# Another cyclist jailed



## PK99 (3 Nov 2017)

CCTV shows boy, 4, mown down by cyclist - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-41842047


----------



## mjr (3 Nov 2017)

I think I read somewhere that this was another brainless brakeless wonder, but I didn't find the report again by searching newsnow because of all the reports of cyclists being mown down by motorists... so I guess at least it seems it's being reported somewhere when cyclists are hurt too, which hasn't always been the case.


----------



## Slick (3 Nov 2017)

Rightly so. I know that won't be popular and the same level of punishment should be handed down to drivers who hit cyclists.


----------



## Racing roadkill (3 Nov 2017)

I’ve got no time for the idiots that ride like this. There’s a time and a place, when there’s peds about, isn’t it. With great powwwerrrr comes great responsibility. They need to take heed of this.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Rightly so. I know that won't be popular and the same level of punishment should be handed down to drivers who hit cyclists.


That would be nice. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514


----------



## Slick (3 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> That would be nice.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514


Couldn't even read the article when I saw the headlines and the picture. Something doesn't seem right.


----------



## smutchin (3 Nov 2017)

Why is it that cyclists always “mow down” pedestrians, but cars are “in a collision with” cyclists?


----------



## jefmcg (3 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> Why is it that cyclists always “mow down” pedestrians, but cars are “in a collision with” cyclists?


I've seen "cyclist collided with lorry" much more often than the reverse.


----------



## JoshM (3 Nov 2017)

Good. He did something he knew he should not have been doing and injured someone as a result so he has been punished.


----------



## oldwheels (3 Nov 2017)

Cars never or very rarely collide with cyclists. Mostly careless cyclists collide with cars. Don’t start shouting at me I only report what the media ( who could not possibly have made it up) say.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> Why is it that cyclists always “mow down” pedestrians, but cars are “in a collision with” cyclists?


Just read the article i linked above. A preschooler was crushed under the wheel of a van, and the article styles that "knocked down".


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> That would be nice.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514



See also the case of 5yr old Lennon Toland, killed on a pavement by a van driver accessing a makeshift car park. Council subsequently installed bollards to block it but they were ripped out by vandals and that company's vans are still using it. Nobody was even charged, let alone tried.


----------



## smutchin (3 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Just read the article i linked above. A preschooler was crushed under the wheel of a van, and the article styles that "knocked down".



It would be funny if it weren't so appalling.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Just read the article i linked above. A preschooler was crushed under the wheel of a van, and the article styles that "knocked down".



The driver was found not guilty, thus you need to be careful how you describe the incident.


----------



## smutchin (3 Nov 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> The driver was found not guilty, thus you need to be careful how you describe the incident.



He used his van to kill a child who wasn’t even in the road. He’s an utter daffodil.

If they couldn’t convict him for that it’s because they brought the wrong charges.

ETA: Highway Code 
*Rule 145*
You *MUST NOT* drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
*Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34
*
If a cyclist can get 27 weeks in prison for injuring a child when riding where he shouldn’t, how on earth is it possible that a driver can be found not guilty for crushing a child to death when driving where he shouldn’t? There is something seriously farked up about this, and the highly politicised rhetoric used in reporting the cases hints at the underlying problem, namely a strong anti-cyclist agenda. It’s nothing to do with being careful how you report things, it’s all about absolving the mistakes of motorists.


----------



## Slick (3 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> It would be funny if it weren't so appalling.


I don't think so.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Nov 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> See also the case of 5yr old Lennon Toland, killed on a pavement by a van driver accessing a makeshift car park. Council subsequently installed bollards to block it but they were ripped out by vandals and that company's vans are still using it. Nobody was even charged, let alone tried.


Like @Slick with my link, I couldn't get through that article.


Pale Rider said:


> The driver was found not guilty, thus you need to be careful how you describe the incident.


I'm not asking them to use "mown down". In fact, I'd rather the BBC never used that tabloid language. But how about "knocked down" for the cyclist, and "run over" for the van driver?

Note: I am happy that peanut cyclist is in jail. I just think that anyone who drives on a pavement that they don't know 100% is clear of people should also go to jail if they hit someone, no matter how upset they are.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (3 Nov 2017)

*Mod note:*

This seems to be straying away from the subject of the original post already. What motorists get away with is a seperate discussion if anyone would like to start a new thread.


----------



## smutchin (3 Nov 2017)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> What motorists get away with is a seperate discussion



No it isn’t. It’s context that helps to understand the story. Yes, the cyclist is guilty of a crime but the 27 week sentence is ridiculously excessive and looking at comparable cases and the way they are reported helps to highlight the underlying anti-cyclist agenda.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (3 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> No it isn’t. It’s context that helps to understand the story. Yes, the cyclist is guilty of a crime but the 27 week sentence is ridiculously excessive and looking at comparable cases and the way they are reported helps to highlight the underlying anti-cyclist agenda.


Using it as context is fair enough but if the discussion continues to be about the incident with the van rather than the one with the cyclist then it will need to be in a thread of its own.


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2017)

I think what did it for this chap is that he was warned not to ride in the pedestrianised area just the day before. He had his chance to modify his behaviour and didn't, and the Court will regard that with a solemn frown.

The rhetoric around cyclists collisions is definitely skewed though. Badly injure a kid and (quite rightly) then press portray you as a slavering loon who eats orphans for breakfast. Kill 8 with your HGV and you're simply a "36 year old Romanian lorry driver" - the press rarely seem keen to whip up hysteria towards their motorised brethren


----------



## Cronorider (3 Nov 2017)

He's getting off lightly IMO.


----------



## Banjo (4 Nov 2017)

He got what he deserved . Riding with no regard for others injured a child.Ignored a warning .

I cant see how anyone can think he was hard done by .


----------



## jefmcg (4 Nov 2017)

Banjo said:


> I cant see how anyone can think he was hard done by .


I don't think anyone thinks he is hard done by.

There's really not much to say about this case, which is why we quickly drifted off topic.


----------



## smutchin (4 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I don't think anyone thinks he is hard done by.



I do. I think the sentence is wildly excessive and I’m disappointed that the general kneejerk reaction is hang’im and flog’im.


----------



## Banjo (4 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> I do. I think the sentence is wildly excessive and I’m disappointed that the general kneejerk reaction is hang’im and flog’im.



I don't think the parents of the child would agree with you.


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> I do. I think the sentence is wildly excessive and I’m disappointed that the general kneejerk reaction is hang’im and flog’im.


I agree. He's a young idiot and should be held to account, but six months reflects a vengeful hysteria among the population at large rather than even an attempt at justice. The question is not whether it's 'fair' - you can argue about that endlessly without getting anywhere - but whether it's proportionate to sentences for comparable offences. When, as noted above, a driver can be let off scot-free after crushing a child on a pavement, it's hard to see how the answer can be anything but no.


----------



## mustang1 (4 Nov 2017)

What a pillock cyclist. Dumb ass. I hope the little boy recovers very quickly.


----------



## jefmcg (4 Nov 2017)

Banjo said:


> I don't think the parents of the child would agree with you.


That's not how we do justice in our society.


----------



## smutchin (4 Nov 2017)

Banjo said:


> I don't think the parents of the child would agree with you.



Don’t let sentimentality cloud your judgment.


----------



## roadrash (4 Nov 2017)

Another horrible tale of drug/drink driver killing a cyclist in Manchester, he was sentenced this week..

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ster-news/gosh-cars-going-fast-young-13856843


----------



## Slick (4 Nov 2017)

roadrash said:


> Another horrible tale of drug/drink driver killing a cyclist in Manchester, he was sentenced this week..
> 
> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ster-news/gosh-cars-going-fast-young-13856843


Wow, that's disgusting, 8 years is nothing for killing someone.


----------



## Big Andy (4 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> I do. I think the sentence is wildly excessive and I’m disappointed that the general kneejerk reaction is hang’im and flog’im.


I think its just about right as a sentence. Or would be if that was actually the time served but as we know he may just serve about 1/2 that.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Wow, that's disgusting, 8 years is nothing for killing someone.



Try 4 years.
"An 18-year-old student has been jailed after he admitted killing a man during a confrontation in Oxford city centre."

(pushed him off his bicycle and kicked him in retaliation of an earlier incident)


----------



## Drago (5 Nov 2017)

Even a full 8 years is ridiculous, particularly as he'll be able to avail himself of a drivers licence once again.


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Try 112 days
> "An 18-year-old student has been jailed after he admitted killing a man during a confrontation in Oxford city centre."
> 
> (pushed him off his bicycle and kicked him in retaliation of an earlier incident)



The sentence is four years, reduced by 112 days because he's been curfewed electronically - tagged - on bail.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Nov 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> The sentence is four years, reduced by 112 days because he's been curfewed electronically - tagged - on bail.


Ugh. Thanks. Read "by" as "to".


----------



## Bonefish Blues (5 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Try 4 years.
> "An 18-year-old student has been jailed after he admitted killing a man during a confrontation in Oxford city centre."
> 
> (pushed him off his bicycle and kicked him in retaliation of an earlier incident).


4 years, reduced by time on (tagged) bail, I read.


----------



## Slick (5 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Try 4 years.
> "An 18-year-old student has been jailed after he admitted killing a man during a confrontation in Oxford city centre."
> 
> (pushed him off his bicycle and kicked him in retaliation of an earlier incident)


Yeah, your right, that is worse. Just what do you have to do to get a life sentence for murder now? When did a sorry mate, I didn't mean to kill you become a defence? Crazy.


----------



## smutchin (5 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5027696, member: 9609"]nor yours[/QUOTE]

If you’re imagining that I’m inclined towards leniency because he’s a cyclist, let me make it clear that I’m not. I just don’t think that a custodial sentence is appropriate in this type of case, where a person has caused injury (serious but not life-threatening) through recklessness and idiocy rather than with malice aforethought.

The guilty verdict is correct, the sentence isn’t. I suppose it comes down to what you think is the purpose of prison. For me, it should never be used as a purely retributive measure. Hence the feelings of the parents are irrelevant.

Why I’m concerned with the comparison between this and cases like the earlier mentioned van driver is not that the van driver escaped prison, but that he wasn’t found guilty of what is blatantly a crime - that of driving in a place where the law expressly forbids it (on the pavement) and killing someone as a result.

How is it possible that the cyclist can be found guilty of a crime and the van driver not? Well, it partly depends on what charges are brought... After the Alliston case, we were told that the law relating to cycling needed to be reviewed but clearly the law was able to find Alliston guilty of the crime he had committed, and again the cyclist was found guilty in this case. That the van driver was found not guilty shows that it’s the law relating to motoring offences that’s in serious need of review.

Also bear in mind why the police have released this footage: to highlight exactly why cycling in pedestrian areas is not a good idea. Which is fine. A good idea, in fact. Education is a good thing. Unfortunately, that’s not the effect the video has created. Instead it has become yet another stick with which to beat cyclists as part of the prevailing anti-cyclist narrative. And yet it remains the case that it is not cyclists, as a category of road user, who are the major problem in society, as the road death stats so readily reveal.


----------



## PK99 (5 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> If you’re imagining that I’m inclined towards leniency because he’s a cyclist, let me make it clear that I’m not. I just don’t think that a custodial sentence is appropriate in this type of case, where a person has caused injury (serious but not life-threatening) through recklessness and idiocy* rather than with malice aforethought*.
> 
> T.




He had been stopped and warned the day before that cycling in that area was expressly forbidden as it was a pedestrian only zone.

Is the ignoring of that warning not indicative of an element of *malice aforethought.?*


----------



## smutchin (5 Nov 2017)

PK99 said:


> indicative of an element of *malice aforethought.?*



No, it’s an _*aggravating factor*_.


----------



## swee'pea99 (5 Nov 2017)

PK99 said:


> Is the ignoring of that warning not indicative of an element of *malice aforethought.?*


In what sense? Malice aforethought is, as the words would suggest, "the intention to kill or harm". I don't think anyone's suggesting he deliberately set out to injure anyone.


----------



## smutchin (5 Nov 2017)

It does raise an interesting question though: why did he continue to cycle through the pedestrianised area when he’d been warned not to?

I don’t know Windsor but I’ve cycled through the pedestrianised bit of Bromley High St a number of times because the alternatives are: 1) getting off and walking, 2) mixing with traffic on the dual carriageway bypass, 3) taking a much longer way round. I’m not trying to justify or excuse lawbreaking, but it’s worth looking at the bigger picture and considering if it’s possible to design public spaces to prevent situations like this arising in the first place. It’s part of the reason there are pedestrianised areas in town centres - creating safe spaces - but it’s a shame that cycling provision often falls by the wayside when these pedestrian facilities are installed (bikes are just coralled off with the motor traffic onto roads that are now even busier than before). Even with proper cycling facilities you can’t stop someone riding like a dick if they’re intent on riding like a dick, but improved cycling provision could potentially mitigate the dangers to others. (Of course, if you are going to cycle in pedestrianised areas then at the very least you should slow the fark down.)


----------



## mjr (6 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> It’s part of the reason there are pedestrianised areas in town centres - creating safe spaces - but it’s a shame that cycling provision often falls by the wayside when these pedestrian facilities are installed (bikes are just coralled off with the motor traffic onto roads that are now even busier than before).


It's not a shame - it's a scandal. The guidance on creating pedestrian areas issued in 1987 said "Exemptions for cyclists should be considered if satisfactory routes for them around a proposed pedestrian zone do not exist and cannot be created. As it is generally impracticable to require cyclists to dismount, it is essential that the route or routes used by cyclists should be clearly defined." That was strengthened in 1993 to "Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas" (TAL 9/93).

Thinking has moved on about some aspects (such as the merits of defining a cycle track where there's no residual carriageway for delivery vehicles) but basically it's been 30 bloody years and still most councils and police are wasting resources and inciting hatred instead of following the guidance to provide safe conditions for both cycling and walking. They are partly to blame for the general disregard of cycling bans because they've overused them.



smutchin said:


> (Of course, if you are going to cycle in pedestrianised areas then at the very least you should slow the fark down.)


Of course. Even if cycling is permitted somewhere, riding faster than is safe or skimming walkers is not. We might free up some police to deal with that sort of thing by revoking the distracting irrational cycling bans. I salute Norwich City Council and Norfolk Police for having the guts to do that in Norwich at the moment.


----------



## smutchin (6 Nov 2017)

Thanks, @mjr, that's really useful info. And it all chimes with what I instinctively know to be true - not least based on my Bromley experience.

I've had a look at Windsor on Google maps and there is a cycle route along the river but it's not clear if it really constitutes a viable alternative to Peascod Street. I also note that one of the main roads bypassing the town centre has been narrowed to provide parking along one side of the road.


----------



## jefmcg (6 Nov 2017)

smutchin said:


> Thanks, @mjr, that's really useful info. And it all chimes with what I instinctively know to be true - not least based on my Bromley experience.
> 
> I've had a look at Windsor on Google maps and there is a cycle route along the river but it's not clear if it really constitutes a viable alternative to Peascod Street. I also note that one of the main roads bypassing the town centre has been narrowed to provide parking along one side of the road.


All pretty irrelevant in this case. The B roads are pretty good around Windsor, and he was heading to Legoland, which unavoidably would take him on the most dangerous of them.


----------



## MacB (6 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5026919, member: 9609"]bit of a joke 27 weeks, will probably be out in 9. should have been at least a year, two would be more like it.[/QUOTE]

Do you have any ideas on how we fund the additional resources and prison building to make your custodial desires a reality?


----------



## mjr (6 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> All pretty irrelevant in this case. The B roads are pretty good around Windsor, and he was heading to Legoland, which unavoidably would take him on the most dangerous of them.


Pretty irrelevant to why cycling's banned on Peascod Street. There looks to be a defined carriageway and farking delivery lorries are allowed on 6am-10am and 5pm-8pm (recently shortened) but not cycles ever. The only impediment I've spotted is one cafe having seating blocking the carriageway (10am-5pm only?). It's rather incomprehensible why the council didn't implement the 30-year-old guidance and allow cycling the last time they remade the traffic order to change the delivery times.





It's also noticeable that "no cycling" at the castle end is missing from the large, noticeable, main restriction sign and is on a CCTV post on the opposite corner, further away from the entrance to the road. A cynic would say that the sign positions are designed to be more difficult for cyclists than motorists.




OK, the pedestrianised street is busy and you'd have to go slow (the cobbled sections would surely slow most cyclists anyway!), but the alternative roads seem hogged by motorists. Turning 90 degrees:





That's a bit of an aside though, as the cyclist in the OP should have been investigated over the collision, regardless of the restriction.


----------



## smutchin (6 Nov 2017)

This is the Google view of Victoria Street, which looks like the most obvious _legal_ route for getting from the Castle to the other end of Peascod Street - road narrowed due to parking provision along one side, delivery lorry on double yellows on the other...





It doesn't in any way excuse the idiot but you can see why someone might choose to ride along Peascod Street rather than this.


----------



## smutchin (12 Nov 2017)

User said:


> If a person isn't happy to ride on that, where would they ride?



Depends what the alternatives are...


----------



## smutchin (12 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5036967, member: 9609"]It is the deterrent factor of prison that I feel is the most important, it is the consequence that most frightens me and as such I guess the consequence that will most likely deter others.[/quote]

When it comes to motoring offences, fear of the consequences is somewhat negated by poor enforcement - based on past experience, motorists (and cyclists) generally expect to get away with it...



> Put up taxes and build more prisons



Yes, we really do need to bring back Victorian values. That's exactly what would solve the problem.


----------

