Death by Furious cycling......

mamba80

I find this highly offensive, this woman walked out into a road, whilst using her phone, she was the author of her own misfortune.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-charge

As argued in the article, this guy was doing 18mph, hardly furious cycling... if it werent so serious, you d be forgiven for checking the date.

Its a great pity the CPS isnt so judicious when it comes to drivers who deliberately drive into cyclists or kill them and them claim "SMIDSY" and get away with a small fine and 3 points.
The cyclist has been told to expect prison.

trivial_poursuivant

mamba80 wrote:

I find this highly offensive, this woman walked out into a road, whilst using her phone, she was the author of her own misfortune.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-charge

As argued in the article, this guy was doing 18mph, hardly furious cycling... if it werent so serious, you d be forgiven for checking the date.

Its a great pity the CPS isnt so judicious when it comes to drivers who deliberately drive into cyclists or kill them and them claim "SMIDSY" and get away with a small fine and 3 points.
The cyclist has been told to expect prison.

And either out early or on appeal . There is no way they can make this ancient law stick. Whole review of road laws need addressing. Not rules, guidelines but proper binding unambiguous laws.

pblakeney

The same rules, and sentencing should apply to all modes of transport.
"Cyclists are only bloody cyclists so bang 'em up."
Applying the same to drivers would affect everyone.
A wrong attitude, but the reason things won't change.

kingstongraham

I wasn't in court and didn't hear all the evidence. Those that were have reached a verdict.

However, if a driver with deliberately disabled brakes had seen a pedestrian in the road, not done everything they could to slow down, and hit and killed them, they would also have been in court. This is unusual, which is why it's news.

bendertherobot

KingstonGraham wrote:

I wasn't in court and didn't hear all the evidence. Those that were have reached a verdict.

However, if a driver with deliberately disabled brakes had seen a pedestrian in the road, not done everything they could to slow down, and hit and killed them, they would also have been in court. This is unusual, which is why it's news.

Martin Porter says not or, at least, under section 35 with the alternative of manslaughter.

They would, as you say, be in Court charged with, at least, death by careless driving and, I suspect, death by dangerous.

roger_merriman

mamba80 wrote:

I find this highly offensive, this woman walked out into a road, whilst using her phone, she was the author of her own misfortune.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-charge

As argued in the article, this guy was doing 18mph, hardly furious cycling... if it werent so serious, you d be forgiven for checking the date.

Its a great pity the CPS isnt so judicious when it comes to drivers who deliberately drive into cyclists or kill them and them claim "SMIDSY" and get away with a small fine and 3 points.
The cyclist has been told to expect prison.

1st she wasn't on the phone he had to back track under examination. 2nd yes he was only doing 18mph but in 6.53 metres at which point he had not only seen her but shouted at her. 6.53 meters to stop is more than doable.

CaptainHeedo

As a daily commuting cyclist, I have no love lost for the pedestrians who step out when not looking or just assume bikes can emergency stop like cars for them. However regardless of whether she stepped out - if it is to be believed, the tests showed the bike would have stopped if it had had a front brake.
He said he didn't have time to brake anyway, so it wouldn't have made any difference??? Stupid answer. He would have gone slower and it would have made a difference. The wife and mother died as a result.
I want to have equal rights to cars - Id be really annoyed being run over by a faulty car, or one without brakes if I make a mistake (and would want the book to be thrown at the owner of that car), so lets not try and pretend there is one rule for cyclists when it suits us and one for every other road machine.
Its plain stupid to be cycling on a track bikes on roads - arrogant to think you wont need to stop quickly sometimes in London, lunacy. Lets step feeling sorry for cyclists on this one - he was in the wrong, so was she perhaps, but she died because he didn't have the right brakes.... we all have a responsibility to reduce risk, and having brakes was his.
You guys complaining its cyclist bashing, just think about that example of being mowed down by a lorry with faulty brakes say cos the driver didn't get them serviced..... (even if he was doing 18moph)

CaptainHeedo

ps recognise most of the posts are sensible ones! No offense to you guys/gals

Garry H

Too kool for brakes. Prison would be apt.

mamba80

roger merriman wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I find this highly offensive, this woman walked out into a road, whilst using her phone, she was the author of her own misfortune.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-charge

As argued in the article, this guy was doing 18mph, hardly furious cycling... if it werent so serious, you d be forgiven for checking the date.

Its a great pity the CPS isnt so judicious when it comes to drivers who deliberately drive into cyclists or kill them and them claim "SMIDSY" and get away with a small fine and 3 points.
The cyclist has been told to expect prison.

1st she wasn't on the phone he had to back track under examination. 2nd yes he was only doing 18mph but in 6.53 metres at which point he had not only seen her but shouted at her. 6.53 meters to stop is more than doable.

People who walk out into the road without checking all is clear, have only themselves to blame if they are injured, just suppose the cyclist had been killed instead? would she be in court? or would it just be a terrible accident?

its conjecture if a front brake would have prevented her death, he might not have even applied it and still tried to avoid her, a plausible maneuver.

I am not saying this man shouldnt be punished but all road users, inc pedestrians have to accept responsibility for their own actions and accept the consequences.

I rcently come back from visiting a guy with very serious injuries after a car pulled across in front of him, no further action or prosecution, he ll never cycle again.... no court case or media coverage.

CaptainHeedo

Mamba, the incident with your friend is exactly the type of thing that is a disgrace - that driver too should be punished.
I agree, if you step out onto the road, then you are taking a risk, but surely you appreciate that if you are going to start going round fast, then you need to have the right measures in place that could result in preventing harm to others.

But to be honest "People who walk out into the road without checking all is clear, have only themselves to blame if they are injured" - that's pathetic. She is at fault of course, but he is - and he could have prevented it. Wake up.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I find this highly offensive, this woman walked out into a road, whilst using her phone, she was the author of her own misfortune.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-charge

As argued in the article, this guy was doing 18mph, hardly furious cycling... if it werent so serious, you d be forgiven for checking the date.

Its a great pity the CPS isnt so judicious when it comes to drivers who deliberately drive into cyclists or kill them and them claim "SMIDSY" and get away with a small fine and 3 points.
The cyclist has been told to expect prison.

1st she wasn't on the phone he had to back track under examination. 2nd yes he was only doing 18mph but in 6.53 metres at which point he had not only seen her but shouted at her. 6.53 meters to stop is more than doable.

People who walk out into the road without checking all is clear, have only themselves to blame if they are injured, just suppose the cyclist had been killed instead? would she be in court? or would it just be a terrible accident?

its conjecture if a front brake would have prevented her death, he might not have even applied it and still tried to avoid her, a plausible maneuver.

I am not saying this man shouldnt be punished but all road users, inc pedestrians have to accept responsibility for their own actions and accept the consequences.

I rcently come back from visiting a guy with very serious injuries after a car pulled across in front of him, no further action or prosecution, he ll never cycle again.... no court case or media coverage.

If someone steps out in front of you, be you in control of a cycle, car or even if you are a pedestrian, it is incumbent on you to try to stop or avoid them.
If you can't see that, you should think carefully whether you are safe to be on the roads.

My sympathies for your injured friend, but I am assuming that the car driver concerned had not removed his brakes prior to taking to the road and thereby making an accident more likely had he?

Pross

The result in this case seems perfectly reasonable to me especially given the way he behaved afterwards in blaming the woman for the incident on social media.

However, there does seem to be a reluctance to persue drivers who kill cyclists due to not paying enough attention. I don't see how driving a perfectly road legal car but failing to pay enough attention to your surroundings and killing a cyclist as a result is in some way less serious.

The husband's comments were well judged, something like looking out for other road users on our imperfect streets.

cooldad

There's already 12 pages here. Does it need another thread?

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=13083807&start=220

Pross

cooldad wrote:

There's already 12 pages here. Does it need another thread?

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=13083807&start=220

Possibly as many of us don't go to the Commuting (AKA London biased) part of the forum.

mfin

I don't understand why arguments have to explore likening this to drivers of vehicles causing accidents. (Well I do, because this forum has a lot of people who can't help themselves but join in the sheeplike solidarity of cyclists forwarding their collective self-righteous agenda on road use).

Anyway ...it's a difficult thing to debate as there isn't much information to go on. I think most people will accept brakes help you stop and he didn't have them and would have had time to use them at least to some degree.

As for his attitude to it all ...well there aren't going to be many people who will think his behaviour about it is anything but that of an idiot.

diamonddog

^^This

the_hundredth_idiot

I don't think anyone is excusing Alliston, who was clearly riding a bike which doesn't meet the required legal standards (and comes across as quite an arrogant and unpleasant young man who doesn't appear to have understood that he has been involved in a fatal accident).

But the law (and the media) prosecuted him in a way that would be unusual if it had been a car driver killing a cyclist. Look at Gail Purcell, for example, where Cycling UK had to mount a private crowd-funded prosecution because the Met Police couldn't be bothered.

Or the one I recall from about 10 years ago where a driver (Robert Harris) skidded on black ice, killed four cyclists and injured eight others but got just a £180 fine for having three defective tyres. Nothing at all about actually losing control and killing four people.

mikeyj28

mfin wrote:

I don't understand why arguments have to explore likening this to drivers of vehicles causing accidents. (Well I do, because this forum has a lot of people who can't help themselves but join in the sheeplike solidarity of cyclists forwarding their collective self-righteous agenda on road use).

Anyway ...it's a difficult thing to debate as there isn't much information to go on. I think most people will accept brakes help you stop and he didn't have them and would have had time to use them at least to some degree.

As for his attitude to it all ...well there aren't going to be many people who will think his behaviour about it is anything but that of an idiot.

Good points made ^^^.

He didn't do himself any favours either regarding probable prison, through his distinct lack of remorse on any level. If he had shown signs of remorse for the loss of life and expressed that then maybe the judge would have been more inclined not to consider a custodial sentence.

Ye,s she maybe didn't look when stepping out, like many others don't when stepping out into the road (rather stupidly), but if he had a front brake , it could have been used to slightly slow him down and at least give a slightly higher probability of the lady surviving/not being in a permanent vegetative state.

tangled_metal

Just be grateful somebody without care and consideration for other users of the carriageway has faced any prosecution. A dangerous person has been removed from the road for a period of time. Be grateful for that small start and keep on hoping they'll go after all idiots on the road no matter what mode of transport they use.

PS I don't see why ppl can't see that in light of reduced resources for policing our highways any prosecution of a dangerous road user is a positive. I agree with the sentiments that more motorists need their behaviour confronting through the courts but that should never be used to oppose a court action against a cyclist that deserves prosecution.

IMHO construction and use regs are not a strong enough charge for this case. Unfortunately there is less option for the prosecution of cyclists than there is for motorists. That needs addressing IMHO. One of many things to do with keeping our highways safe for all.

bendertherobot

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

I don't think anyone is excusing Alliston, who was clearly riding a bike which doesn't meet the required legal standards (and comes across as quite an arrogant and unpleasant young man who doesn't appear to have understood that he has been involved in a fatal accident).

But the law (and the media) prosecuted him in a way that would be unusual if it had been a car driver killing a cyclist. Look at Gail Purcell, for example, where Cycling UK had to mount a private crowd-funded prosecution because the Met Police couldn't be bothered.

Or the one I recall from about 10 years ago where a driver (Robert Harris) skidded on black ice, killed four cyclists and injured eight others but got just a £180 fine for having three defective tyres. Nothing at all about actually losing control and killing four people.

There are two issues in this case. The first is whether a prosecution should be brought. That is, is there evidence and is it in the public interest. That's what the CPS decides. It's not hard to accept that there is even though other motoring cases might be the same and not be brought.

But the manner is not unusual in light of the evidence because, and this is the skewed thinking behind this case, section 35 and manslaughter are ALL the CPS has. A motorist could be charged with a plethora of other offences. So whilst this is unusual compared to a motorist it's simply because a direct legal comparison cannot be made.

We're also forgetting that the jury flat out rejected the manslaughter charge.

capt_slog

I feel no sympathy with the rider, and it's a terrible shame for the woman and her family. I doubt though, that if she had stepped in front of a car that day with the same outcome, we wouldn't know about it, defective brakes or not

What could be an issue is the fallout from this.

To illustrate, I'll tell you what happened in another sport/pastime...
A few year ago I used to fly large kites, usually 3 to 5 square meters, controlled with four lines a kite. I had a 'kite buggy', a three wheel cart that is steered with the feet and you're pulled around using the kite as a sail, even though the sail is 25m off the ground.

For a time, the 90's and 2000's, they became the 'in thing', and it seemed a lot of people were doing this. There were clubs, festivals, popular forums as busy as this one etc. My sons and I used to go to parks, and take the kit on hols so we could also use the beaches. Great fun on large areas of quiet beach, Druridge Bay was favourite and we kept out of the way of people, (a requirement if you're reaching 35mph.)

In 2002 on the beach at Lytham St Annes, a woman managed to get into the path of a sand yacht whilst they were racing. This took off both her legs and broke her back, she died of the injuries. Of course, there was a massive outcry, many councils banned such activities on their beaches, seemingly almost overnight. Because a kite buggy is classed as a "Class 8 land Yacht", that included us and suddenly there were less places we could go.

Attempts a regulation came in, restrictions on times and seasons. Some sites became controlled by local clubs with their own rules, even competence tests and insurance. It got difficult. The places where I used to see 20+ kites on a Sunday afternoon, I've not seen one for years. The forums I mentioned above have a post some days, but not often.


Okay. I know it's not going to go that way for us, (I think we are too big), but we're not popular with some people, and I hope nothing comes out of this.

squired

When cycling in London I am constantly paying attention to the pavement, expecting people to step into the road without looking. On certain roads in the area of this sad accident doing that is a must.

A lot of cyclists do seem to ride as though they are the only person on the road, with little awareness of their surroundings, and if someone does step out they would expect that person to get out of the way. I can't speak for areas outside of London, but we've all seen cyclists riding at pedestrians crossing the road (often 10-20 metres away from them at the time) shouting at them to get out of the way.

My biggest fear is that this will help to increase general hatred for cyclists and lead to further outcry and pushing for increased regulation against cyclists.

One thing I did find interesting from this case was that the fact the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet was brought up. One has to ask what relevance that had? Was it supposed to be evidence that he was reckless?

rabk

squired wrote:

My biggest fear is that this will help to increase general hatred for cyclists and lead to further outcry and pushing for increased regulation against cyclists.

I'm hoping that further consideration may be given to a presumed liability law in the UK (where the less vulerable road user is presumed liable unless otherwise proven) - this would of course benefit cyclists in the event of collisions with cars - but in the circumstances of the Alliston case would have given a presumed liability on the cyclist

Having presumed liability on the less vulnerable road user would surely make ALL road users think twice on how they conduct themselves

bendertherobot

Presumed liability is a civil law concept.

rabk

bendertherobot wrote:

Presumed liability is a civil law concept.

Indeed it is...

But given the circumstances of Alliston having a duty of care to the more vulnerable road user (relating to the lack of brakes and his general riding) - hopefully this may bring presumed liability into sharper focus

For the avoidance of doubt - I wasn't suggesting that Alliston should have been dealt with on a civil basis

slowbike

I mentioned the lid in another thread - not as a critisism but as a thought as to whether that may have changed the nature of the impact and made it less severe. Of course we'll never know, but I just wonder that it may have lessened the blow ..

ballysmate

Slowbike wrote:

I mentioned the lid in another thread - not as a critisism but as a thought as to whether that may have changed the nature of the impact and made it less severe. Of course we'll never know, but I just wonder that it may have lessened the blow ..

Good try! 10/10 for effort.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I mentioned the lid in another thread - not as a critisism but as a thought as to whether that may have changed the nature of the impact and made it less severe. Of course we'll never know, but I just wonder that it may have lessened the blow ..

Good try! 10/10 for effort.

The prosecution used it to portray him as a risk taker

Alex99

squired wrote:

When cycling in London I am constantly paying attention to the pavement, expecting people to step into the road without looking. On certain roads in the area of this sad accident doing that is a must.

A lot of cyclists do seem to ride as though they are the only person on the road, with little awareness of their surroundings, and if someone does step out they would expect that person to get out of the way. I can't speak for areas outside of London, but we've all seen cyclists riding at pedestrians crossing the road (often 10-20 metres away from them at the time) shouting at them to get out of the way.

My biggest fear is that this will help to increase general hatred for cyclists and lead to further outcry and pushing for increased regulation against cyclists.

One thing I did find interesting from this case was that the fact the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet was brought up. One has to ask what relevance that had? Was it supposed to be evidence that he was reckless?

I occasionally ride in central London but I'm not a 'native'. I'm always a bit shocked at the attitude of a few cyclists per journey and recognise the behavior described above. It seems like some cyclists have the mindset that they must not be impeded and any delay is an injustice. It's the same behavior that I despise in some motorists; a selfish sense of entitlement and lack of empathy.

Pross

Alex99 wrote:

I occasionally ride in central London but I'm not a 'native'. I'm always a bit shocked at the attitude of a few cyclists per journey and recognise the behavior described above. It seems like some cyclists have the mindset that they must not be impeded and any delay is an injustice. It's the same behavior that I despise in some motorists; a selfish sense of entitlement and lack of empathy.

Did you see that recent video where a cyclist got squeezed and glanced by a truck after moving up the left of him at lights? The driver, rightly, pointed out the error of his ways and mentioned the campaigns warning of the danger of such a manoeuvre. The cyclist (or the rent a mob cyclist who was recording it and said 'don't worry mate I've got him on camera') then came up with a brilliant argument of 'this is London, you should expect cyclists to do that'. The capital certainly attracts more than its fair share of arrogant morons!