Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[GrumpyGregry]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

I have lost count of the number of times I have said this.

This will make it countless plus one then

 

[Pale Rider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A more even-handed view is they are designed to do both.

Wrong. Fact.

 

[MacB]

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]

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.