Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..
Discussion
VolvoT5 said:
It is tragic all round in my view. I also don't see how jail time will benefit or protect anyone really - he didn't deliberately run her over, this was an accident not a premeditated violent offence. There should be (if there isn't already) other punishments available.
It was avoidable and as such an example and precedent needs to be set to warn off others. Time to rein in the loonies with the threat of severe penalties before this happens again. I agree with everyone who says that ignorance of a law is no defence. But it is a good defence to being told you were knowingly breaking the law, which is quite another thing. When examining culpability or considering punishment, the actions of someone who deliberately flouts the law are clearly 'worse' than someone who does it in ignorance. It's not unreasonable (but is a bit stupid) to assume that a commercially available bicycle is road legal.
steveL98 said:
VolvoT5 said:
It is tragic all round in my view. I also don't see how jail time will benefit or protect anyone really - he didn't deliberately run her over, this was an accident not a premeditated violent offence. There should be (if there isn't already) other punishments available.
It was avoidable and as such an example and precedent needs to be set to warn off others. Time to rein in the loonies with the threat of severe penalties before this happens again. Why should it be reasonable to assume that a bicycle you can buy is automatically road legal? You can buy all sorts of vehicles which cannot be driven on the public highway without some modifications first.
I would argue that it is up to the retailer of the vehicle (whatever it is) to explain where the law stands on its use and the buyer should also be familiar with the rules of the road as it pertains to their use of the road.
I would argue that it is up to the retailer of the vehicle (whatever it is) to explain where the law stands on its use and the buyer should also be familiar with the rules of the road as it pertains to their use of the road.
glasgow mega snake said:
OK, but does this also apply to all of the motorists who kill pedestrians every year? because we have a well-known problem in this country that drivers of motor vehicles who kill or injure people tend to be sentenced very lightly.
Death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.The offence this person has been found guilty of: 2 years.
Derek Smith said:
........ Why pick on a cyclist?
Clashes happen every day between cyclists and pedestrians, especially in London. It isn't an isolated incident and won't be the last but what does look to be unique here is that the pedestrian sadly died as a result of the accident, and that the cyclist was riding a bike with no proper brakes.Pedestrians get run over by cars too. That's why in town centres where there is an increased risk of such, vehicle speeds are kept down to limit such accidents and limit the likelihood of an accident leading to death. There has never been any speed limits applied to cyclists (except in private parks etc) so the test of whether a cyclist was in the wrong or not is a much more subjective one compared to motorists. In simple terms...speeding or drunk driver causes a death = guilty / sensible driving sober drive causes death = accident.
It's not right to simply compare this incident with any motoring accident, the correct comparison would be a motoring accident where the pedestrian died and the car was found to be knowingly defective. i.e. a driver in a car with no brakes or with seriously bald tyres who kills a pedestrian would face a more serious punishment than one in a perfectly legal car, that driver being more negligent.
"Why pick on a cyclist".. because in this specific case he was more negligent that most other cyclist.
We're always told (e.g. in relation to speeding) that you are punished for the potential harm, not the actual outcome. My guess is that there are hundreds of cyclist / pedestrian 'interactions' every year where each party dusts themselves off and gets on with their day after exchanging a few choice words. The fact that this event is in the national news is indicative of how unusual it is. Therefore considering all incidents where cyclists knock down pedestrians, and where pedestrians dismount cyclists, it seems like a fair conclusion. The wanton element being deliberately riding an illegal bike. The fact that the woman died should have no bearing on the sentence which should be the same if a cyclist collides and knocks down any pedestrian.
VolvoT5 said:
Not read the whole of this thread but my feeling is this young man has been found guilty and is being punished for his attitude as much as anything else - had he shown some contrition and not spouted off on social media I doubt he would now be facing jail time...
Alas such is the vocality of today's "keen" cyclist. Just look at any cycling thread on here. Zero f
ks given by the pedallists about people being inconvenienced, hurt etc; to them, car drivers are just "fat". glasgow mega snake said:
steveL98 said:
VolvoT5 said:
It is tragic all round in my view. I also don't see how jail time will benefit or protect anyone really - he didn't deliberately run her over, this was an accident not a premeditated violent offence. There should be (if there isn't already) other punishments available.
It was avoidable and as such an example and precedent needs to be set to warn off others. Time to rein in the loonies with the threat of severe penalties before this happens again. I cycle on the roads too, by the way and do so as I would drive my car. i.e stopping at red lights and not cycling on the wrong side of road islands to avoid traffic queues etc. If I use a pedestrian area I get off and walk.
We don't need licencing or registration for cycles, but we do need the prospect of severe penalties for the likes of this sad case and potential others. Too bad the cycling fraternity has yet to come out and condemn its small % of followers who cycle badly.
Edited by steveL98 on Thursday 24th August 11:58
Eric Mc said:
Why should it be reasonable to assume that a bicycle you can buy is automatically road legal? You can buy all sorts of vehicles which cannot be driven on the public highway without some modifications first.
I would argue that it is up to the retailer of the vehicle (whatever it is) to explain where the law stands on its use and the buyer should also be familiar with the rules of the road as it pertains to their use of the road.
What if you buy privately second-hand?I would argue that it is up to the retailer of the vehicle (whatever it is) to explain where the law stands on its use and the buyer should also be familiar with the rules of the road as it pertains to their use of the road.
In this case he did buy the Planet X bike second-hand last year, but I understand it was from a shop as he told the vendor he wanted to use it for track cycling.
The law that's probably requires immediate updating is the archaic one he was convicted on, 'Wanton and furious driving' of 1861.
I note the jury watched rerun after rerun of the accident caught on camera which none of us has seen.
I'm still wondering if the poor woman stepped into the road while still looking at her mobile? I think mobile users, whether pedestrian or in car, are as big, if not bigger, a road danger than idiot cyclists. I have had more 'near misses' with dicks walking out into the road looking at their mobiles than interactions with idiot cyclists. But then, I don't live in London, however, I will add Oxford has more than its fair share of dicks on bikes!
Also, I note that the judge is considering a jail sentence, not from the actions of this idiot's cycling, but more from the point of view that she (the judge) has 'not seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all, at any stage.'
speedking31 said:
dandarez said:
The law that's probably requires immediate updating is the archaic one he was convicted on, 'Wanton and furious driving' of 1861.
I don't get the media fixation on this. Just because murder has been illegal for a long time doesn't mean that the law needs an overhaul.Edited by Europa1 on Thursday 24th August 13:11
dandarez said:
Eric Mc said:
Why should it be reasonable to assume that a bicycle you can buy is automatically road legal? You can buy all sorts of vehicles which cannot be driven on the public highway without some modifications first.
I would argue that it is up to the retailer of the vehicle (whatever it is) to explain where the law stands on its use and the buyer should also be familiar with the rules of the road as it pertains to their use of the road.
What if you buy privately second-hand?I would argue that it is up to the retailer of the vehicle (whatever it is) to explain where the law stands on its use and the buyer should also be familiar with the rules of the road as it pertains to their use of the road.
In this case he did buy the Planet X bike second-hand last year, but I understand it was from a shop as he told the vendor he wanted to use it for track cycling.
This chap has no excuse and, given the lack of remorse already noted, it would be appropriate to give him some time to reflect on his actions at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Even so, my gut feeling is that he'll get a suspended sentence.
speedking31 said:
dandarez said:
The law that's probably requires immediate updating is the archaic one he was convicted on, 'Wanton and furious driving' of 1861.
I don't get the media fixation on this. Just because murder has been illegal for a long time doesn't mean that the law needs an overhaul.After the conviction I hope there's private prosecution to set a precedent for others who may think they can do the same and get away with it.
Take your medicine guys..
This o brakes thing is news to me. I rode a BMX with no brakes for 4 years and the police never mentioned that to me. They used to tell me it's illegal to ride without lights (at night) & to ride on the pavement, but they just asked how I stopped without brakes.
Say that though this guy is a especially for getting that tatttoo.
Say that though this guy is a
especially for getting that tatttoo.steveL98 said:
[
This is a landmark case and I for one hope it deeply affects cycling behaviour (severe penalties and destruction of bikes etc) throughout the UK to rein in the lunatic cycling fringe who think the rules don't apply to them. We're all just trying to get somewhere and we need to consider the other road users above ourselves, in short understand simple courtesy.
The rest of your post made sense.This is a landmark case and I for one hope it deeply affects cycling behaviour (severe penalties and destruction of bikes etc) throughout the UK to rein in the lunatic cycling fringe who think the rules don't apply to them. We're all just trying to get somewhere and we need to consider the other road users above ourselves, in short understand simple courtesy.
What specific behaviour would you like to see changed?
The Surveyor said:
It's not right to simply compare this incident with any motoring accident, the correct comparison would be a motoring accident where the pedestrian died and the car was found to be knowingly defective. i.e. a driver in a car with no brakes or with seriously bald tyres who kills a pedestrian would face a more serious punishment than one in a perfectly legal car, that driver being more negligent.
£180 fine seems to be the going rate for killing four cyclists.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5241798.stm
Eric Mc said:
Why should it be reasonable to assume that a bicycle you can buy is automatically road legal? You can buy all sorts of vehicles which cannot be driven on the public highway without some modifications first.
I would argue that it is up to the retailer of the vehicle (whatever it is) to explain where the law stands on its use and the buyer should also be familiar with the rules of the road as it pertains to their use of the road.
Regardless of the case or the law in general i think that anyone who believes that riding a bike in central London without proper brakes is in anyway a good idea needs their head examining. I would argue that it is up to the retailer of the vehicle (whatever it is) to explain where the law stands on its use and the buyer should also be familiar with the rules of the road as it pertains to their use of the road.
We really should be spending more time on looking at the lack of personal responsibility that so many in society seem to think is acceptable, not shifting the responsibility on to the shop that sells these bikes. Who knows if the seller didn't tell the guilty party that they should not ride that bike on the road?
More to the point I don't believe that even a car retailer has to prove that they have checked you have a driving licence before you can buy a car from them...
Eric Mc said:
I'd still argue that the seller should brief the buyer on the legality of what they are buying.
I'm not saying it's the law - because it's not. But I'd argue that it should be.
Rubbish, it would turn into a case of he said, she said, especially on private sales.. John Lewis didn't tell me that I shouldn't use my new carving knife to do a killing rampage down my local high street.I'm not saying it's the law - because it's not. But I'd argue that it should be.
The user has to be aware of the laws surrounding the equipment they use and the responsibility is theirs alone.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff