wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.

[Heaveho]

Dammit said:

If he'd been driving a car he'd never have been charged

What? Do you want to back that nonsense up with something that makes an atom of sense?

[mygoldfishbowl]

Personally I think cycling should carry the death penalty.

[Durzel]

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.

Should justice really turn on how much of a tt someone is after the fact?

[heebeegeetee]

Heaveho said:

What? Do you want to back that nonsense up with something that makes an atom of sense?

Well, according to this:
https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-...

Alliston was 6.53m away when Mrs Briggs walked out into the road in front of him. This piece says that at 20 mph a car would need 12m to stop, and I don't think that includes thinking distance.

On the same website is the case of the driver who killed a cyclist in Regent Street and who was not charged, and the case had to be crowd funded to bring to court.
https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/?m=0

So I think there is merit in the notion that a driver may well have not been charged.

[AMG Merc]

Moaningroadie said:

SantaBarbara said:

Cycle Licences needed now

Honest question - what difference would that make?

Quite a lot I'd think. If this also included an ID plate - visible by cameras, BiB and the public - then I'd expect incidents to reduce.

I'd also like to see something like a £25 annual fee going into a cycling pot to cover registrations and insurance - why not? Us petrolheads have to comply.

[AMG Merc]

AndrewEH1 said:

Bad ruling, she shouldn't have stepped out on the road on her phone without looking.

I could be wrong but I think I heard that he lied about her being on a phone.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Certain (possibly biased) people comparing apples with pears here.

[heebeegeetee]

AMG Merc said:

Quite a lot I'd think. If this also included an ID plate - visible by cameras, BiB and the public - then I'd expect incidents to reduce.

I'd also like to see something like a £25 annual fee going into a cycling pot to cover registrations and insurance - why not? Us petrolheads have to comply.

Well, not as pedestrians we don't, and please don't use the default response that somehow pedestrians are 'lesser' road users.

In this case it seems the court has accepted that Mrs Briggs walked out into the road. Such behaviour can cause considerable damage to a car, yet pedestrians are not required to have insurance.

If you google the topic, you will find registering cyclists has been tried before elsewhere, and nowhere has made a success of it.

The only measurable difference ever recorded is to reduce the numbers of cyclists, and it is known that safety increases with number.

So, as an uninsured and unregistered road user yourself, I think you are proposing a system you only apply to others, which has a track record of being a financial and safety failure.

[andburg]

I have to say before this case I was not aware of a legal requirement of having a front brake on a bicycle!

Whether or not the judgement is correct I dont know either, but i do know the guy has behaved like an entitled asshat afterwards.

[Engineer792]

heebeegeetee said:

Alliston was 6.53m away when Mrs Briggs walked out into the road in front of him. This piece says that at 20 mph a car would need 12m to stop, and I don't think that includes thinking distance.

Read it again.
It says, "The Highway Code gives a typical stopping distance of 12 metres for a car driving at 20 mph".
Stopping distance does include thinking distance.

The main point is, you're supposed to drive/ride at a speed from which you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.
As it would have been impossible for him to have stopped within 6.53m from the speed he was doing, especially with no front brake, he was very clearly going too fast.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Engineer792 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Alliston was 6.53m away when Mrs Briggs walked out into the road in front of him. This piece says that at 20 mph a car would need 12m to stop, and I don't think that includes thinking distance.

Read it again.
It says, "The Highway Code gives a typical stopping distance of 12 metres for a car driving at 20 mph".
Stopping distance does include thinking distance.

and those figures are based on a 1930s car with wooden wheels, driven on ice using an umbrella as a braking system

[DocJock]

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.

Certain (possibly biased) people comparing apples with pears here.

He was. He was charged with manslaughter, but found not guilty by majority verdict.

[mgv8]

I think the argument will go on for some time, as for this one I think is just loss on all sides.
But what I don't get is why would you stand in the road?

[99dndd]

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."

[AMG Merc]

heebeegeetee said:

AMG Merc said:

Quite a lot I'd think. If this also included an ID plate - visible by cameras, BiB and the public - then I'd expect incidents to reduce.

I'd also like to see something like a £25 annual fee going into a cycling pot to cover registrations and insurance - why not? Us petrolheads have to comply.

Well, not as pedestrians we don't, and please don't use the default response that somehow pedestrians are 'lesser' road users.

In this case it seems the court has accepted that Mrs Briggs walked out into the road. Such behaviour can cause considerable damage to a car, yet pedestrians are not required to have insurance.

If you google the topic, you will find registering cyclists has been tried before elsewhere, and nowhere has made a success of it.

The only measurable difference ever recorded is to reduce the numbers of cyclists, and it is known that safety increases with number.

So, as an uninsured and unregistered road user yourself, I think you are proposing a system you only apply to others, which has a track record of being a financial and safety failure.

So best we agree to disagree on this point heebeegeetee. I feel registration and insurance is the only way to go as (some/many/enter your preferred word here) cyclists will never change their approach - because they don't want to/are not being forced to.

As for usage of the roads by pedestrians - I'd be happy with a £5 annual fee to cover insurance for this

[Phil Dicky]

AMG Merc said:

Moaningroadie said:

SantaBarbara said:

Cycle Licences needed now

Honest question - what difference would that make?

Quite a lot I'd think. If this also included an ID plate - visible by cameras, BiB and the public - then I'd expect incidents to reduce.

I'd also like to see something like a £25 annual fee going into a cycling pot to cover registrations and insurance - why not? Us petrolheads have to comply.

I ride daily and would happily agree to the above..help to curb the nutters I see on a daily basis riding, on paths, through red lights weaving in and out of moving traffic. Fact is we have idiots around us all day, in cars, buses, motor bikes and cycles.

[Pica-Pica]

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.

[anonymous-user]

Durzel 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.

Should justice really turn on how much of a tt someone is after the fact?

Well the judge seems think so, commenting on his complete lack of remorse in relation to sentencing.

[kiethton]

SantaBarbara said:

Cycle Licences needed now

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?

[Pica-Pica]

kiethton said:

SantaBarbara said:

Cycle Licences needed now

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?

How would you police it? 'Bobbies on bicycles, two-by-two' (credits to Roger Miller)