is another thread on its own.


They may well have been waiting until they thought it was safest to stop him - startling someone when they're behaving like that moron can be dangerous.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Sep 2017)

The judge has ruled out the apparent perjury making any material difference to the sentence.

But that's not the whole story, a more important point is did the perjury make any material difference to the verdicts?

The legislation says it's for the 'court of trial' to decide what is and isn't 'material' to the case.

The fact that Alliston was convicted of something and jailed may mean, practically, that's an end to it.

But I wonder what would have happened had he given the same evidence and been acquitted of both charges.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Sep 2017)

User said:


> The fact that it is not understood by a lot of cyclists is not the same as it being open to interpretation.
> 
> It does not only apply to cyclists - it can be used when injury is caused by any vehicle (motorised or non-motorised). However, for motor vehicles there are some equivalent offences which are more commonly used.


Also can be used for motor vehicle offences where road law does not apply, e.g. Off road.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> I think the title " Wanton and Furious cycling" is not understood by a lot of cyclists including me, from what I can gather its only applied when when someone is injured or killed by a cyclist, if ever a charge needed renaming to bring it up to date this does.


Culpable ignorance would be the prosecutions argument.

Whilst the language is dated the meaning of the law is clear.


----------



## rliu (19 Sep 2017)

Very interesting that it seems the Mrs Briggs looking at her phone aspect and the Alliston being an experienced bike courier aspect are both unsubstantiated. Wouldn't it have been in the defence counsel job role to proof Alliston on his oral evidence and tell him not to bother lying about these things as it only aggravates his eventual sentencing?


----------



## Poacher (19 Sep 2017)

User said:


> The reality is that it is only perjury if what was lied about was material to the case. This wasn't.
> 
> If everyone who lied in court was prosecuted for perjury the prisons would be very full (or rather much fuller than they currently are).


The evidence given in court regarding stopping distances seemed questionable, to put it mildly, and was certainly material to the case. Should the "expert witness" involved be worried about a possible perjury charge? (Don't expect the Daily Mail to be investigating that one).


----------



## Yellow Fang (19 Sep 2017)

Origamist said:


> I found this part of the judge's sentencing remarks telling as it is another factor that might explain why the jury found Charlie Alliston guilty:
> 
> "but I am satisfied on the evidence that you saw her as she stepped off the kerb".
> 
> ...



Interesting, where does the 3.8 seconds come from? That's a pretty long time. I wondered how he managed to tell her to get out the way twice. He could have slowed down in 3.8 seconds, but did not want to. He yelled at her to get out the way, but she froze. Then he could not slow down quick enough, because he did not have a front brake.


----------



## jarlrmai (19 Sep 2017)

Anyone know what was behind him at the moment he saw her? Road clear? A bus? A tailgating taxi?


----------



## Red17 (19 Sep 2017)

The jury did from the cctv.


----------



## jarlrmai (19 Sep 2017)

fair enough, emergency stops are really scary on the bike as you are worried about getting hit from behind.


----------



## Bman (19 Sep 2017)

Apologies in advance if I've missed something in this thread, Ive read about 70% of it but as its over 80 pages long I skipped most of the speculation.

I've followed the case in the news over the last few months and even now, I'm still in two minds.

Part of me thinks "Yes". He should have been punished. Riding a bike that is not street legal, showing no remorse and (less importantly) his online activity after the event.

But, on the other hand, I could totally see myself in the same situation. I encounter belligerent road users all the time. Dozens a week. Road users that have little to no regard for cyclists. Pedestrians that step out without looking. Those that look and step out regardless. Motorists who do the same. I cant imagine what its like in London.

I admit, youth is partly to blame. We all are much more prone to risk taking in our 20's than in later life. I'm not quite the spring chicken I once was and really, really want to avoid any kind of collision at all costs. It hurts! I don't want to hurt anyone else or damage anything either!

That said, riding a completely street legal road bike, within safe speeds and conditions, I could imagine a situation where a pedestrian glued to their phone causes an accident I cannot predict or avoid. If a ball bounces out between parked cars, you expect a child may run out, so slow and prepare to stop. But if there is no ball, you don't expect a child to run out past every parked car you pass.

I guess the ultimate question is, had he been riding fully legally and had he tried to perform an emergency stop (ie not ride like a dickhead) and still caused loss of life, what would be the result?


----------



## Origamist (19 Sep 2017)

Yellow Fang said:


> Interesting, where does the 3.8 seconds come from? That's a pretty long time. I wondered how he managed to tell her to get out the way twice. He could have slowed down in 3.8 seconds, but did not want to. He yelled at her to get out the way, but she froze. Then he could not slow down quick enough, because he did not have a front brake.



The 3.8 secs figure was stated during the trial by the expert witness. I think it puts a different complexion on how the events unfolded. At 18mph, that's circa 30 metres. Of course, only the defendant will know if he did see Mrs Briggs step off the kerb, but with the opportunity to shout twice (sweary exhortations of short sentence length) he chose to scrub a bit of speed off and thread his way between a lorry on his left and a pedestrian on his right. That was a miscalculation that had tragic consequences.


----------



## slowmotion (19 Sep 2017)

I think that a CCTV clip of the incident was posted somewhere. I can't find it. Could some kind person put it up again to refresh our minds about what actually happened? Obviously, it didn't record the verbal stuff which may or may not have been important.


----------



## Origamist (19 Sep 2017)

slowmotion said:


> I think that a CCTV clip of the incident was posted somewhere. I can't find it. Could some kind person put it up again to refresh our minds about what actually happened? Obviously, it didn't record the verbal stuff which may or may not have been important.



The CCTV sequence was shown during the trial, but it has not been released. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

The Met did release a test film of cyclist stopping distances, but it was rather amatuerish.


----------



## slowmotion (19 Sep 2017)

Origamist said:


> The CCTV sequence was shown during fhe trial, but it has not been released. Hopefully, it will stay that way.
> 
> The Met did release a test film of cyclist stopping distances, but it was rather amatuerish.


I'm pretty sure I saw a distant B&W building-top clip of the incident. Maybe it was a simulation by the media. I forget.


----------



## srw (19 Sep 2017)

rliu said:


> Wouldn't it have been in the defence counsel job role to proof Alliston on his oral evidence and tell him not to bother lying about these things as it only aggravates his eventual sentencing?


Yes. So what?



Poacher said:


> Should the "expert witness" involved be worried about a possible perjury charge?


No. There was plenty of opportunity during the trial and before sentencing for his evidence to be challenged.



jarlrmai said:


> Anyone know what was behind him at the moment he saw her?


No. If you're worried about what's behind you you get out of the way, you don't swear at people in front of you.

[QUOTE 4963158, member: 43827"]is it likely that there will be any clamp down by police on their use[/QUOTE]
No. Too much like hard work and they're not really dangerous most of the time.

To quote something from earlier in the thread:



srw said:


> It's pretty clear that the judge attaches no, or almost no, blame to the actions of the victim. And that she has spent rather more time examining and thinking about the case, and similar cases (including cases involving drivers) than anyone here.



There are 12 people who know why the manslaughter charge was rejected and the Wanton and Furious Driving charge was accepted. They're not allowed to say anything. There is one person who knows why the sentence handed down was handed down, and her explanations are available for everyone to read and are very clear.

Charlie Alliston was an arrogant, thoughtless yob whose arrogance and thoughtlessness caused the death of an innocent passer-by. Even a good-quality brief couldn't get him off. He was also an extremely rare and unluckly arrogant thoughtless yob - because most yobs in possession of a bike cause broken bones at worst.

Within a few weeks everyone will have forgotten who Alliston was. There's no material prospect of the law on cycling being changed in a way that affects the overwhelming majority of law-abiding cyclists, because our idiot and incompetent government have their hands full with the self-inflicted wound that is Brexit.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (19 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Within a few weeks everyone will have forgotten who Alliston was. There's no material prospect of the law on cycling being changed in a way that affects the overwhelming majority of law-abiding cyclists, because our idiot and incompetent government have their hands full with the self-inflicted wound that is Brexit.


That didn't occur in Australia. About 12 years ago, a cyclist somehow managed to cause the death of a pedestrian, and the media (and general public) have been mentioning it ever since. They completely ignore the fact that every year about 200 people are killed by collision with motor vehicles in the state of Victoria alone (this is the state I live in). Such is the hypocrisy of a society completely addicted to motor vehicle use: people will go to great lengths to ignore the death and general misery caused by motor vehicles, because the alternative is to wake up and realise how wrong we all got it.


----------



## jarlrmai (19 Sep 2017)

No. If you're worried about what's behind you you get out of the way, you don't swear at people in front of you.

If there was a truck behind me and someone stepped in front of me, you can bet I'd be doing both, thats a bad scenario.


----------



## swansonj (20 Sep 2017)

Poacher said:


> The evidence given in court regarding stopping distances seemed questionable, to put it mildly, and was certainly material to the case. Should the "expert witness" involved be worried about a possible perjury charge? (Don't expect the Daily Mail to be investigating that one).


Professor Roy Meadow, a doctor, gave expert evidence that was so flawed that among other things the Royal Statistical Society wrote an open letter to the Lord Chancellor pointing this out. Eventually, several of the people who had been convicted largely on his evidence had their convictions overturned. Far from facing a perjury charge, it was the courts who eventually prevented the GMC from sanctioning him by striking him off the medical register.


----------



## swansonj (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> That was because the GMC completely cocked up and mishandled the proceedings against him. It was a shocking performance by the GMC.


That is, of course, true, and supplements rather than contradicts the point I was making.


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Even a good-quality brief couldn't get him off.



I agree with a lot of what you say, but take exception with this - even a half witted brief should have been able to rip the 'expert' to pieces.


----------



## Dan B (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I think we (in the widest sense of the word) run the risk, as cyclists, of fixating on the issue of the front brake and the evidence around that, as that is something we are familiar with, rather than on the wider point: we owe a duty of care to other road users, especially more vulnerable road users, and shouldn't ride like dicks.


Fair point but it's not just cyclists fixating: look at the KimBriggsCampaign account on Twitter, for example. Half his effort seems to be devoted to contacting bike shops and getting them to stop selling/advertising/depicting brakeless bikes


----------



## bigjim (20 Sep 2017)

> True it is that she put herself in the middle of the road. But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane.".


I'm confused [as usual]. I don't see how he caused the accident. I thought an accident was a no blame event. If you need to blame or establish a cause, surely the cause was the lady walking into the road? The fact that he was trying to establish [not force, why use that wording] a gap between the vehicle and the woman then he was doing his best to avoid a collision? I tend to do a lot of regular things automatically, such as swerving around wayward dogs, cars, pedestrians. I don't spend time thinking should I do this or what will happen if I do that? There again I don't shout or abuse others. But jail time for such?


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Hardly surprising... and actually, would it be that bad if bike shops stopped selling brakeless bikes?



To track cyclists yes, but to knobs with beards no.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> I thought an accident was a no blame event.


Nope, it just means it's not deliberate.


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> And how many track cyclists buy their bikes from high street shops?



https://www.evanscycles.com/bikes/track-bikes_c


----------



## youngoldbloke (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> And how many track cyclists buy their bikes from high street shops?


His bike was alledgedly a Planet X TRACK bike, sold as such : *"NB: The Pro carbon Track bike is designed for track racing only and should not be used on the road due to not having provision for front or rear brakes." *
Not really a high street bike shop. So how do you prevent misuse, or sale to those who might misuse? Anyway it's easy enough to remove the front brake from a 'legal' bike if you wish to do so.


----------



## KneesUp (20 Sep 2017)

Bongman said:


> ...on the other hand, I could totally see myself in the same situation.


Being able to envisage yourself in the same situation doesn't have any bearing on whether it is right or not. I suppose if it were a situation lots of people found themselves in all the time, and which was of little consequence, one might question if the law was valid or useful - for example if it were illegal to use ones phone whilst walking.

I can "see" myself in all sorts of situations. I've been done twice for speeding (in 25 years, I should add) so I suppose I can "see" myself in a car accident (touch wood I haven't) but that doesn't mean I was correct to do 4_x _mph in a 30, or 9_x _mph on the motorway (much as I might argue that the latter was totally safe as it was dry, clear and the three lanes were virtually empty) any more than it was correct that in my much younger days I did 1_xx_ mph on the A832 and didn't get caught. Sometimes I miss a set of lights on my bike commute by hopping onto the pavement before them if I can see it's clear (it always is) and then hopping back into the road on the other side. It's not 'right' for me to do so, but it saves me time, and gets me out of being squeezed against the kerb at the lights (the road is split into two lanes, but is scarcely wide enough, so motorists don't allow any room) - so there is a good argument for doing it, but should a pedestrian appear from somewhere (the pavement goes past a car lot so I suppose a browser could appear) and I hit them, I know it would be my fault.

We all make judgement calls, and sometimes that judgement call is to break the law because we perceive it to be risk free (in terms of injuries, damage or being caught) but in doing so we must accept that if it goes wrong, we are culpable.


----------



## Dan B (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Hardly surprising... and actually, would it be that bad if bike shops stopped selling brakeless bikes?


_Now_ who's changed the subject away from "duty of care" and back to "should brakeless bikes be promoted?" ;-)


----------



## bigjim (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I'm presuming you haven't been following the trial? The judge's sentencing remarks give a flavour...


I was referring to the sente


User said:


> I'm presuming you haven't been following the trial? The judge's sentencing remarks give a flavour...


I did indeed read the remarks. _ "This must have been obvious to you, and you did indeed swerve and slow to 
between 10-14 mph as you went through the yellow-box at the junction of Old St and 
Charlotte Road."_
He therefore tried to avoid her. 10mph is pretty slow. I can run at that speed.
His attitude comes across as dispicable and I wonder how his Barrister allowed that to be shown in court. Of course he needs to be punished but the criticism of his riding at the time of actual collision leaves me uncertain.


----------



## youngoldbloke (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Exactly! So there's no need for them to be sold without.


For bikes intended solely for track use that would be ridiculous.


----------



## KnackeredBike (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I have remembered a case which has some degree of similarity involving a car.
> Nigel Gresham, who unintendedly killed four of his children  He took to the road with mismatched brakes he had fitted, that didn't work properly. He lost control of his Land Rover, ended up in a river, and four of his children drowned.
> Like Charlie, he didn't mean anyone to die but, as a foreseeable consequence of his stupid choices, lives were tragically lost.


I would suggest they are not the same.

Motoring offences tend to be split into two groups, driving offences where the manner of the driving is careless or dangerous, and construction and use offences where the condition of the vehicle is dangerous.

Gresham got convicted of death by dangerous driving because he was driving too fast. If he had been driving safely in an unsafe vehicle he would have got a much lower sentence as it would have just been a C&U offence.

In the CA case AFAIK no-one has suggested his cycling was dangerous in itself, the accident was primarily caused by the ped stepping out into the road and subsequently caused by not having a front brake. Basically, if the same standards applied CA would be done for a C&U offence.

Except bicycle brakes (along with tractors) are expressly excluded from the requirement for "good, efficient and ... properly adjusted brakes) under Sec 18 of the C&U regs 1986. So actually he has not even committed a C&U offence. Hence why he was prosecuted with some "creative" allegations.

It is only fair to compare motoring sentences with CA if the motorist has solely been prosecuted for a C&U offence.


----------



## youngoldbloke (20 Sep 2017)

Simple answer - prosecute those riding bikes without legal brakes fitted. It is pointless trying to ban track bikes from sale. It is easy enough to see that a bike has no front brake fitted.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> If he had been driving safely in an unsafe vehicle he would have got a much lower sentence as it would have just been a C&U offence.



That's not right. Driving a vehicle while knowing it has a dangerous fault is a specific example of dangerous driving, according to CPS guidance.


----------



## srw (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> But the reality is that those are a very small minority of the bikes sold and most of those are not from high street retailers but specialist shops.


...and because of the regulations that require bikes for road use to be sold with a bell and reflectors any track bike sold by a reputable retailer is already sold with a clear warning that it's not suitable for road use.

For instance, from Evans...
"The fork will take a brake if required for road use but this bike is strictly for closed-track use only as specified."
https://www.evanscycles.com/hoy-fiorenzuola-002-2015-track-bike-EV208869

from Wiggle...
"*PLEASE NOTE*
This bike is designed and setup for track use only, It is supplied with a fixed gear and no brakes are fitted. This bike is illegal for use on the public highway"
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/eddy-merckx-copenhagen-77-track-bike-2017/

from Planet X...
"*NB: The Pro carbon Track bike is designed for track racing only and should not be used on the road due to not having provision for front or rear brakes."*
https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXPCTB/planet-x-pro-carbon-track-sport-bike

I suspect that any retailer on the receiving end of a campaign to ban brakeless bikes from being sold will point to these warnings. And, frankly, I think they'll have a point.


----------



## srw (20 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> no-one has suggested his cycling was dangerous in itself


Other than the judge in her judgement.

"You were an accident waiting to happen "
"It was clear to you that she was in danger. It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into her "
"Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident "
"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane. "
"you chose to ride at a speed and on a bike when you could not stop, your attitude being that everyone else would just have to get out of your way "


----------



## KnackeredBike (20 Sep 2017)

@srw I'm still not sure I understand what is dangerous about it, from the description he was cycling at 18mph whilst overtaking a parked lorry. Something I would do without issue albeit with brakes. I don't quite know how you can be "helplessly stranded" as a ped in that situation.

Without regressing the thread I don't cycle at a speed where I could prevent every conceivable but unlikely collision. Having cycled in London it would be almost impossible there where you need to cycle somewhat aggressively if you don't want to be bullied off the road.

In the end where do you draw the line - caliper brakes are rubbish in the wet, if I slam into a ped who walks out in front of me in a situation where disk brakes would have stopped me am I in the wrong too? What about riding on 23c tyres, I could stop more quickly with MTB tyres. You could go on forever getting a slightly safer bike.


----------



## Johnsop99 (20 Sep 2017)

You can legislate for new bike sales but how can you deal with the secondhand market? as I believe CA's bike was a used bike purchase from a private individual.


----------



## srw (20 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> I don't quite know how you can be "helplessly stranded" as a ped in that situation.


Take it up with the judge. She knows _much_ more than you about what happened, and has decided that Alliston was a dangerous cyclist - generally and in the specific instance.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Hardly surprising... and actually, would it be that bad if bike shops stopped selling brakeless bikes?


True but why should thousands of track cyclists have to buy bikes with a brake fitted and forks drilled for the same, because some nobber rode one on the road?


----------



## youngoldbloke (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Are 'thousands' of track cyclists really likely to be buying their bikes from high street stores?
> 
> Personally, I believe that it is the responsibility of the cyclist to ensure that the bike he is using is road legal. I'm not actually advocating banning shops from selling bikes without brakes - I was merely trying to question whether it would be the end of the world. After all, we place other restrictions on sales of various items, where some may be inconvenienced...


Where do you think they come from? If you want a relatively inexpensive bike to ride at the velodrome you'll be looking at Planet X, Dolan, Ribble, Wiggle, Chain Reaction, and so on - or it might be second hand of course. If you are a member of Team GB , OK, your bike might come from a more 'specialized' source. I agree it is the responsibilty of the rider, and if you ride a velodrome-fit bike on the road - that is no brakes fitted - you should be prosecuted.


----------



## KnackeredBike (20 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Take it up with the judge. She knows _much_ more than you about what happened, and has decided that Alliston was a dangerous cyclist - generally and in the specific instance.


I am prepared to bet that most of us know a lot more about the realities of cycling through a busy city and the compromises needed than the judge.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

While I really do empathise with Matt Briggs in his loss, and getting cycle retailers to make it clear that track bikes with no brakes are illegal for use on the road might help educate a few, I think any attempt to ban their sales in retail shops is misguided.

Others suggest that the legal situation which means cyclists are open to either manslaughter or ancient "furious cycling" charges and nothing in between is silly, and I agree.

My view is that we might get further by considering the extension of "Causing death by careless/dangerous..." laws to cover all kinds of locomotion. It wouldn't address the tribal mentality of "Cyclists are automatically right and everyone else is automatically wrong" which has sadly surfaced in this and other discussions on various forums, or the "whataboutery" that suggests other unrelated poor legal decisions mean this irresponsible scrote should be let off, but at least it might help level the playing field in legal terms.


----------



## KnackeredBike (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Would it be reasonable to ask you not to use the word ped when referring to person on foot?


Why?


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> I am prepared to bet that most of us know a lot more about the realities of cycling through a busy city and the compromises needed than the judge.


I think you are right, but I would not include Charlie Alliston among that "most of us".


----------



## mjr (20 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> I'm slightly concerned about the helmet and bell comments, but only slightly - the judge is only rehashing the "common sense" "arguments" this place is chock-full of.


The helmet and bell comments are probably due to their inclusion in the highway code and cited as evidence of his disregard for its advice. We should all press for the unsupported-by-evidence cyclists clothing rule 59 to be removed from the highway code, but its inclusion in this judgment doesn't raise a new concern - we always knew that it would be used against any cyclist if they ended up in court. The bell bit is trickier because we'd probably also need it removed from the bicycle sale regulations.



User said:


> Do you not think that, had he had chosen to use a bike with a working brake, and chosen to use it rather than shouting "get out of the £∆©¥ing way" twice, then there would be no story?


I think there would still have been a story headlined something like "Reckless Speeding Cyclist Kills Working Mother" - it just might not have run so long and he might not have been convicted of anything.


----------



## srw (20 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> I am prepared to bet that most of us know a lot more about the realities of cycling through a busy city and the compromises needed than the judge.


I agree. But I was referring to specific circumstances on a specific day that caused a specific death.

Although I think that cycling at a speed where I could prevent every conceivable but unlikely collision is a noble aim - and if I find myself riding aggressively I back off and reduce my level to assertive. It's served me extremely well over 21 years of peak-time commuting (main road as well as back road), and I've almost never been bullied off the road. If I am I simply shrug and get on with my day. Better bullied off the road than splatted all over it.


----------



## srw (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> No, there would have been no story because there would have been no collision.


...assuming he bothered to use his working brake...


----------



## swansonj (20 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Take it up with the judge. She knows _much_ more than you about what happened, ...
> 
> ...and has decided that Alliston was a dangerous cyclist - generally and in the specific instance.


Agree on the first part but is the second part entirely true? I've always presumed that judges are constrained in what they can say in that they have to accept the jury verdict.


----------



## srw (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I did include that bit.


One day I'll stop speed-reading!


----------



## KnackeredBike (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Because abbreviations, diminutives, and nicknames for groups of people have a tendency to be used to reduce their status, and legitimacy.


I hope you will also be stopping using the words "car" and "taxi" in that case.


----------



## srw (20 Sep 2017)

swansonj said:


> I, for one,
> 
> Agree on the first part but is the second part entirely true? I've always presumed that judges are constrained in what they can say in that they have to accept the jury verdict.


Fair point. My take is that the jury has decided that the specific incident fell under the heading of "Wanton and furious driving" - he was specifically dangerous when he hit his victim. The judge, in her sentencing remarks (which I excerpted earlier in the thread) has decided that he was generally a dangerous rider. "An accident waiting to happen", in her phrase.

It's certainly _not_ true, I think, as someone claimed, that no-one is suggesting he was dangerous.


----------



## Origamist (20 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> @srw I'm still not sure I understand what is dangerous about it, from the description he was cycling at 18mph whilst overtaking a parked lorry. Something I would do without issue albeit with brakes. I don't quite know how you can be "helplessly stranded" as a ped in that situation.



Mrs Briggs was stranded in the middle of the road as there was traffic approaching in both directions and a HGV to the left creating a pinch point. Alliston chose to proceed when it should have been clear to him that the pedestrian was in an invidious position - if he had braked hard he would have given Mrs Briggs the opportunity to return to the pavement. By continuing forward at speed he made the situation more dangerous than he needed to. You can argue that this is 20/20 hindsight, but where possible, braking to avoid a collision is usually preferable to swerving as it massively reduces the unpredictability factor of the other road user.


----------



## mjr (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> My view is that we might get further by considering the extension of "Causing death by careless/dangerous..." laws to cover all kinds of locomotion.


Further to where? A certain muddy brown creek? It would be irresponsible of anyone with an interest in reducing road casualties to encourage the continuing distraction of farting around with more finely-graded penalties for cyclists injuring others while there are still such serious problems in getting Road Justice for the much larger number of cyclists who are injured by motorists.



Alan O said:


> It wouldn't address the tribal mentality of "Cyclists are automatically right and everyone else is automatically wrong" which has sadly surfaced in this and other discussions on various forums,


It's easy to insult any views you don't like by attributing to that mythical tribal mentality, but even those people here who think various aspects of this case are flawed haven't said Alliston was automatically right because he was cycling, have they?



Alan O said:


> but at least it might help level the playing field in legal terms.


 
Are you just writing stuff that sounds fair or do you really honestly think that the legal playing field is currently tilted in cyclists' favour and needs tilting against them further to level it?


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> But that's not the legal situation. There are a range of possible charges depending on the outcome of the incident, from careless cycling through dangerous cycling up to the 'wanton and furious driving' (not cycling) or manslaughter.


That is true, but I think some of the controversy of this case could have been avoided had all laws been applicable to all road users.



User said:


> I'm not sure that extending the scope of the offences of 'causing death by careless/dangerous driving' to cover cycling is the way forward. If anything, you might want to create similar offences for cyclists but the reality is that it is not considered necessary as so few people are killed by cyclists, and these deaths can be dealt with by existing legislation.


Yes, such offences can be dealt with by existing legislation, but I think this case demonstrates that there is something lacking when a crusty old "furious cycling" law needs to be dusted off. Laws are not updated only when it is not possible to use old legislation, but should also be (and frequently are) updated to bring legislation forward to more modern times, to reduce ambiguity, and to level the playing field.



User said:


> It's also worth noting that motorists can also be charge with manslaughter or with 'wanton and furious driving'.


Perhaps so, but has there been any recent need for it? I think this supports my view that laws should be upgraded to deal better with newer circumstances - in this case, laws pertaining to motoring have been so updated.


----------



## mjr (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I did include that bit.


But you didn't include using it early enough to avoid the collision. Also, I don't completely trust the court expert's reported opinion on stopping distance or some of the other timings - like, can you spot someone stepping off the kerb and then shout two swearing-laden expressions in just 3.8 seconds? From timing myself shouting, that's tight.


----------



## KnackeredBike (20 Sep 2017)

Origamist said:


> Mrs Briggs was stranded in the middle of the road as there was traffic approaching in both directions and a HGV to the left creating a pinch point. Alliston chose to proceed when it should have been clear to him that the pedestrian was in an invidious position - if he had braked hard he would have given Mrs Briggs the opportunity to return to the pavement. By continuing forward at speed he made the situation more dangerous than he needed to. You can argue that this is 20/20 hindsight, but where possible braking to avoid a collision is usually preferable to swerving as it massively reduces the unpredictability factor of the other road user.


See, I'm not sure I buy that. It is very hard to deliberately have a collision. Generally if you realise you are going to have a collision you instinctively take evasive action.

As you say in hindsight it may not have been good or effective evasive action. It may have been hampered by the brakes. But I'm not sure that makes the riding up to that point dangerous in and of itself. The part where I started to lose confidence in the judge is where she implies that CA somehow "forced" himself past the HGV, which is clearly nonsense.

CA himself admitted that he misjudged the ped, that she stepped back into his intended path rather than continuing forwards. People misjudge other people's path all the time, we are all subject to it with SMIDSYs often with severe injuries but they do not result in a dangerous driving charge because it is put down to a "mistake".

Perhaps if the judge and jury were keen cyclist they would realise that cyclists make mistakes too. They are often on bikes with poor stopping distances in the wet. That does not mean they are dangerous cyclists.


----------



## srw (20 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> But you didn't include using it early enough to avoid the collision. Also, I don't completely trust the court expert's reported opinion on stopping distance or some of the other timings - like, can you spot someone stepping off the kerb and then shout two swearing-laden expressions in just 3.8 seconds? From timing myself shouting, that's tight.


This morning I spotted someone stepping off the kerb, braked, shouted and avoided a collision - both by slowing down and being able to stop and by alerting the person at risk. All in a second or so. That's because I'd been looking ahead and was aware that the pedestrian in question hadn't looked in my direction.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> It's not "furious cycling"...
> 
> I can't really see where the playing field needs to be leveled. As it is, the current situation actually works in favour of cyclists. 'Wanton and furious driving' carries a lesser sentence that 'causing death by careless/dangerous driving'.


The law should not work in favour of cyclists - it should be applied fairly to all.



User said:


> It's been used recently to prosecute motorists where the vehicle was being used on privateland.


There will always be cases that more recent law does not cover, but that does not mean we should not strive to close such gaps.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> Further to where? A certain muddy brown creek? It would be irresponsible of anyone with an interest in reducing road casualties to encourage the continuing distraction of farting around with more finely-graded penalties for cyclists injuring others while there are still such serious problems in getting Road Justice for the much larger number of cyclists who are injured by motorists.


I think it would clarify the law - do you not thing that all road users should be held equally accountable for their actions?



mjr said:


> It's easy to insult any views you don't like by attributing to that mythical tribal mentality, but even those people here who think various aspects of this case are flawed haven't said Alliston was automatically right because he was cycling, have they?


I have seen plenty of extreme comments (here and elsewhere) that express nothing but outrage that this poor young man should be victimised just because someone died in an accident that he was held responsible for. We all want a fairer deal for cyclists, but a part of that is surely accepting when one of our own has done bad and not defending him unconditionally.



mjr said:


> Are you just writing stuff that sounds fair or do you really honestly think that the legal playing field is currently tilted in cyclists' favour and needs tilting against them further to level it?


The *application* of the law is certainly not level, and I have not suggested anything of the sort. But I don't think that should stop us trying to make the *letter* of the law applicable equally to all road users.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> No, the law should be appropriate to each.



Your suggestion that "the law should be appropriate to each" does not appear to disagree with my suggestion that "it should be applied *fairly* to all" (my emphasis). Am I misunderstanding?


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Different situations, specifically different classes of road user, pose different levels of risk and so it is appropriate that they are regulated in different ways.


And you think that means there should be no offences applicable to cyclists between "manslaughter" and the ancient “wanton and furious driving”? And that "Causing death by careless/dangerous..." should not be extended to cyclists? I respect your opinion if that is so, but I've seen no explanation for it.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Absolutely! Do we really want to have to be licensed, for example, and have number plates?


I'll repeat what I asked of another person. Do you think that there should be no offences applicable to cyclists between "manslaughter" and the ancient “wanton and furious driving”?, and that "Causing death by careless/dangerous..." should not be extended to cyclists? I respect your opinion if that is so, but I've seen no explanation for it other than handwavery about licensing and number plates.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> You seem to have been ignoring what I've actually been posting. I'll repeat it for you.
> 
> 
> There are already a range of offences that apply to cyclists - it's not just 'manslaughter' or 'wanton and furious driving';
> ...


I have not been ignoring your points, and I apologise if I make it sound that way - your points are well made and I do not dispute any of the three you mention above.

But my thinking is that covering dangerous use of various kinds of transportation should ideally be brought closer together. It might be that current laws are sufficient based on how often they are used, and that there is no need to change anything based on risk (which impinges on the use of limited parliamentary time), but I also think that fairness in the eyes of the public should be a part of lawmaking.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> I'll repeat what I asked of another person. Do you think that there should be no offences applicable to cyclists between "manslaughter" and the ancient “wanton and furious driving”?, and that "Causing death by careless/dangerous..." should not be extended to cyclists? I respect your opinion if that is so, but I've seen no explanation for it other than handwavery about licensing and number plates.


What offences exist between manslaughter and the ancient offences against the person act that folk get prosecuted for on a daily basis. Old law ain't necessarily bad law. Last thing we need is more law.


----------



## mjr (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> I think it would clarify the law - do you not thing that all road users should be held equally accountable for their actions?


Yes but that doesn't require extending the motorists' get-out-of-jail-free offences to cyclists.



Alan O said:


> I have seen plenty of extreme comments (here and elsewhere)


And yet, you can't cite a single one here. 



Alan O said:


> The *application* of the law is certainly not level, and I have not suggested anything of the sort. But I don't think that should stop us trying to make the *letter* of the law applicable equally to all road users.


Maybe not stop, but it's the wrong farking priority right now. Keeping on exploiting this rare example to promote the distraction of new laws to be applied unevenly is practically the same as tilting the playing field yet further against cycling, not levelling it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> Your suggestion that "the law should be appropriate to each" does not appear to disagree with my suggestion that "it should be applied *fairly* to all" (my emphasis). Am I misunderstanding?


Fair application does not mean same application.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> I have not been ignoring your points, and I apologise if I make it sound that way - your points are well made and I do not dispute any of the three you mention above.
> 
> But my thinking is that covering dangerous use of various kinds of transportation should ideally be brought closer together. It might be that current laws are sufficient based on how often they are used, and that there is no need to change anything based on risk (which impinges on the use of limited parliamentary time), but I also think that fairness in the eyes of the public should be a part of lawmaking.


When the public's eyes are squint and their viewpoint inherently skewed in favour of non-prosecution and lax sentence for drivers who kill on the basis of

it was just an accident
s/he didn't set out to kill
it could happen to anyone
mobile phone use when driving is acceptable
who cares, it is just a dead cyclist
a certain level of casualties are inevitable and so long as it ain't me or mine that get KSI'd jog on.
there but for the grace of God...


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Fair application does not mean same application.


Fair point - I suggest same *letter*, but fair *application*.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> When the public's eyes are squint and their viewpoint inherently skewed in favour of non-prosecution and lax sentence for drivers who kill on the basis of
> 
> it was just an accident
> s/he didn't set out to kill
> ...


I certainly do not support any of those thoughts.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> And yet, you can't cite a single one here.


I could cite a number that I think fit the category, but I choose not to, so it will have to stay at being my view formed through my reading of discussion of the case. It's a small minority, and in my view those few extremists unconditionally calling for the poor cyclist to be exonerated are harming the cycling cause almost as much as the Daily Mail anti-cycling bigots.

Do you mind if I repeat a question I asked you earlier? Do you not think that all road users should be held equally accountable for their actions?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> I certainly do not support any of those thoughts.


Neither do I yet some of them, and variants thereof, have been applied to Charlie Alliston.

I have railed and raged against lax sentences for drivers who kill. Here and elsewhere.

Buggered if I am going to moan when "one of our own" kills another road user and gets an appropriate sentence as a result.


----------



## mjr (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> I could cite a number that I think fit the category, but I choose not to, so it will have to stay at being my view formed through my reading of discussion of the case. It's a small minority, and in my view those few extremists unconditionally calling for the poor cyclist to be exonerated are harming the cycling cause almost as much as the Daily Mail anti-cycling bigots.


Is zero a small minority now? In other words, I feel you're misinterpreting what you've read here, or confusing it with what you may have read elsewhere.



Alan O said:


> Do you mind if I repeat a question I asked you earlier? Do you not think that all road users should be held equally accountable for their actions?


I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments earlier - in the post quoted, no less.


----------



## Origamist (20 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> See, I'm not sure I buy that. It is very hard to deliberately have a collision. Generally if you realise you are going to have a collision you instinctively take evasive action.
> 
> As you say in hindsight it may not have been good or effective evasive action. It may have been hampered by the brakes. But I'm not sure that makes the riding up to that point dangerous in and of itself. The part where I started to lose confidence in the judge is where she implies that CA somehow "forced" himself past the HGV, which is clearly nonsense.
> 
> ...



Those paragraphs would be a far more compelling if he had a front brake. He hugely reduced his options to avoid a collision when he chose not to fit a caliper brake. He was a danger to himself and others - the tragic death of Mrs Briggs bears that out.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> Is zero a small minority now? In other words, I feel you're misinterpreting what you've read here, or confusing it with what you may have read elsewhere.


It's not zero, and I don't think I have misinterpreted everything I have seen or that I am confused. I just don't want to hold up specific examples because I don't want to personalise it - if you feel that makes my opinion unsupportable, I can respect that.



mjr said:


> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments earlier - in the post quoted, no less.



Ah, yes, sorry, the "Yes but that doesn't require extending the motorists' get-out-of-jail-free offences to cyclists" is a qualified yes. My view is that no offences should be seen as or practically used as "get-out-of-jail-free offences" - and I suspect we might agree on that.

I'm opining on what the *letter* of the law should say, and I think you are commenting on current enforcement *practice* of the law - if we could separate the two, I suspect our opinions would be closer than they might seem.


----------



## mjr (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> I'm opining on what the *letter* of the law should say, and I think you are commenting on current enforcement *practice* of the law - if we could separate the two, I suspect our opinions would be closer than they might seem.


It's not possible to separate the two. Seeking to add more letters to unhelpful practice makes matters worse. I urge you to focus on fixing the practice of the law as a priority and join something like the RoadJustice campaign.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> It's not possible to separate the two. Seeking to add more letters to unhelpful practice makes matters worse. I urge you to focus on fixing the practice of the law as a priority and join something like the RoadJustice campaign.


I think the two aspects can be pursued independently, so we must therefore disagree.


----------



## Sharky (20 Sep 2017)

It seems crazy that any bike manufacture could make & sell track framesets that were not drilled for a front brake. Even if the intention is initially just for the track, I can't imagine many scenarios where track bikes don't end up being sold off and used on the road when they come to the end of their track life.

As I ride TT's mostly on fixed, I have been looking for an aero track frameset with a front brake drilling for a long time, but they just don't seem to exist.

But, my google friend has just spotted this dia compe brake for a non drilled fork:-
http://www.velodromeshop.net/track-bike-brakesets/dia-compe-track-bike-front-brake/

Has anybody used one?
It could open up my options for frames in my price range.


----------



## KnackeredBike (20 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4964274, member: 43827"]"The ped" did have a name you know!

I would expect that a very small percentage of the population, including judges and jurors are keen cyclists so I'm not sure the relevance of this statement. This judge and jury did not convict and sentence him simply because he made a mistake.[/QUOTE]
Because people tend to "like" people that are the same as them. Hence drivers get the benefit of the doubt and cyclists and motorcyclists don't.

If we dispassionately assess that road sentences should be a deterrent against actions likely to cause harm then drivers who kill should get much greater sentences then CA but in reality they don't, they tend to get more lenient sentences.

CA was foolish as I was at a similar age, but not malicious. He fell victim to a freak accident. The number of people riding track bikes on a daily basis is so vanishingly small every one could be offered a free fitted front brake for a fraction of the money it will cost to lock CA up.

As in other threads i am a pragmatist, i don't see the point in throwing loads of money around simply to prove a point.


----------



## Profpointy (20 Sep 2017)

Whilst the accident itself was foreseeable, the tragic outcome was very unlucky. Unlike, it must be said, a tragic outcome from bad driving where the outcome is pretty predictable from a ton and a half of steel hitting a person at apeed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Sep 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Whilst the accident itself was foreseeable, the tragic outcome was very unlucky. Unlike, it must be said, a tragic outcome from bad driving where the outcome is pretty predictable from a ton and a half of steel hitting a person at apeed.


I take issue with the "very unlucky" part. Hit a pedestrian hard enough that they go down onto a road surface and they'd have to be lucky to avoid serious injury, especially if not braced for impact/expecting the collision. People don't bounce. Head injuries are not exactly uncommon in such circumstances


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Sep 2017)

I'll expand. The only way to guarantee to avoid the tragic consequences of the so-called "unlucky punch" is not to throw it in the first place.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Sep 2017)

Sharky said:


> It seems crazy that any bike manufacture could make & sell track framesets that were not drilled for a front brake. Even if the intention is initially just for the track, I can't imagine many scenarios where track bikes don't end up being sold off and used on the road when they come to the end of their track life.
> 
> As I ride TT's mostly on fixed, I have been looking for an aero track frameset with a front brake drilling for a long time, but they just don't seem to exist.
> 
> ...


I researched those a while ago. The conditions under which they fit are quite strict.
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/categ...roduct/review-dia-compe-track-brake-10-39409/


----------



## Sharky (20 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I researched those a while ago. The conditions under which they fit are quite strict.
> http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/categ...roduct/review-dia-compe-track-brake-10-39409/


Thanks, sounds as if a replacement TT fork would be the best option, but it just pushes a £399 planet x frameset into a higher cost bracket and not one I can justify for about a dozen 10 mile TT's each year.


----------



## jarlrmai (20 Sep 2017)

You are riding road 10 mile TT's on a bike without a front brake?


----------



## Sharky (20 Sep 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> You are riding road 10 mile TT's on a bike without a front brake?


No, one front brake. Have a Nelson track frame which can take a brake, but it's not particularly aero.


----------



## Buddfox (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I find this very hard to believe. I reckon I have seen fewer than 10 fixed wheel bikes, without any second brake, in about the same number of years that I have been working in central London.



Really? I see them most days. Genuinely surprised that we have such different experiences.


----------



## albion (21 Sep 2017)

Pandering to mob mentality to further party election appeal?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...d-laws-targeting-cyclists-uk-charlie-alliston
'The former Olympic champion Chris Boardman, recently appointed by Andy Burnham to boost cycling and walking in Greater Manchester, said Norman’s approach should be “based on evidence, not headlines”.'

In the meantime we have had so many of the more usual tragic vehicle accidents, somethat could have been prevented with real regulation.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (21 Sep 2017)

I see her widower is continuing his anti cyclist campaign this morning. I wonder if he'll be acknowledging the responsibilities of pedestrians to look what's coming before stepping out in front of traffic.


----------



## J1888 (21 Sep 2017)

What utter farkwits the Govt and Jesse Norman are.

Cyclists should be on their case thoughout this.


----------



## User269 (21 Sep 2017)

According to the BBC news website this morning, regarding proposals to change the law; 

"Announcing the move, the government said there had been a "series of high-profile incidents" involving cyclists and that in 2015, two pedestrians had been killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle."

I hope you will all, like me, write to your MP pointing out that it's high time the law was changed to address the fact that each year around 400 pedestrians are killed by cars, and 5000 seriously injured.


----------



## psmiffy (21 Sep 2017)

User269 said:


> I hope you will all, like me, write to your MP pointing out that it's high time the law was changed to address the fact that each year around 400 pedestrians are killed by cars, and 5000 seriously injured.


----------



## Jimidh (21 Sep 2017)

I heard Jesse Norman this morning and thought that he was very balanced saying this was only part of a review that was would also have a remit to look at the safety of cyclists and he pointed out the number of cyclists killed and injured in comparison to peds injured by cyclists.

The BBC headlines make this sound anti-cyclist though.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Sep 2017)

Jimidh said:


> I heard Jesse Norman this morning and thought that he was very balanced saying this was only part of a review that was would also have a remit to look at the safety of cyclists and he pointed out the number of cyclists killed and injured in comparison to peds injured by cyclists.
> 
> The BBC headlines make this sound anti-cyclist though.


You really think it won't be anti cycling? Come on, the whole thing is driven by the right wing press, taunts such as Adam Bolton, and the Briggs anti cycling campaign. Jesse Norman's job will be to appease them by restricting cycling.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> You really think it won't be anti cycling? Come on, the whole thing is driven by the right wing press, taunts such as Adam Bolton, and the Briggs anti cycling campaign. Jesse Norman's job will be to appease them by restricting cycling.


The whole thing is a knee-jerk reaction to a typical UK moral-panic about a non-issue that has ignorant nobbers foaming at the mouth on social media.

"Something must be done. We need to be seen to act."


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> I see her widower is continuing his anti cyclist campaign this morning. I wonder if he'll be acknowledging the responsibilities of pedestrians to look what's coming before stepping out in front of traffic.


You don't seriously expect a grieving widower to indulge in your sort of victim blaming so you?


----------



## oldstrath (21 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Can we please stop describing Matthew Briggs' campaign as "anti-cycling"? It isn't. It's a grief stricken man trying to make some sense out of his loss. What he is calling for isn't 'anti-cycling' - that's coming from the bandwagon-jumpers.



I'm sure that's his motivation. But the law change he is demanding would be inequitable - no ordinary jury would have the same notion of competent cycling as of competent driving, because of their car-centric experience. It also seems bizarrely pointless. Alliston has been punished - his punishment is at least as serious as that received by most drivers who kill. Why does it matter whether the label is ' furious' or 'dangerous'.

It is also anti cycling in effect because his campaigning gives opportunities to those you describe as bandwagon jumpers.

If he really wanted to improve road safety there are far more important areas to which he could direct his intelligence and determination ( both of which are admirable).


----------



## Buddfox (21 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Without any caliper or disk brake? Where?



Yep, the first thing I notice is no front brake, and then I observe how they pedal and slow down, just to confirm it's a fixie (as opposed to a SS with just a rear brake, if you are that way inclined). Along the east-west cycle superhighway occasionally, along CS8 but in particular once you get down to Kings Road, New Kings Road into Putney and Richmond.

EDIT: I should add, most days which I cycle, which is 3 to 4 times a week. Plus also to add a good number of couriers working in the City and West End also ride bikes like this.


----------



## Dan B (21 Sep 2017)

Sometimes I think I've seen bikes with no front brake and then on a second look I realise they have a crosstop lever. 

When riding my fixed wheel bike I quite often use leg braking if I want to slow down gradually instead of applying the brakes (of which I have two, thankyouverymuchforasking), mostly because I can, and also because it saves on rim wear.


----------



## youngoldbloke (21 Sep 2017)

I understand that a Single Speed (with freewheel) bike must also have a front brake fitted to be legal on the road.


----------



## youngoldbloke (21 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Yes every bike, of normal adult size, must have two independent brakes.


- except of course those with a fixed gear, which must have a front brake fitted. _Pedal Cycle Construction and Use Regulations_
_(edit: the use of pedals/fixed wheel being the second independent braking system)_


----------



## Venod (21 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> Why does it matter whether the label is ' furious' or 'dangerous'.



I think labeling it as dangerous cycling is the way to go, the case would have been a lot simpler, as riding an illegal bike must be construed as dangerous.


----------



## adscrim (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> I think labeling it as dangerous cycling is the way to go, the case would have been a lot simpler, as riding an illegal bike must be construed as dangerous.


I think I agree but I'm worried about the speed applied to the review. I'm worried that the review will ignore user groups and change the law to appease the 'voting public' - remembering the cyclists don't count because the don't even have jobs that allow them to afford cars and they all vote green or communist anyway.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> I think labeling it as dangerous cycling is the way to go, the case would have been a lot simpler, as riding an illegal bike must be construed as dangerous.


Here's a clue. The bike was illegal. There is a law already.

The problem with dangerous/ careless offences is that they talk about failure to achieve the standard of a competent driver. Courts seem to have recognised that this has no clear meaning, and operationalized it by asking juries to ' use their experience'. Most jurors will have no real experience of cycling, so will likely hold higher expectations of cycling than of driving.

The probable net effect will be to make convicting cyclists easier than convicting drivers. Having accepted death by dangerous/ careless, we'll then get the 'undecorated' dangerous/careless offences imposed, because, hey, equality with drivers, and what you or I might regard as ordinary defensive riding will be criminalised.


----------



## youngoldbloke (21 Sep 2017)

User said:


> No, that is wrong, in that there is no exception for fixed wheel bikes. The fixed wheel is a brake for this purpose.
> In common with every other adult bike, a fixed wheel bike must have a front brake to be legal on the road.


I think you will find that is what I said - I also provided a link to the Pedal Cycle Construction and Use Regulations.


----------



## Venod (21 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> Here's a clue. The bike was illegal. There is a law already.



Yes I realise that, but to be charged with having no front brake is different to being charged (under the new dangerous cycling label) with having no front brake and causing the death of a pedestrian by not having one. they had to resort to the old Victorian charge of Wanton and Dangerous Driving to secure a conviction in line with causing death by dangerous driving, I have no problem with the new wording.



oldstrath said:


> .
> The probable net effect will be to make convicting cyclists easier than convicting drivers. Having accepted death by dangerous/ careless, we'll then get the 'undecorated' dangerous/careless offences imposed, because, hey, equality with drivers, and what you or I might regard as ordinary defensive riding will be criminalised.



This is just an assumption.


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Yes every bike, of normal adult size, must have two independent brakes.


Except a visitor's bike, which only must have one brake, but a fixed wheel doesn't count for that. (UNECE 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, Article 44)

It's strange, one-braked bikes are internationally regarded as safe, but our anti-cycling government requires two, so we get to pay extra for UK-specific forks on some imported bikes.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> Yes I realise that, but to be charged with having no front brake is different to being charged (under the new dangerous cycling label) with having no front brake and causing the death of a pedestrian by not having one. they had to resort to the old Victorian charge of Wanton and Dangerous Cycling to secure a conviction in line with causing death by dangerous driving, I have no problem with the new wording.
> 
> 
> 
> This is just an assumption.


I'd call it a prediction and a warning. 

Do you really imagine it's in any way sensible to make a new law because one person unluckily died and the man responsible had to be tried under an old law?

Either this is a government of knee jerking idiots (which may be of course) or this is an attempt to restrict cyclists.


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> This is just an assumption.



An entirely logical and worrying one though. If a new law is to be introduced it needs to be very well thought out and not just a knee jerk reaction to one knob on a bike. Plus - let's look at where the real danger lies first.


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> Either this is a government of knee jerking idiots (which may be of course) or this is an attempt to restrict cyclists.


"Either"?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> I think labeling it as dangerous cycling is the way to go, the case would have been a lot simpler, as riding an illegal bike must be construed as dangerous.


No pedal reflectors dangerous?


----------



## Venod (21 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> Do you really imagine it's in any way sensible to make a new law because one person unluckily died but not surprisedand the man responsible had to be tried under an old law?



I have posted up thread somewhere that I think the Wanton and Dangerous cycling law needs bringing into the 21st century, I am just appalled but not surprised that it took the death of a pedestrian for it to be considered, I agree this is not sensible.


----------



## Venod (21 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> No pedal reflectors dangerous?



Not as dangerous as no brakes, and only needed during lighting up hours, but it is the law to have them and no doubt it would be used against you if you was without and someone rear ended you.


----------



## Venod (21 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Nothing has been brought about, yet.



Except the fact that it is been considered.


----------



## Venod (21 Sep 2017)

Adost: 4965348 said:


> An awful lot of things are considered.



I have edited my post to suit.


----------



## Venod (21 Sep 2017)

User said:


> No they didn't. They used the manslaughter charge to do that.



Yes you are right, but I think the prosecution knew if he was found not guilty of manslaughter he was still likely to receive a jail sentence if convicted of Wanton or Furious driving.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> Yes you are right, but I think the prosecution new if he was found not guilty of manslaughter he was still likely to receive a jail sentence if convicted of Wanton or Furious driving.


So how is this different from someone charged with death by dangerous driving, with the fallback of death by careless?


----------



## Venod (21 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> So how is this different from someone charged with death by dangerous driving, with the fallback of death by careless?



Because as I have already pointed out riding without a brake could be considered as dangerous cycling, I don't see how riding without a brake can be considered as Wanton or Furious Driving.

Definition of Wanton or Furious Driving.

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.

I suppose you could argue that neglecting to have a front brake is covered.


----------



## Dan B (21 Sep 2017)

As a matter of curiosity, I wonder what the braking distances were of the horse-drawn carriages that the authors of the "wanton or furious" legislation presumably had in mind when that legislation was enacted.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> Because as I have already pointed out riding without a brake could be considered as dangerous cycling, I don't see how riding without a brake can be considered as Wanton or Furious Driving.
> 
> Definition of Wanton or Furious Driving.
> 
> ...


Wilful misconduct -he rode a bike that he (should) know was not legal for road use.
Wilful neglect - he rode close to a pedestrian, arguably too quickly. 
Bodily harm - did that.

I really don't see your problem. He was judged to have breached the law, was sentenced accordingly. If the only concern is to ensure that people who do such things are punished, why does this need to be changed?


----------



## Venod (21 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> I really don't see your problem



I don't have a problem, if the law wasn't changed I still wouldn't have a problem, but I think it does no harm to bring laws that were formed in the nineteenth century up to date, one of the main differences is the maximum sentence allowed, (I am not suggesting it should be more in this case) but I think it should be the same as the dangerous driving guideline.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> I don't have a problem, if the law wasn't changed I still wouldn't have a problem, but I think it does no harm to bring laws that were formed in the nineteenth century up to date, one of the main differences is the maximum sentence allowed, (I am not suggesting it should be more in this case) but I think it should be the same as the dangerous driving guideline.



So how would you ensure that the test of 'competent and experienced cyclist' is applied in the same way, and with no more stringency, than the current competent and experienced driver test?

Think about this - I haven't driven for 20 years, so to me any mistake , however trivial most regular drivers might think it, would be careless at least. I'd happily hold drivers to almost impossible standards - I have no recent experience to temper my zeal. But most jurors aren't like me with respect to driving, so many drivers are acquitted. But most jurors will be like me for cycling. That's the big risk.

And by the way, the manslaughter charge he faced carries a higher maximum than death by dangerous.


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> I don't have a problem, if the law wasn't changed I still wouldn't have a problem, but I think it does no harm to bring laws that were formed in the nineteenth century up to date, one of the main differences is the maximum sentence allowed, (I am not suggesting it should be more in this case) but I think it should be the same as the dangerous driving guideline.



In an idea world we would have perfect laws to suit each case - in reality we need to work on priorities. In this case a knobber did something bad and was punished using an adequate law. Rather than wasting resources changing that law, perhaps they could be used to enforce the 400 times more likely situation of a motorist killing a pedestrian?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> as I have already pointed out riding without a brake could be considered as dangerous cycling



No, the relevant legislation doesn't provide for that, whereas it is specifically mentioned in the offence of dangerous driving. Dangerous cycling, at present, refers only to the manner of riding.


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

User said:


> I'm not sure why that is an issue. Alternative charges are a common things - including for motorists.


Are they common for motorists? http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...arising_from_driving_incidents/index.html#a19 contains things like "Unlawful act manslaughter should, therefore, only be charged instead of causing death by dangerous driving where there is evidence that the driver either intended to cause injury to the victim or was reckless as to whether injury would be caused" and "Gross negligence manslaughter should not be charged unless there is something to set the case apart from those cases where a statutory offence such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving could be proved."

There doesn't seem much suggestion of using manslaughter as an alternative charge to the motorist-specific driving offences, only "instead of". I'm sure I read allegations somewhere that the CPS guidance currently means few motorists face manslaughter charges.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

User said:


> No they didn't. They used the manslaughter charge to do that.


Remind me when the Act that created GBH and ABH was passed please....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

Afnug said:


> Yes you are right, but I think the prosecution knew if he was found not guilty of manslaughter he was still likely to receive a jail sentence if convicted of Wanton or Furious driving.


More likely the prosecution thought/hoped that if found guilty of the driving charge a guilty verdict had to be forthcoming for the manslaughter charge. From my reading one should logically follow the other. But juries don't like to convict for manslaughter in road traffic "accident" cases.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> Are they common for motorists? http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...arising_from_driving_incidents/index.html#a19 contains things like "Unlawful act manslaughter should, therefore, only be charged instead of causing death by dangerous driving where there is evidence that the driver either intended to cause injury to the victim or was reckless as to whether injury would be caused" and "Gross negligence manslaughter should not be charged unless there is something to set the case apart from those cases where a statutory offence such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving could be proved."
> 
> There doesn't seem much suggestion of using manslaughter as an alternative charge to the motorist-specific driving offences, only "instead of". I'm sure I read allegations somewhere that the CPS guidance currently means few motorists face manslaughter charges.


Common to be charged with both dangerous and careless offences. Common to be acquitted of both, or given a derisory sentence IF YOU'RE A DRIVER.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> No, the relevant legislation doesn't provide for that, whereas it is specifically mentioned in the offence of dangerous driving. Dangerous cycling, at present, refers only to the manner of riding.


Call me old fashioned but to this competent and careful cyclist riding a fixed gear with no front brake on the roads of central London is riding in a way that would be dangerous.


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

Poacher said:


> As @bigjim has pointed out, the headline is not the inquest report - the "collision investigator Kevin Spiller said CCTV showed the cyclist was travelling at around 24mph on Church Road, but he was *unable to tell *whether Mr Pedley had just ridden past a green or red light." according to the GloucestershireLive report of the inquest proceedings, but this wasn't good enough for the Mail, which had the cyclist running a red.
> "A cyclist who died after running down a pedestrian near a busy junction may have jumped a red light moments before the collision, an inquest has heard."
> 
> (OK, it says "may have", but that's good enough for Mail readers to make the obvious conclusion!)


I couldn't make this stuff up: police apparently said they would have prosecuted Pedley if he'd survived. I suppose at least it suggests TVP are open about how much they hate cyclists.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Call me old fashioned but to this competent and careful cyclist riding a fixed gear with no front brake on the roads of central London is riding in a way that would be dangerous.



That makes us both old-fashioned then since I am in agreement with you.


----------



## DaveReading (21 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> I couldn't make this stuff up: police apparently said they would have prosecuted Pedley if he'd survived.



I couldn't make it up either, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been. At best, the comment in the linked article is anecdotal. I don't recall any traffic cameras at that junction, so I'd be surprised if there is any evidence at all that the cyclist was travelling too fast(!) or had RLJ'd.


----------



## snorri (21 Sep 2017)

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned Presumed Liability in relation to this case. 
Possibly I'm missing something? .
http://www.roadshare.co.uk/


----------



## oldstrath (21 Sep 2017)

snorri said:


> I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned Presumed Liability in relation to this case.
> Possibly I'm missing something? .
> http://www.roadshare.co.uk/


Isn't that about civil liability?


----------



## GuyBoden (21 Sep 2017)

snorri said:


> I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned Presumed Liability in relation to this case.
> Possibly I'm missing something? .
> http://www.roadshare.co.uk/


If the UK introduced "Presumed Liability" like Denmark, Germany and Holland etc, the driver (or rider if a pedestrian was involved) of the vehicle would be held liable for collisions until proven otherwise.


----------



## jefmcg (21 Sep 2017)

snorri said:


> I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned Presumed Liability in relation to this case.
> Possibly I'm missing something? .
> http://www.roadshare.co.uk/



Because we don't have presumed liability in the UK
You are missing something



McWobble said:


> a cyclist is unlikely to risk life and limb on some presumed liability point





McWobble said:


> If you want presumed liability - this is what it means.


----------



## jefmcg (21 Sep 2017)

albion said:


> In the meantime we have had so many of the more usual tragic vehicle accidents, somethat could have been prevented with real regulation.



Yes. Where is the Government's urgent review into motorway safety after a dozen people have died in two horrific crashes in the past month?


----------



## snorri (21 Sep 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Because we don't have presumed liability in the UK


I know we don't have it, but there has been a campaign to adopt it in this country, does this case strength or weaken the case for adoption?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

In other news : "oh **** off you knee-jerking tory nobbers with your making our roads safer bollox! Where have you been the last fifty years?" screams grumpy bike rider on seeing conservative central office cashing in on social media.


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> In other news : "oh **** off you knee-jerking tory nobbers with your making our roads safer bollox! Where have you been the last fifty years?" screams grumpy bike rider on seeing conservative central office cashing in on social media.


Do you really think they're going to do anything to make roads safer? As in properly safer, Vision-Zero or sustainable-safety-style, not just try to reduce numbers of walkers and cyclists even further?

Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst!


----------



## AndyMack (21 Sep 2017)

What will happen is cyclists will have to have liability insurance, bikes will have twice yearly safety checks and will be linked by tracker/licence plate to a government scheme...all bringing revenue to the coffers and a minimal percentage of said revenue will go back into making cycling safer/providing more cycle lanes. 

You heard it here first kids.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> Do you really think they're going to do anything to make roads safer? As in properly safer, Vision-Zero or sustainable-safety-style, not just try to reduce numbers of walkers and cyclists even further?
> 
> Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst!


I used the word bollox. Of course the daffodils won't make the roads safer.


----------



## srw (21 Sep 2017)

AndyMack said:


> What will happen is cyclists will have to have liability insurance, bikes will have twice yearly safety checks and will be linked by tracker/licence plate to a government scheme...all bringing revenue to the coffers and a minimal percentage of said revenue will go back into making cycling safer/providing more cycle lanes.
> 
> You heard it here first kids.


Not a snowball's chance in hell.


----------



## jefmcg (21 Sep 2017)

AndyMack said:


> What will happen is cyclists will have to have liability insurance, bikes will have twice yearly safety checks and will be linked by tracker/licence plate to a government scheme...all bringing revenue to the coffers and a minimal percentage of said revenue will go back into making cycling safer/providing more cycle lanes.
> 
> You heard it here first kids.


We would come in as a zero emission vehicle, so VED would be £0. So no money would go into any government coffers, but literally millions would be spent on keeping track of every single bike frame in the UK and who owns them, and police time would be wasted enforcing it. And money would also be spent on scrapping all the bikes that would end up dumped as it's too complicated to bother registering them.


Edit: or to put it another way


srw said:


> Not a snowball's chance in hell.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> If he really wanted to improve road safety there are far more important areas to which he could direct his intelligence and determination ( both of which are admirable).


Jebus. You think he is being rational? FFS, he lost his wife and had his children orphaned in a ghastly, untimely and utterly avoidable way because some nobber with issues had an ego that was out of control.

I'd be gunning down brakeless fixie riders in the street!


----------



## AndyMack (21 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Not a snowball's chance in hell.



We live in a nation that extorts the public for every penny they can, do you seriously think if legislation comes in it won't have a fiscal penalty attached?


----------



## srw (21 Sep 2017)

AndyMack said:


> We live in a nation that extorts the public for every penny they can, do you seriously think *if *legislation comes in it won't have a fiscal penalty attached?


I've highlighted the important word in your sentence. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of legislation. The only non-Brexit legislation that will pass in the next couple of years will be extremely uncontroversial because it will have to have all-party support. What you're suggesting is not extremely uncontroversial.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

AndyMack said:


> We live in a nation that extorts the public for every penny they can, do you seriously think if legislation comes in it won't have a fiscal penalty attached?


Extorts? I think not.

and if it were true why zero VED on some cars. Is there still not VAT on aircraft fuel?


----------



## AndyMack (21 Sep 2017)

Perhaps I'm just an old cynic, but wherever I see media outrage I see pound signs. 
Someone's always gotta pay.


----------



## classic33 (21 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> No pedal reflectors dangerous?


If pedals aren't fitted at the time of sale/purchase?


----------



## classic33 (21 Sep 2017)

_7. *Cycling furiously Cyclists cannot be booked for speeding, but under the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act , they can be fined for 'cycling furiously'. *Under the Offences Against the Person Act 186 cyclists can be convicted and imprisoned for up to two years if found guilty of “wanton and furious driving,” which causes injury to someone other than themselves. Under Section 28 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is an offence for cyclists to ride recklessly or in dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner._
 Cycling Offences


----------



## al78 (22 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Jebus. You think he is being rational? FFS, he lost his wife and had his children orphaned in a ghastly, untimely and utterly avoidable way because some nobber with issues had an ego that was out of control.



Unfortunately not, when it comes to humans, emotion dominates rational thought. Hence the consideration for a new law to combat a scenario which happens on average once every few years, and for which existing laws can be used to bring a prosecution, as happened in this case.



GrumpyGregry said:


> I'd be gunning down brakeless fixie riders in the street!



That would be equally irrational. Why should other brakeless fixie riders be gunned down for the actions of one who had nothing to do with them? Is the death penalty really appropriate? After I was nearly killed by a careless driver I didn't feel any desire to go around gunning down Audi drivers towing big trailers, in fact quite the opposite, I felt empathy and forgiveness for the driver concerned.


----------



## EnPassant (23 Sep 2017)

No front brake, so in practice, no effective braking at all. Yes yes she stepped out, he shouted etc etc. No front brake? End. 

(engineering types can come up with the exact percentage front/rear but basically it's all front, the shorter and faster the requirement the more it's front end, on a bike right up to the friction co-efficient that results in an endo afaik).

96 pages to point this out? Ok.

Helpful to the image of cyclists in oh so many ways*.

*Off to take my prescription "anti-sarcasm pill".


----------



## PK99 (23 Sep 2017)

EnPassant said:


> No front brake, so in practice, no effective braking at all. Yes yes she stepped out, he shouted etc etc. No front brake? End.
> 
> (engineering types can come up with the exact percentage front/rear but basically it's all front, the shorter and faster the requirement the more it's front end, on a bike right up to the friction co-efficient that results in an endo afaik).
> 
> ...




I pointed it out well up thread and linked to the Blessed Sheldon for chapter and verse.


----------



## jefmcg (23 Sep 2017)

EnPassant said:


> No front brake? End.


According to the judge, he would have hit her even if he had a front brake. Brakes are only effective if you use them.
"On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’"


----------



## Alan O (23 Sep 2017)

jefmcg said:


> According to the judge, he would have hit her even if he had a front brake. Brakes are only effective if you use them.
> "On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’"


Not quite. Saying he _did_ not try to slow is not the same as saying he _would_ not have tried to slow had he had a front brake. We can't know the latter (although I suspect you're right and he wouldn't).


----------



## EnPassant (23 Sep 2017)

PK99 said:


> I pointed it out well up thread and linked to the Blessed Sheldon for chapter and verse.





User said:


> And your "reading the thread pill"



Yeah, you got me. I did skim it. 
In my defence I still get the night shivers over the time I spent removing the wheat from the chaff in the helmet thread before commenting, and yeah, I know that's not good enough, but it's all I have.


----------



## mjr (26 Sep 2017)

EnPassant said:


> No front brake, so in practice, no effective braking at all.


That's not true in law, is it? While a front brake may be better than only a rear, farking band brakes are still regarded as effective enough to be legal and many other types of rear brake are going to beat a pair of most band brakes.

Actually, it looks like you can still have spoon brakes if you ride solid tyres (PCUR 1983 only explicitly excludes brakes that act on pneumatic tyres), but with the price of solid tyres, I'd be astonished if anyone did that.


----------



## User482 (27 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Here is a report in The Argus of a case of a driver prosecuted for driving dangerously because the vehicle was inherently dangerous.


According to the report, this is her fifth conviction and eighth offence.


----------



## User269 (27 Sep 2017)

I'm watching out for the sentence in the Carol Boardman case. I'm assuming there won't be a custodial sentence, or any substantial driving ban.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

User269 said:


> I'm watching out for the sentence in the Carol Boardman case. I'm assuming there won't be a custodial sentence, or any substantial driving ban.


Before you assume, have a read of this...
http://www.road-peace.org.uk/resources/RoadPeace Sentencing of Causing Death by Driving offences England Wales.pdf







Those are the _actual_ sentences handed down for the 65% of people whose charge of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving resulted in a conviction. 90% of charges of Causing Death by Careless Driving resulted in a conviction (including some who were charged with the more serious offence but convicted of the less serious offence), with the following sentences:





One someone's been charged, a conviction is more likely than not. A conviction for Death by Dangerous Driving is much more likely than not to result in immediate imprisonment. A not guilty plea (as in this case) increases any sentence.


----------



## bigjim (27 Sep 2017)

Our local CTC club has received this letter from the local council.



> From the Parliamentary
> Under Secretary of State
> Jesse Norman MP
> Great Minster House
> ...


----------



## Bollo (27 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> Our local CTC club has received this letter from the local council.


The Grauniad had an op ed on this from a day or two ago. Finding link.....
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...to-behave-is-more-headline-grabbing-hypocrisy
Apologies if already linked.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2017)

bigjim said:


> Our local CTC club has received this letter from the local council.



Sounds as if it's worth a call to CTC towers - one might hope that advice on an appropriate reply and local publicity is being prepared.


----------



## Bollo (28 Sep 2017)

*Mod Note
*
The vehicle automation posts from this thread been moved to a new thread here. Please use the new thread for any further discussion of self-drive and automated vehicles.
If I've missed anything or you think a post has been moved inappropriately, report it and we'll take a look. Thanks all.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Sep 2017)

by John Baker on Twitter


----------



## jefmcg (28 Sep 2017)

User482 said:


> Anyway, here's the judgement: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf


The most shocking sentence in the PDF (something that obviously came up in evidence but I hadn't read anywhere else) is wha he was doing on Old Street.



> , in your words, your girl-friend had told you to go and kill time for ½ hour.



So he was in a tremendous hurry to get back to where he started.


----------



## Malky (28 Sep 2017)

Well this guy has done a lot of damage to the Briggs family, and will have upset a lot of cyclists as we know too well how many wish to compare us as all the same. See what comes of it all.


----------



## GuyBoden (6 Oct 2017)

Interesting reading, Collision Mortality Stats:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJHLrf9XoAAO8p7.jpg


----------



## jefmcg (6 Oct 2017)

GuyBoden said:


> Interesting reading, Collision Mortality Stats:
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJHLrf9XoAAO8p7.jpg


Not sure why you didn't embed it?





That's rather worrying. According to the Dft, bicycles travel a little over 1% of the annual distance travelled by cars, yet the relative fatality rate is 1.7% of cars. I'd hope it to be much smaller not 70% greater.

Obviously the total is pretty small, so presumably could be represent an anomaly, but maybe we are a greater hazard than we think to other vulnerable road users.


----------



## oldstrath (6 Oct 2017)

If the effect is real, which is debatable given small numbers and the difficulty of measuring miles travelled, there are certainly plausible reasons. Cyclists and pedestrians are often in closer contact than is sensible ( shared use as well as less legitimate occasions), the lack of noise and lack of fear may also be factors. There may well be messages about how we should behave, but also about facility design.


----------

