wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.

[heebeegeetee]

mac96 said:

I see where you are going but it's bit short on facts.

However- on one point you are definitely correct- where is the outrage , the pillorying of the driver by people who have no idea what happened?
Seems to be little coverage after 11/9, and not many comments on those newspaper sites which allowed comment. Admittedly the Mail has its share of comments from clairvoyants who know the car was going too fast, but they really don't count..

It will be interesting. I understand it happened on a single track, unclassified lane. Some of these can be very narrow.

Normally you'd expect to meet oncoming vehicles, traveling considerably faster than any pedestrians.

It'll be interesting to see how the blame could be heaped on the pedestrians.

[mac96]

heebeegeetee said:

mac96 said:

I see where you are going but it's bit short on facts.

However- on one point you are definitely correct- where is the outrage , the pillorying of the driver by people who have no idea what happened?
Seems to be little coverage after 11/9, and not many comments on those newspaper sites which allowed comment. Admittedly the Mail has its share of comments from clairvoyants who know the car was going too fast, but they really don't count..

It will be interesting. I understand it happened on a single track, unclassified lane. Some of these can be very narrow.

Normally you'd expect to meet oncoming vehicles, traveling considerably faster than any pedestrians.

It'll be interesting to see how the blame could be heaped on the pedestrians.

Who knows? Perhaps they emerged from a gateway from the camp site right in front of the car giving driver no time to stop. Perhaps car had defective lights. Whatever happened its the relative lack of interest that is striking.

[bad company]

He may have been treated more lightly if he'd turned up at Court in a suit, collar & tie and actually showed some remorse. As it was he came across as an arrogant young tt imo.

I'm glad that he got a custodial sentence but for me it's too long.

[AMG Merc]

bad company said:

I'm glad that he got a custodial sentence but for me it's too long.

Only 9 months - he'll be home early July!

[bad company]

AMG Merc said:

bad company said:

I'm glad that he got a custodial sentence but for me it's too long.

Only 9 months - he'll be home early July!

Hopefully that'll be enough of a shock.

[surveyor_101]

bad company said:

He may have been treated more lightly if he'd turned up at Court in a suit, collar & tie and actually showed some remorse. As it was he came across as an arrogant young tt imo.

I'm glad that he got a custodial sentence but for me it's too long.

I second that, he seems to be a bit thick and his dress for court and attitude will only inflame his situation more. Its crown court and he is facing a stretch inside but he dresses like he is off to the pub and is rude to the media outside.

Whether or not you like the police brake test it showed a normal bike could stop under the circumstances

End of the day his bike was not road legal and whether he knew that or not ignorance is no defence.

[sospan]

I am guessing that this case will trigger a revue of some of the laws re cycling. Mainly lack of specific law,suitability of the bike, bell or horn, even insurance?
It has become high profile with much comment re the bike legality as well as the rider's attitude.
The main concern seems to be a lack of a law to apply. Having to use a historic oddball law for prosecution looks like the trigger for update.
Maybe there will be a similar review of pedestrian requirements?

[Pica-Pica]

sospan said:

I am guessing that this case will trigger a revue of some of the laws re cycling. Mainly lack of specific law,suitability of the bike, bell or horn, even insurance?
It has become high profile with much comment re the bike legality as well as the rider's attitude.
The main concern seems to be a lack of a law to apply. Having to use a historic oddball law for prosecution looks like the trigger for update.
Maybe there will be a similar review of pedestrian requirements?

Agree in part, but some 'historic oddball' laws are still valid.

[Retroman]

sospan said:

Maybe there will be a similar review of pedestrian requirements?

Hopefully.
The vast majority of pedestrians injured on the road occur due to stepping out onto the road when it's not safe or clear

[Druid]

surveyor_101 said:

mygoldfishbowl said:

Interesting. How many licenses do you have & what specialist qualifications?

Fishing Licence?

[Mr2Mike]

Rich_W said:

Excluding his social media output, there's sadly many cases where you can kill with a car and get a fine.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/18/taxi-dr...

£35 fine!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/dead-cyclists-fami...

£200 and 3 points (and he failed an eye test and had his licence revoked temporarily whilst he got glasses)

Sometimes the system works though

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-386...

9 years as it was his 8th! conviction for texting at the wheel. Why he still had a licence is beyond me!

In non cyclist deaths (and each year theres something like 1000 in the UK)

Car driver kills Motorcyclists

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8070554...

£300 and 6 points!

Man kills pedestrian and fails to stop!

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/farnham...

£330 fine!

The system is fked IMO. The phrase "it's an accident" somehow absolves the driver of most responsibility apparently. And explains why the driving standards on our roads are so st. If there's no punishment when it goes so badly wrong, where's the incentive to give a st?

The last one seems pretty bad I have to admit, but none of these are directly equivalent. Note that all drivers plead guilty, and none (AFAICT) directed blame onto the victim via social media.

[BMWBen]

Mr2Mike said:

Rich_W said:

Excluding his social media output, there's sadly many cases where you can kill with a car and get a fine.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/18/taxi-dr...

£35 fine!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/dead-cyclists-fami...

£200 and 3 points (and he failed an eye test and had his licence revoked temporarily whilst he got glasses)

Sometimes the system works though

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-386...

9 years as it was his 8th! conviction for texting at the wheel. Why he still had a licence is beyond me!

In non cyclist deaths (and each year theres something like 1000 in the UK)

Car driver kills Motorcyclists

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8070554...

£300 and 6 points!

Man kills pedestrian and fails to stop!

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/farnham...

£330 fine!

The system is fked IMO. The phrase "it's an accident" somehow absolves the driver of most responsibility apparently. And explains why the driving standards on our roads are so st. If there's no punishment when it goes so badly wrong, where's the incentive to give a st?

The last one seems pretty bad I have to admit, but none of these are directly equivalent. Note that all drivers plead guilty, and none (AFAICT) directed blame onto the victim via social media.

I think that kind of cuts both ways - in none of these cases were the police going after a manslaughter charge. If you've just killed someone and the police offer you "death by careless driving" you'd be a total moron not to say "yup! got me!"

[surveyor_101]

BMWBen said:

I think that kind of cuts both ways - in none of these cases were the police going after a manslaughter charge. If you've just killed someone and the police offer you "death by careless driving" you'd be a total moron not to say "yup! got me!"

I think with Alliston he help build a case against himself with>

>Social media posting about riding without a front brake was like being a in a film

>Social media after the incident commenting on the case and blaming the victim

>Witnesses stating he shouted abuse at the women to get out of the way and then after he hit her.

>The fact he was riding a bike not safe for road use in my mind and the minds of the police.

[BMWBen]

surveyor_101 said:

BMWBen said:

I think that kind of cuts both ways - in none of these cases were the police going after a manslaughter charge. If you've just killed someone and the police offer you "death by careless driving" you'd be a total moron not to say "yup! got me!"

I think with Alliston he help build a case against himself with>

>Social media posting about riding without a front brake was like being a in a film

>Social media after the incident commenting on the case and blaming the victim

>Witnesses stating he shouted abuse at the women to get out of the way and then after he hit her.

>The fact he was riding a bike not safe for road use in my mind and the minds of the police.

Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that the people in the cases above also recklessly caused the death of other people. The only difference is that we have no evidence of whether or not they were also utter bellends. "Being an utter bellend" shouldn't be a criminal offence or an aggravating factor imo.

[Jim1556]

BMWBen said:

"Being an utter bellend" shouldn't be a criminal offence or an aggravating factor imo.

True!

I'm on the fence personally, as I've read this thread (and some on facebook), and the amount of vitriolic bile being spouted about the cyclist, is, mildly offensive!

"Hang him/too short a sentence/banned for life" etc are some of the bullst comments posted. All because (no disrespect to anyone involved meant), she was portrayed as a sensible, loving mother, and he was portrayed as a yob on an illegal bike (some of it his own doing).

None of this is relevant to the facts of the case, which, AIUI, he's moving fairly sedately at approx 18mph, she steps out without looking (possible phone use stated but not proven), he shouts 'move' but doesn't slow down, they collide, she bangs her head and (tragically) dies... Granted, he's at fault, but then so was she. 18months? I'm stunned!

Flip this around, he dies (with or without a legal bike), would she have gone down for it? I severely doubt it would've been put down to anything else but a tragic accident.

How about if the walker had been a Jeremy Kyle contestant - no fuss, one less mouth breather???

[sim72]

In the end he was (deliberately) driving a vehicle that couldn't stop in time to avoid hitting her. A normal bike could.

He got off quite leniently, really.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38774080

[Mr Tidy]

BMWBen said:

"Being an utter bellend" shouldn't be a criminal offence or an aggravating factor imo.

WTF not?!

In the case in question it surely was an offence - just a shame the period of custody was so short - a*shole.

[BMWBen]

Mr Tidy said:

BMWBen said:

"Being an utter bellend" shouldn't be a criminal offence or an aggravating factor imo.

WTF not?!

In the case in question it surely was an offence - just a shame the period of custody was so short - a*shole.

Just to clarify, I mean in general, not specifically relating to the exact step by step circumstances of the collision. I.e. his initial reaction afterwards, and how he presented himself in court.

The fact is he didn't intend to collide with the lady, let alone hurt or kill her, and the standard applied in those circumstances usually (typically when it involves a car) is not a custodial sentence.

[The Mad Monk]

The accused came across as an unpleasant young man, completely devoid of any remorse or regret - even fake remorse.

However I do feel that the pedestrian should (post mortem) have to accept some share of the blame, she was walking in the road, she was on her phone - wasn't she?

[heebeegeetee]

The Mad Monk said:

The accused came across as an unpleasant young man, completely devoid of any remorse or regret - even fake remorse.

However I do feel that the pedestrian should (post mortem) have to accept some share of the blame, she was walking in the road, she was on her phone - wasn't she?

There's no evidence she was on her phone, but she was in the road.