wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.
Discussion
kiethton said:
That is just about the most ridiculous thing i've heard!
L plates for kids?
A BC2 licence category means you can only ride with stabilisers, a BCR allows you to ride a recumbent, a BCF allows you to ride a fixie and a BCB means you can only ride a borris bike (no gears...)?
Beyond that how would you police it given cyclists are completely anonymous? Also wouldn't it completely disregard a prime policy to try and get more people active & cycling to reduce pollution/congestion?
Is it ridiculous?L plates for kids?
A BC2 licence category means you can only ride with stabilisers, a BCR allows you to ride a recumbent, a BCF allows you to ride a fixie and a BCB means you can only ride a borris bike (no gears...)?
Beyond that how would you police it given cyclists are completely anonymous? Also wouldn't it completely disregard a prime policy to try and get more people active & cycling to reduce pollution/congestion?
Bicycles are becoming a popular means of transport, they are on the road, they are vulnerable and anyone can ride one!!
Its clearly been shown that bicycles can hurt pedestrians, they can damage cars and they can be ridden recklessly.
Both car and bike users need further education, we also need to earn to share the road, far to many militant cyclists and car drivers.
I believe our roads are not capable of dealing with the increase in cars AND bikes, if decent cylce lanes were in place then this would be a different matter, however i live in the SE and there is little to no cycle lanes in most towns!!
DocJock said:
OpulentBob said:
Oceanrower said:
Pretty certain that if I'd been driving a car with half my legally required brakes missing then I'd have been charged.
And probably with something that carried a far higher sentence than this.
Quite. And probably with something that carried a far higher sentence than this.
Certain (possibly biased) people comparing apples with pears here.
fido said:
heebeegeetee said:
This piece says that at 20 mph a car would need 12m to stop
The figures in the Highway Code are from the '70s, or thereabouts, so yes if you have a Ford Cortina or something it might take that long.However, the 'thinking time' in the Code is based on 0.67 seconds and that's probably optimistic.
Pica-Pica said:
99dndd said:
How will this work from an insurance/compensation aspect?
Obviously, the family will need significant compensation for their loss and I don't think there is such a hing as "cycling insurance."
I believe there is still the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The family could now sue him personally for damages as well.Obviously, the family will need significant compensation for their loss and I don't think there is such a hing as "cycling insurance."
GetCarter said:
Considering his astonishing comments about her, and his lack of remorse - I hope he gets the full sentence he seems to be due.
If we drive without front brakes, imagine what we (drivers) would get, killing a pedestrian.
motorists kill pedestrians all the time and are frequently found not guilty, or not even charged. They certainly are very rarely charged with manslaughter.If we drive without front brakes, imagine what we (drivers) would get, killing a pedestrian.
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 23 August 18:44
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-allisto...
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/farnha... :
"In this case the driver said that he only saw a person’s head above a line of parked cars (along Lower Weybourne Lane) but that it had never occurred to him that the individual would step out into the road in front of his vehicle."
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norwich-bus-driver-in-... :
" In this case the driver commented “In the city people cross in front of you all the time. And 99 times out of 100 if they don’t have enough time they will stop.”
both drivers found not guilty above.
as a society we accept pedestrian deaths from motorists as a matter of routine, regrettable, but inevitable and seemingly not, or rarely, the fault of the motorist. It seems the attitude towards the same from cyclists is different. It's another case of 'the other'. Cyclists are 'the other'.
glasgow mega snake said:
GetCarter said:
Considering his astonishing comments about her, and his lack of remorse - I hope he gets the full sentence he seems to be due.
If we drive without front brakes, imagine what we (drivers) would get, killing a pedestrian.
motorists kill pedestrians all the time and are frequently found not guilty, or not even charged. They certainly are very rarely charged with manslaughter.If we drive without front brakes, imagine what we (drivers) would get, killing a pedestrian.
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 23 August 18:44
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-allisto...
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/farnha... :
"In this case the driver said that he only saw a person’s head above a line of parked cars (along Lower Weybourne Lane) but that it had never occurred to him that the individual would step out into the road in front of his vehicle."
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norwich-bus-driver-in-... :
" In this case the driver commented “In the city people cross in front of you all the time. And 99 times out of 100 if they don’t have enough time they will stop.”
both drivers found not guilty above.
as a society we accept pedestrian deaths from motorists as a matter of routine, regrettable, but inevitable and seemingly not, or rarely, the fault of the motorist. It seems the attitude towards the same from cyclists is different. It's another case of 'the other'. Cyclists are 'the other'.
"Lack of remorse...."
An 18 year old kid who had no idea of the condition of the other party, was splashed in an accusatory manner, in news articles all over the internet pretty much straight after it happened. The standard anti cycling crowd frothed at the mouth and bayed for his blood in the comments. I'm not surprised he didn't behave in a remorseful manner at the start, the kid was probably in shock, no idea what the actual situation was (reports from the scene suggest police sent him home saying not to worry about it), and people literally up and down the country were writing that he should be sent to jail online. He made the mistake of responding to some of these commenters, in a foolish and non sympathetic tone, in the 1 or 2 days after the incident and then stopped. He'd withdrawn from commenting or replying days before the victim passed away and he even knew of her condition.
By comparison, if he'd been driving a car, he'd have barely made the 5th page of the local village rag, his defence lawyer funded by his car insurance company would have already prepped him on what to say and how to behave, and the media wouldn't be grabbing photos of him trying to portray him looking smug at any opportunity.
He's probably got actual PTSD based on the fact he head butted the victim's head. That's physical contact with his own body, not just watching a body fly over his windscreen. When your hear it trotted out as a plea for leniency by some nobber who runs someone over in their car all I think is that they're just saying it to get a lighter sentence. This kid hasn't had the luxury of a courtroom grooming session on what to say and when, and everyone's treating him like he crashed into her on purpose and he's glad she's dead.
I don't believe this arrogant, cocky s
t persona that's been portrayed of him. He came across like a tt in the first 2 days but we've heard nothing since, that's all we have to go on, plus some photos in papers and online, that no doubt have been chosen specifically to portray him in a certain light. Obviously they didn't print the ones of him looking sad or scared, that wouldn't send the right image.
Also the amount of people pre-judging him as some posh, hipster, wker. He's an 18 year old scaffolder, who used to be a courier. Hardly living the well to do lifestyle.
An 18 year old kid who had no idea of the condition of the other party, was splashed in an accusatory manner, in news articles all over the internet pretty much straight after it happened. The standard anti cycling crowd frothed at the mouth and bayed for his blood in the comments. I'm not surprised he didn't behave in a remorseful manner at the start, the kid was probably in shock, no idea what the actual situation was (reports from the scene suggest police sent him home saying not to worry about it), and people literally up and down the country were writing that he should be sent to jail online. He made the mistake of responding to some of these commenters, in a foolish and non sympathetic tone, in the 1 or 2 days after the incident and then stopped. He'd withdrawn from commenting or replying days before the victim passed away and he even knew of her condition.
By comparison, if he'd been driving a car, he'd have barely made the 5th page of the local village rag, his defence lawyer funded by his car insurance company would have already prepped him on what to say and how to behave, and the media wouldn't be grabbing photos of him trying to portray him looking smug at any opportunity.
He's probably got actual PTSD based on the fact he head butted the victim's head. That's physical contact with his own body, not just watching a body fly over his windscreen. When your hear it trotted out as a plea for leniency by some nobber who runs someone over in their car all I think is that they're just saying it to get a lighter sentence. This kid hasn't had the luxury of a courtroom grooming session on what to say and when, and everyone's treating him like he crashed into her on purpose and he's glad she's dead.
I don't believe this arrogant, cocky s
t persona that's been portrayed of him. He came across like a tt in the first 2 days but we've heard nothing since, that's all we have to go on, plus some photos in papers and online, that no doubt have been chosen specifically to portray him in a certain light. Obviously they didn't print the ones of him looking sad or scared, that wouldn't send the right image.Also the amount of people pre-judging him as some posh, hipster, w
ker. He's an 18 year old scaffolder, who used to be a courier. Hardly living the well to do lifestyle.glasgow mega snake said:
indeed.
nobody would accuse a motorist of driving 'wantonly or furiously' at 18mph.
No, instead they'd be charged with death by dangerous driving if the car didn't have front brakes like the bicycle in this scenario. There is no "death by dangerous cycling" charge to use though so they used others instead.nobody would accuse a motorist of driving 'wantonly or furiously' at 18mph.
I wonder what would have happened if the tables had been turned......
"Wanton Furious Rider" pegging it down the street, person walks out in front causing the Cyclist to hit Him/Her resulting in the cyclist getting flung off onto the concrete ground, hiting his head causing a fatal injury?
Would the Person walking out into the road, potentailly distracted by some phone call aswell, get convicted of Manslaughter?
Whilst this lad is complete dick, i think his biggest issue was the way he behaved after the incident? If his attitude had been a bit better he might not be in so much st....
Either way, I don't see anyone making the point about the victims contribution to this whole mess. If she had been paying attention, none of this would have happened. Can you be done for "Wanton use of a mobile whilst stepping into a road?"
As to bikes being licensed..... just put an RFID (?) chip on each "ROAD LEGAL" bike, register it for £25, registration includes some insurance, if your caught on an unregistered bike on the road by BiB, then your fined £200 and get the bike confiscated. Maybe you can even have a mini MOT for a yearly renewal to pick up fixies etc and home mods... Bit like chipping a dog (except the confiscation bit.... and the fine bit!)
"Wanton Furious Rider" pegging it down the street, person walks out in front causing the Cyclist to hit Him/Her resulting in the cyclist getting flung off onto the concrete ground, hiting his head causing a fatal injury?
Would the Person walking out into the road, potentailly distracted by some phone call aswell, get convicted of Manslaughter?
Whilst this lad is complete dick, i think his biggest issue was the way he behaved after the incident? If his attitude had been a bit better he might not be in so much s
t....Either way, I don't see anyone making the point about the victims contribution to this whole mess. If she had been paying attention, none of this would have happened. Can you be done for "Wanton use of a mobile whilst stepping into a road?"
As to bikes being licensed..... just put an RFID (?) chip on each "ROAD LEGAL" bike, register it for £25, registration includes some insurance, if your caught on an unregistered bike on the road by BiB, then your fined £200 and get the bike confiscated. Maybe you can even have a mini MOT for a yearly renewal to pick up fixies etc and home mods... Bit like chipping a dog (except the confiscation bit.... and the fine bit!)
nurseholliday said:
"Lack of remorse...."
snip
Trolling aside, I don't disagree with what you've written there. Unfortunately people will have kneejerk reactions to both cyclists and people who don't show the required level of immediate and unending remorse after the fact. None of that ought to really shape the charges or punishment, but I can't imagine it helps juries or indeed judges when it comes to evaluating "the public interest".snip
John145 said:
I think if you modified your car in such a way that stopping safely was impossible and you killed someone trying to stop then yes you'd be charged with manslaughter...
possbily.the fact remains that even equipped as it was, the bicycle that was being ridden could stop more effectively than a bike with both wheels fitted with rim brakes, but in the rain. It was not impossible for the bike to stop in the distance that was available so the brake issue is pretty much a red herring.
the cyclist didn't use all of the available room to slow, which was clearly a mistake.
the pedestrian reportedly stepped back into the path of the cyclist after he had moved to avoid her, so clearly he was capable of, and did take, avoiding action.
glasgow mega snake said:
the pedestrian reportedly stepped back into the path of the cyclist after he had moved to avoid her, so clearly he was capable of, and did take, avoiding action.
It sounds like one of those classic situations where both people take avoiding action and still end up in eachothers way, like when you're walking towards someone and both of you move more than once.Whilst I'm not a cyclist myself and certainly find myself mildly irritated by them on my commute - it's tough to know really what this guy could've really done to avoid this, if indeed she stepped out in front of him with ~6.5 metres between them. If he'd had a front brake and applied it with sufficient force to stop he would've gone straight over the handlebars surely, with possibly the same result?
glasgow mega snake said:
motorists kill pedestrians all the time and are frequently found not guilty, or not even charged. They certainly are very rarely charged with manslaughter.
They're rarely charged with Manslaughter, as there are specific, relevant offences involving motor vehicles, negligence, injury and death. These are not available against cyclists.That motorists are rarely charged with manslaughter is irrelevant in any comparison with the offending here.
Durzel said:
glasgow mega snake said:
the pedestrian reportedly stepped back into the path of the cyclist after he had moved to avoid her, so clearly he was capable of, and did take, avoiding action.
It sounds like one of those classic situations where both people take avoiding action and still end up in eachothers way, like when you're walking towards someone and both of you move more than once.Whilst I'm not a cyclist myself and certainly find myself mildly irritated by them on my commute - it's tough to know really what this guy could've really done to avoid this, if indeed she stepped out in front of him with ~6.5 metres between them. If he'd had a front brake and applied it with sufficient force to stop he would've gone straight over the handlebars surely, with possibly the same result?
You get that split second on a bike in situations like this where you have to decide if it will be more painful to veer off to the side and slide out/crash or to carry on and hit the obstacle head on.
If the cyclist thought there would be no collision though I can see why he might have not gone through this thought process.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff