wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.
Discussion
wsurfa said:
2wheelsjimmy said:
This article is worth a read;
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/charlie-allis...
It presents the facts clearly.
It seems rather fact free and opinion heavy. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/charlie-allis...
It presents the facts clearly.
According to the article, the 'Offences Against the Person Act' is an obscure Victorian law.
It lists accident and fatality stats with no analysis of blame or incident level.
It mentions no front brakes and links to an article headlined ''Front brake would not have made a difference'', without ever mentioning the actual court findings
The comments also seem to contain an attitude displayed by the cyclist convicted - they are righteous all else are evil.
If you really think that is clear presentation of the facts, I would suggest you have a strange view of the world.
Retroman said:
giantdefy said:
Here's a better one.Driver goes onto pavement, kills a child but gets off free
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
Retroman said:
Here's a better one.
Driver goes onto pavement, kills a child but gets off free
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
I must have missed the bit where his van had no front brakes and the driver then posted on social media that it was the girl's fault?Driver goes onto pavement, kills a child but gets off free
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
Mr2Mike said:
I must have missed the bit where his van had no front brakes and the driver then posted on social media that it was the girl's fault?
Alliston's illegality was the front brakes, this driver's was to drive on the pavement it seems.The very fact that there was someone on the pavement is the proof that the driver did not check properly.
He pleaded not guilty, so who does he think is responsible for his van striking the child on the pavement? It seems he does not recall telling a policeman that the child ran out in front of him.
I'm sorry, but it sounds like he wasn't blaming himself, and perhaps he doesn't use or wouldn't discuss such a thing on social media. Who knows what has been said since the court case?
Which is all extremely trivial in the light of this child walking along a pavement perfectly lawfully and being killed, by a driver who said he drove neither dangerously or carelessly.
heebeegeetee said:
He pleaded not guilty, so who does he think is responsible for his van striking the child on the pavement? It seems he does not recall telling a policeman that the child ran out in front of him.
A plea of 'not guilty' means 'let the evidence be heard'.It doesn't mean 'not me guv, i wasn't there - it weren't my fault'.
The Mad Monk said:
heebeegeetee said:
He pleaded not guilty, so who does he think is responsible for his van striking the child on the pavement? It seems he does not recall telling a policeman that the child ran out in front of him.
A plea of 'not guilty' means 'let the evidence be heard'.It doesn't mean 'not me guv, i wasn't there - it weren't my fault'.
will_ said:
Pedestrians stepping into the road without looking is an increasing problem in my experience - mainly glued to their phones. Short of travelling everywhere at 2mph you cannot mitigate someone just launching off the pavement one foot in front of you. Pedestrians do have a duty of care to other road users; there is no divine right to just blindly step into traffic.
I'm glad it's not just me that's noticed a severe increase in this then! It's genuinely alarming how comfortable certain people are in not looking where they're going and slowly walk onto a busy main road with head-on oncoming traffic. What's worse is they don't even run quickly to get to the other side either. It's like they're expecting traffic to simply stop and wait for them.As an aside, I can remember many moons ago two lads when I was at school, not the sharpest tools in the box, who used to play a game where they'd jump out in front of traffic for a giggle because they knew or hoped they'd stop in time.
They were hauled up in front of the entire school and given a b
king by the teacher who was driving one of the cars......
They were hauled up in front of the entire school and given a b
king by the teacher who was driving one of the cars......DJFish said:
As an aside, I can remember many moons ago two lads when I was at school, not the sharpest tools in the box, who used to play a game where they'd jump out in front of traffic for a giggle because they knew or hoped they'd stop in time.
'Chicken' or something? Some kids in our local primary did this on the dual carriageway. Unfortunately on the last occasion one of them dropped his baseball cap but went back to pick it up, before getting splattered by a car. Not sure that's in the same ball-park as walking around glued to your smartphone, but it's as equally stupid.Mr2Mike said:
I must have missed the bit where his van had no front brakes and the driver then posted on social media that it was the girl's fault?
Ahh that's a good point. I forgot it's ok to run over children on pavements and kill them as long as your vehicle is roadworthy and you don't act like a bell end after it.IroningMan said:
PH closes in a little more on jumping the shark in its efforts to defend any road user who isn't riding a bicycle.
Exactly.Retroman said:
Mr2Mike said:
I must have missed the bit where his van had no front brakes and the driver then posted on social media that it was the girl's fault?
Ahh that's a good point. I forgot it's ok to run over children on pavements and kill them as long as your vehicle is roadworthy and you don't act like a bell end after it.Mr2Mike said:
Obviously it isn't ok, but you seem to be implying that in the above scenario the outcome in court wouldn't be any different. Do you honestly believe that?
Do you think someone who drives on the pavement and kills a child should be let off?Seems strange that driving on the pavement and killing a child you get let off, or when running down a cyclist and killing them in broad daylight and blaming it on "sun glare" gets you let off
Retroman said:
Do you think someone who drives on the pavement and kills a child should be let off?
Seems strange that driving on the pavement and killing a child you get let off, or when running down a cyclist and killing them in broad daylight and blaming it on "sun glare" gets you let off
I thought the point he was making was that events like that don't get the same level of publicity and public outcry because it isn't someone driving an illegal vehicle without brakes nor are they going mental on the internet and laying into their victim. Comparing that incident with the Alliston one is apples and oranges. Seems strange that driving on the pavement and killing a child you get let off, or when running down a cyclist and killing them in broad daylight and blaming it on "sun glare" gets you let off
He never said anyone killing a child should be let off! Jeez.
TroubledSoul said:
I thought the point he was making was that events like that don't get the same level of publicity and public outcry because it isn't someone driving an illegal vehicle without brakes nor are they going mental on the internet and laying into their victim. Comparing that incident with the Alliston one is apples and oranges.
He never said anyone killing a child should be let off! Jeez.
The driver who killed four cyclists - two of them kids - while driving on three defective tyres was let off - give or take £180 for the tyres. Don't remember any Ministerial action or public outcry.He never said anyone killing a child should be let off! Jeez.
IroningMan said:
The driver who killed four cyclists - two of them kids - while driving on three defective tyres was let off - give or take £180 for the tyres. Don't remember any Ministerial action or public outcry.
While not excusing the condition of the tyres, it's much easier to not notice that your tyres have gone below the legal tread marker if you're not particularly enthusiastic about cars. You don't ride a fixie with no front brake and not know that you're riding something very difficult to stop quickly. Come on man, you seem to be picking arguments for the sake of it in some quest to prove that car drivers are worse. What's the point?
TroubledSoul said:
IroningMan said:
The driver who killed four cyclists - two of them kids - while driving on three defective tyres was let off - give or take £180 for the tyres. Don't remember any Ministerial action or public outcry.
While not excusing the condition of the tyres, it's much easier to not notice that your tyres have gone below the legal tread marker if you're not particularly enthusiastic about cars. You don't ride a fixie with no front brake and not know that you're riding something very difficult to stop quickly. Come on man, you seem to be picking arguments for the sake of it in some quest to prove that car drivers are worse. What's the point?
As you have just demonstrated...
Drive on three defective tyres? There but for the grace of God, could happen to anyone etc. is the response. WTAF happened to personal accountability for the state of the vehicle in which you choose to take to the roads?
Ride a bike without a front brake, however, and even a 19-year-old should know better and must have the book thrown at him, no matter how hard we have to go looking for a suitable book to throw.
TroubledSoul said:
While not excusing the condition of the tyres, it's much easier to not notice that your tyres have gone below the legal tread marker if you're not particularly enthusiastic about cars. You don't ride a fixie with no front brake and not know that you're riding something very difficult to stop quickly.
Come on man, you seem to be picking arguments for the sake of it in some quest to prove that car drivers are worse. What's the point?
And here we are againCome on man, you seem to be picking arguments for the sake of it in some quest to prove that car drivers are worse. What's the point?
Someone driving a vehicle at over 1000kg and is capable of high speeds has a duty to make sure the vehicle is kept safe and roadworthy.
It's much more of a risk and much more dangerous than a 10kg bicycle capable of about 30mph on a good day
But despite that, people are still making excuses for the motorists and coming down heavily on the cyclist because most people are motorists and not cyclists.
It's not picking out car drivers are worse, it's pointing out that despite motor vehicles being much more dangerous and a higher level of care needed to operate them, a lot of the time the punishments are a slap on the wrist.
The cyclist is a monumental bell end to the highest degree btw, but the justice system seems a bit skewed sometimes.
You two could work for the Daily Mail! 
You're making it up as you go to suit your agendas. I never said it was OK if the car had defective tyres, I simply stated that there's a difference between not knowing something has gone past an acceptable level of wear and tear and deliberately and knowingly using something on the road that isn't roadworthy.
If you can't see the difference between failing to check something and choosing to do something illegal then there's not much point us continuing this conversation. Both are wrong, but they are very very different in intent.
You're making it up as you go to suit your agendas. I never said it was OK if the car had defective tyres, I simply stated that there's a difference between not knowing something has gone past an acceptable level of wear and tear and deliberately and knowingly using something on the road that isn't roadworthy.
If you can't see the difference between failing to check something and choosing to do something illegal then there's not much point us continuing this conversation. Both are wrong, but they are very very different in intent.
TroubledSoul said:
You two could work for the Daily Mail!
You're making it up as you go to suit your agendas.
Perhaps you could enlighten me to what my "agenda" is exactly?You're making it up as you go to suit your agendas.
This should be interesting seeing as i drive daily and have probably cycled twice in the last year.
TroubledSoul said:
I never said it was OK if the car had defective tyres, I simply stated that there's a difference between not knowing something has gone past an acceptable level of wear and tear and deliberately and knowingly using something on the road that isn't roadworthy.
I never said you said it was ok. I just pointed out people are quick to leap to the defence of a motorist even though a motor vehicle with illegal tyres is a far greater safety risk than a bicycle with rubbish brakes.TroubledSoul said:
If you can't see the difference between failing to check something and choosing to do something illegal then there's not much point us continuing this conversation. Both are wrong, but they are very very different in intent.
Intent? I don't think either of them intended to kill someone tbh.Both failed to keep their vehicles safe to use on the road. One was due to a modification. The other was due to being lazy. Doesn't take long to check tyres and it's not something you need to be doing daily. Just be aware of how fast they are wearing.
Both are wrong, but you fail to see that a 1000+kg vehicle with dodgy tyres is a much greater risk to people's safety than a 10kg slow speed bicycle with a rubbish braking system.
But thank you for demonstrating that despite the obvious risk difference, people will still leap to the defence of a motorist.
Where's the incentive for people to be more vigilant with how safe their car is, when if they kill someone for being too lazy to look at tyres every now and then, they just get a slap on the wrist?
Edited by Retroman on Tuesday 26th September 19:56
TroubledSoul said:
IroningMan said:
The driver who killed four cyclists - two of them kids - while driving on three defective tyres was let off - give or take £180 for the tyres. Don't remember any Ministerial action or public outcry.
While not excusing the condition of the tyres, it's much easier to not notice that your tyres have gone below the legal tread marker if you're not particularly enthusiastic about cars. You don't ride a fixie with no front brake and not know that you're riding something very difficult to stop quickly. Come on man, you seem to be picking arguments for the sake of it in some quest to prove that car drivers are worse. What's the point?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff