Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

bendertherobot

Well, Kaya Burgess confirms:

"Oh for goodness sake. It was a f**k-up by a new data person who misread the figures. It was taken down immediately with huge apologies."

Fairy nuff. Don't they have editors on newspapers anymore?

meursault

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, Kaya Burgess confirms:

"Oh for goodness sake. It was a f**k-up by a new data person who misread the figures. It was taken down immediately with huge apologies."

Fairy nuff. Don't they have editors on newspapers anymore?

Is it fair enough though?

The hysterical anti-cycling culture is fuelled by this kind of misrepresentation. What is the root of such an attitude? Vehicle economics?

bendertherobot

meursault wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, Kaya Burgess confirms:

"Oh for goodness sake. It was a f**k-up by a new data person who misread the figures. It was taken down immediately with huge apologies."

Fairy nuff. Don't they have editors on newspapers anymore?

Is it fair enough though?

The hysterical anti-cycling culture is fuelled by this kind of misrepresentation. What is the root of such an attitude? Vehicle economics?

Don't worry, I was negating my first with my second comment.

Thing is, the new data person isn't responsible for the story, only finding the data. So who wrote it and what did they ask/say to the data person? It's a bit fishy.

graeme_s-2

What was the thrust of the article? “Look at these shocking statistics” or was it an article about a collision that just included the graph for extra info?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

So now the news article is serious injuries or deaths to cyclists, why was it so high in the 80s (~6500) and then dipped around 2003 to ~2300, before steadily rising again to 2010?

Inflation rates and people trying to save money by cycling, so number of bikes on the road increased and the percentage of accidents/deaths for the number of riders did not change much through the decades?

Does it follow trends in UK car ownership?

bendertherobot

Graeme_S wrote:

What was the thrust of the article? “Look at these shocking statistics” or was it an article about a collision that just included the graph for extra info?

A 73-year-old woman has died on Oxford Street after being struck by a cyclist.

The pedestrian suffered serious head injuries. The cyclist was arrested at the scene but not in connection with the crash. Police checks showed he was wanted in connection with an unrelated offence involving criminal damage.

The death comes a fortnight after Charlie Alliston, 20, was convicted of “wanton or furious driving” following the death of the mother-of-two Kim Briggs. He collided with Mrs Briggs as she crossed Old Street in London. He faces up to two years in prison.

Mrs Briggs’s husband, Matthew Briggs, is campaigning for a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling.

He told The Guardian: “There’s a gap between an 1861 act, which is for horses and carriages, and manslaughter. It’s way too big a gap. The law needs to catch up.”

About 400 pedestrians are killed on UK roads each year. Statistics show that one or two of these are struck by bicycles.

This week’s incident happened at about 4.30pm on Tuesday. The victim, who has not yet been identified, was taken to hospital but was declared dead yesterday.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said that the cyclist stopped at the scene of the crash and that no arrests had been made in connection with the incident.

● Two graphs have been removed from this article due to errors

meursault

bendertherobot wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

What was the thrust of the article? “Look at these shocking statistics” or was it an article about a collision that just included the graph for extra info?

A 73-year-old woman has died on Oxford Street after being struck by a cyclist.

The pedestrian suffered serious head injuries. The cyclist was arrested at the scene but not in connection with the crash. Police checks showed he was wanted in connection with an unrelated offence involving criminal damage.

The death comes a fortnight after Charlie Alliston, 20, was convicted of “wanton or furious driving” following the death of the mother-of-two Kim Briggs. He collided with Mrs Briggs as she crossed Old Street in London. He faces up to two years in prison.

Mrs Briggs’s husband, Matthew Briggs, is campaigning for a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling.

He told The Guardian: “There’s a gap between an 1861 act, which is for horses and carriages, and manslaughter. It’s way too big a gap. The law needs to catch up.”

About 400 pedestrians are killed on UK roads each year. Statistics show that one or two of these are struck by bicycles.

This week’s incident happened at about 4.30pm on Tuesday. The victim, who has not yet been identified, was taken to hospital but was declared dead yesterday.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said that the cyclist stopped at the scene of the crash and that no arrests had been made in connection with the incident.

● Two graphs have been removed from this article due to errors

So, we need to change the law (According to Briggs) for these exceptional cases, but we barely recognise the 398 or 399 deaths by cars? It's insane.

The maximum prison sentence the court can impose for causing death by dangerous driving or careless
driving under the influence of drink or drugs is 14 years; for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving it
is five years; and for causing death by driving whilst unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured it is two years. The
maximum sentence is reserved for rare cases where blame is exceptionally high.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Death-by-driving-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdf

If you've caused death by danger or carelessness, that should be an indication that you are unfit to drive a motor vehicle again. You do do not possess the basic human skills to function with that machinery.

Why do we feel it is a right, that we we should be able to drive and not a privilege?

bendertherobot

I'm not sure he's necessarily wrong about that.

But, first, we need a causing serious injury by careless driving.

Thing is, if we have a new law for causing death by dangerous cycling then a) if there are no prosecutions then we're behaving b) if there are prosecutions there was a risk. Legislation is based on risk. The only question is how many more prosecutions there would be if we had parity across the board.

Against that backdrop my view is that,the relative lack of section 28-30 RTA 1988 prosecutions being brought is because they don't really happen very much and not because the CPS are faced with cases where injury has been caused and aren't bringing proceedings because those offences are currently lightly sentenced.

kleinstroker

bendertherobot wrote:

I'm not sure he's necessarily wrong about that.

But, first, we need a causing serious injury by careless driving.

Thing is, if we have a new law for causing death by dangerous cycling then a) if there are no prosecutions then we're behaving b) if there are prosecutions there was a risk. Legislation is based on risk. The only question is how many more prosecutions there would be if we had parity across the board.

Against that backdrop my view is that,the relative lack of section 28-30 RTA 1988 prosecutions being brought is because they don't really happen very much and not because the CPS are faced with cases where injury has been caused and aren't bringing proceedings because those offences are currently lightly sentenced.

Absolutely this.

thistle_

NitrousOxide wrote:

So now the news article is serious injuries or deaths to cyclists, why was it so high in the 80s (~6500) and then dipped around 2003 to ~2300, before steadily rising again to 2010?

Under reporting? Police not recording KSIs as such? (they didn't record mine in 2007? as such) More awareness of the issue recently?

meursault

bendertherobot wrote:

I'm not sure he's necessarily wrong about that.

But, first, we need a causing serious injury by careless driving.

Thing is, if we have a new law for causing death by dangerous cycling then a) if there are no prosecutions then we're behaving b) if there are prosecutions there was a risk. Legislation is based on risk. The only question is how many more prosecutions there would be if we had parity across the board.

Against that backdrop my view is that,the relative lack of section 28-30 RTA 1988 prosecutions being brought is because they don't really happen very much and not because the CPS are faced with cases where injury has been caused and aren't bringing proceedings because those offences are currently lightly sentenced.

Yes, it did occur to me, after my incoherent post, that demand for such a law change isn't there.

And I understand how "Man bites dog" is news, but I still feel there is an anti cycling culture dominating here.

bendertherobot

Sentence is today, as I recall.

niblue

bendertherobot wrote:

Sentence is today, as I recall.

The Old Bailey site says the sentencing should start at 10:30 this morning.

gabriel959

More cyclist bashing in the press I imagine.

bendertherobot

I'd wager 18.

bendertherobot

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how good I am.

slowbike

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/ ... 1031-1.law

Well - that'll draw a whole load of discussion as to whether 18 months is enough for killing someone. The difficulty I can see is that it won't be seen as anywhere near enough time for taking the life of another, however, he didn't intentionally set out to do that and the only things he did wrong was ride without a front brake, hit someone and get caught for it - oh, and not accept that he had done anything wrong.

bompington

My immediate reaction: I wonder how many drivers have got as much as 18 months for killing at the wheel?

niblue

Average sentence for causing death by careless driving is 14 months, and for causing death by dangerous it's 57 months.

fenix

Just had quick look - outrage at how little he got. Anyone got any examples of motorists killing and getting less ?

1. http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... edy-206737 4 cyclists killed £180 fine

bendertherobot

niblue wrote:

Average sentence for causing death by careless driving is 14 months, and for causing death by dangerous it's 57 months.

Saves me finding some stats.

Worth adding too that Alliston would have been sentenced to 12 months if he had pleaded guilty.

niblue

This is my source:

http://www.road-peace.org.uk/resources/RoadPeace%20Sentencing%20of%20Causing%20Death%20by%20Driving%20offences%20England%20Wales.pdf

bendertherobot

Fenix wrote:

Just had quick look - outrage at how little he got. Anyone got any examples of motorists killing and getting less ?

1. http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... edy-206737 4 cyclists killed £180 fine

It's a flawed example. No prosecution brought because the evidence didn't support it. He was fined for the offence he committed.

fenix

Is it that flawed ?

4 illegal tyres. Driving too fast for conditions - hitting cyclists who were in the right place.

Versus an illegal brake - hitting a pedestrian who stepped out into the road without looking ?

For me = the motoring offence is worse than the cycling one.

bendertherobot

Fenix wrote:

Is it that flawed ?

4 illegal tyres. Driving too fast for conditions - hitting cyclists who were in the right place.

Versus an illegal brake - hitting a pedestrian who stepped out into the road without looking ?

For me = the motoring offence is worse than the cycling one.

The evidence was that he skidded in ice as others had. There was no decision to prosecute. It's fair enough to argue that he should have been, but if we're left with trying to compare other cases to how Alliston was treated it doesn't work particularly well. You can't compare a motoring offence where there is no motoring offence.

imatfaal

18 months for Alliston.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41306738

navt

So is the standard now that I have to come to a stop from 20mph within 3m?

veronese68

bendertherobot wrote:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how good I am.

Saw the headline on a news website and thought to myself you were spot on.
Have you got a law diploma?

bigmat

So its no longer a valid option to ride round a pedestrian who steps out in front of you, in case they suddenly change direction and launch themselves under your front wheel. Emergency stops for the win - look forward to a few more trips over the handlebars. Presumably the following drivers that then wipe us out will be considered to have been driving dangerously and held to account? :roll:

meursault

Slowbike wrote:

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Charlie-Alliston-21031-1.law

Well - that'll draw a whole load of discussion as to whether 18 months is enough for killing someone. The difficulty I can see is that it won't be seen as anywhere near enough time for taking the life of another, however, he didn't intentionally set out to do that and the only things he did wrong was ride without a front brake, hit someone and get caught for it - oh, and not accept that he had done anything wrong.

The sentence is for being found guilty of wanton and furious driving. Nothing to do with a person being killed. The maximum sentence for that offence is two years. He was acquitted of manslaughter.

Remorse is a mitigating factor used in sentencing and not during the trial.

From this preliminary view of the appropriate sentence the magistrates would then look at the offender to see if there is any mitigation eg cooperation with the police, full admissions, remorse.

https://www.magistrates-association.org ... -offenders