wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.

[heebeegeetee]

To post this again, here's a driver who modified his car, he removed his visibility. It contributed to his killing a cyclist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-207254...

We all see similarly modified cars on a daily basis.

Do I have an agenda? Yes I do, it is to see numpty drivers dealt with properly, especially when their numptyism seriously harms or kills.

But it's a hell of a battle to fight here on ph, it seems.

[TroubledSoul]

Retroman said:

Intent? I don't think either of them intended to kill someone tbh.

Not what I said or implied, as you well know. One is someone who could plausibly not know there's a problem, the other is someone who knows full well that they're doing wrong but goes ahead and does it anyway. Significantly different.

Retroman said:

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.

No I don't and I have not said anything as such. You're twisting facts again. Of course the car poses a greater risk in general.

Retroman said:

But thank you for demonstrating that despite the obvious risk difference, people will still leap to the defence of a motorist.

Oh dear. Another lie? I haven't defended the motorist at all. I've said that the motorist could plausibly have made a mistake whereas the cyclist did not.

Retroman said:

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

I am not arguing the point on this. I accept that people make mistakes but if a death comes as a result of a driver's negligence then they should of course be punished appropriately.

[BMWBen]

TroubledSoul said:

Oh dear. Another lie? I haven't defended the motorist at all. I've said that the motorist could plausibly have made a mistake whereas the cyclist did not.

Small point of order - you've assumed that the cyclist knew that it was illegal to ride without a front brake, rather than just knew that it was probably a bad idea. I don't think you can fairly assume that, and if you don't, then the drivers negligence in not having legal tyres, and the cyclists negligence in not having a front brake are actually much more similar.

After all, do you know what is required to make a bike "road legal"?

[will_]

TroubledSoul said:

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.

Big assumptions on your part there.

Would it be equally safe to assume that the guy with three bald tyres knew full well that they were illegal?

[will_]

IroningMan said:

The point is that the media, Court, Ministerial and PH responses to the Alliston case are patently hypocritical and utterly disproportionate given the way in which drivers who kill are respectively routinely ignored, acquitted on the flimsiest of excuses, ignored and robustly defended by the same.

Exactly.

Compare and contrast the case I posted earlier where a pedestrian stepped into the path of a cyclist and the cyclist died with what happened in Alliston's case. I very much doubt that the pedestrian will ever be arrested, let alone charged and convicted.

It appears that people only care about "justice" in respect of cyclists when it has the cyclist who is the guilty party. If the driver (or pedestrian) is guilty, people bend over backwards to explain away their behaviour. That is because cyclists are outliers, whereas most people are drivers and everyone is a pedestrian.

If cyclists did what drivers routinely do - and killed as many people as they do - there would be complete uproar - PH would go into meltdown, the Daily Mail would explode. When drivers kill cyclists and don't even get a suspended jail sentence there is barely a mention on here. The double standards are shocking.

[Zigster]

heebeegeetee said:

To post this again, here's a driver who modified his car, he removed his visibility. It contributed to his killing a cyclist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-207254...

We all see similarly modified cars on a daily basis.

Do I have an agenda? Yes I do, it is to see numpty drivers dealt with properly, especially when their numptyism seriously harms or kills.

But it's a hell of a battle to fight here on ph, it seems.

And look at the very similar example of Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, who opened his car door knocking a cyclist off his bike. That could so easily have resulted in the death of that cyclist.

Chris Grayling thought a quick handshake to someone laying dazed on the floor made it all okay.

What hope is there when the people in charge have such double standards.

[TroubledSoul]

Unfortunately for the good cyclists, the bad ones have got the general public perceiving cyclists as a menace and that certainly doesn't help when it comes to furore about deaths or injuries caused by them.

Red light jumpers, people who anti socially ride in the middle of the road to prevent cars passing, two, three abreast, cyclists who ride on the path as and when it suits, ride through crossings on red, ride into cars then disappear off on their bikes etc. etc. have all contributed to this.

That's irrelevant to the Charlie Alliston case however. A jury decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt that he knowingly rode a bike that was illegal. No assumptions on my part there. Please stop trying to excuse him or turn him into some sort of victim/martyr.

[heebeegeetee]

To paraphrase, for the umpteenth time, please show us who has tried to excuse him or show him any sympathy.

Too many people come on too many threads who struggle with reading, imo.

[Engineer792]

No, we've just had pages and pages of comments trying to show that drivers do just as badly, or worse.

Nothing anyone else does, or doesn't do, has, nor should have, any bearing whatsoever on this case.

[TroubledSoul]

Engineer792 said:

No, we've just had pages and pages of comments trying to show that drivers do just as badly, or worse.

Nothing anyone else does, or doesn't do, has, nor should have, any bearing whatsoever on this case.

This.

Bleating cries of "Oh never mind what he did, car drivers have done X and Y...". I mean seriously, are some of you unable to accept that this case was tried on its own merits and not in relation to what somebody else has done?

Heebeegeetee I have read many, many threads where you have contributed and I'm sorry to say they mostly follow a set theme when it's a case where a cyclist has done wrong. With all due respect, it's hard to take you seriously as a result.

I don't feel the need to add anything further on this thread as it's clear it's mostly a waste of time.

[will_]

TroubledSoul said:

Unfortunately for the good cyclists, the bad ones have got the general public perceiving cyclists as a menace and that certainly doesn't help when it comes to furore about deaths or injuries caused by them.

Red light jumpers, people who anti socially ride in the middle of the road to prevent cars passing, two, three abreast, cyclists who ride on the path as and when it suits, ride through crossings on red, ride into cars then disappear off on their bikes etc. etc. have all contributed to this.

If public perception is caused by poor road behaviour, where is the denouncement of motorists? Why the double standards?

TroubledSoul said:

That's irrelevant to the Charlie Alliston case however. A jury decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt that he knowingly rode a bike that was illegal. No assumptions on my part there. Please stop trying to excuse him or turn him into some sort of victim/martyr.

You are wrong.

From the sentencing remarks:
"You, Mr. Alliston, assert that you – despite being an experienced cyclist and regular user of an internet forum specifically for fixed-wheel cycle enthusiasts – were unaware that what you were doing was illegal. It is not necessary for me to make a finding of fact on this point since a) ignorance of the law is irrelevant and b) I am sure that whether or not you knew the law, you knew the danger of riding without a front brake."

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/20...

Please do not confuse correcting your errors and assumptions with defending or excusing Alliston.

[will_]

Engineer792 said:

No, we've just had pages and pages of comments trying to show that drivers do just as badly, or worse.

Nothing anyone else does, or doesn't do, has, nor should have, any bearing whatsoever on this case.

Nonsense.

It is important to treat people who commit similar offences (with similar consequences) in the same way. It is a relevant factor that someone was in a car, truck, bike, lorry or on foot, but it should not determine whether they are prosecuted or charged, and the penalty should reflect the culpability. It is therefore entirely right and proper to put Alliston's culpability and sentence in the context of others who kill on the road - the vast majority of those being motorists.

[will_]

TroubledSoul said:

This.

Bleating cries of "Oh never mind what he did, car drivers have done X and Y...".

Can you find a single such quote on this thread or any other about this case?

[heebeegeetee]

Engineer792 said:

No, we've just had pages and pages of comments trying to show that drivers do just as badly, or worse.

Nothing anyone else does, or doesn't do, has, nor should have, any bearing whatsoever on this case.

I agree with that, and just by wishing to discuss the case doesn't mean that anyone has any sympathy or empathy or anything like, whatsoever.

[Engineer792]

will_ said:

Engineer792 said:

No, we've just had pages and pages of comments trying to show that drivers do just as badly, or worse.

Nothing anyone else does, or doesn't do, has, nor should have, any bearing whatsoever on this case.

Nonsense.

It is important to treat people who commit similar offences (with similar consequences) in the same way. It is a relevant factor that someone was in a car, truck, bike, lorry or on foot, but it should not determine whether they are prosecuted or charged, and the penalty should reflect the culpability. It is therefore entirely right and proper to put Alliston's culpability and sentence in the context of others who kill on the road - the vast majority of those being motorists.

This forum contains a huge amount of threads in which people discuss, criticise and denounce motorists and drivers of all sorts of vehicles who do a lot less than kill people on the roads.
And, except for those which are hijacked by certain people trying to push an agenda, not many have comments which attempt to put them within the context of offences committed by cyclists.

Edited to fix a mistake - changes in bold

Edited by Engineer792 on Wednesday 27th September 21:02

[turbobloke]

Engineer792 said:

will_ said:

Engineer792 said:

No, we've just had pages and pages of comments trying to show that drivers do just as badly, or worse.

Nothing anyone else does, or doesn't do, has, nor should have, any bearing whatsoever on this case.

Nonsense.

It is important to treat people who commit similar offences (with similar consequences) in the same way. It is a relevant factor that someone was in a car, truck, bike, lorry or on foot, but it should not determine whether they are prosecuted or charged, and the penalty should reflect the culpability. It is therefore entirely right and proper to put Alliston's culpability and sentence in the context of others who kill on the road - the vast majority of those being motorists.

This forum contains a huge amount of threads in which people discuss, criticise and denounce motorists and drivers of all sorts of vehicles who kill people on the roads.
And, except for those which are hijacked by certain people trying to push an agenda, not many have comments which attempt to put them within the context of offences committed by cyclists.

Can't remember that many myself...not one, in fact.

[will_]

Engineer792 said:

will_ said:

Engineer792 said:

No, we've just had pages and pages of comments trying to show that drivers do just as badly, or worse.

Nothing anyone else does, or doesn't do, has, nor should have, any bearing whatsoever on this case.

Nonsense.

It is important to treat people who commit similar offences (with similar consequences) in the same way. It is a relevant factor that someone was in a car, truck, bike, lorry or on foot, but it should not determine whether they are prosecuted or charged, and the penalty should reflect the culpability. It is therefore entirely right and proper to put Alliston's culpability and sentence in the context of others who kill on the road - the vast majority of those being motorists.

This forum contains a huge amount of threads in which people discuss, criticise and denounce motorists and drivers of all sorts of vehicles who kill people on the roads.
And, except for those which are hijacked by certain people trying to push an agenda, not many have comments which attempt to put them within the context of offences committed by cyclists.

That is hardly surprising in a forum which revolves around cars. Serious offences by cyclists are in any event incredibly rare, so there is not much "context" to be gleaned from them when looking at how motorists are treated - just look at this thread as an example - it is much longer than any that I can remember relating to any number of deaths caused by motorists. Why do we care so much about the (relatively, in context) limited harm caused by cyclists?

On the flipside, looking at how motorists are treated does and should provide context for how cyclists are or should be treated, because such cases are more common.

The wider point is that there is a lot of hatred for cyclists, seemingly based largely on the fact that they do not "obey the rules of the road". That is a staggeringly hypocritical and ironic approach by people who are largely going to be motorists, and who therefore represent an enormous body of people who happily speed, have no insurance, no licence, no MOT, bald tyres and all the rest. Indeed, the lawlessness of cyclists it is used as an excuse for the poor treatment of cyclists, either on the roads or (less obviously) through the media and perhaps even the unconscious bias of the criminal justice system. Given the much greater risk posed my motorists, it should be the other way around - if any group of road users are blameworthy for things that really matter, such as deaths and serious injuries, it is motorists - and it is bizarre that it the greatest ire is reserved for cyclists.

[heebeegeetee]

turbobloke said:

Engineer792 said:

will_ said:

Engineer792 said:

No, we've just had pages and pages of comments trying to show that drivers do just as badly, or worse.

Nothing anyone else does, or doesn't do, has, nor should have, any bearing whatsoever on this case.

Nonsense.

It is important to treat people who commit similar offences (with similar consequences) in the same way. It is a relevant factor that someone was in a car, truck, bike, lorry or on foot, but it should not determine whether they are prosecuted or charged, and the penalty should reflect the culpability. It is therefore entirely right and proper to put Alliston's culpability and sentence in the context of others who kill on the road - the vast majority of those being motorists.

This forum contains a huge amount of threads in which people discuss, criticise and denounce motorists and drivers of all sorts of vehicles who kill people on the roads.
And, except for those which are hijacked by certain people trying to push an agenda, not many have comments which attempt to put them within the context of offences committed by cyclists.

Can't remember that many myself...not one, in fact.

I'm struggling too. We have the st driving on dashcam thread, which in fairness is in 3 volumes, and we have threads whereby posters ask on opinions of shunts that they or their friends have had, but I really can't recall "a huge amount of threads in which people discuss, criticise and denounce motorists and drivers of all sorts of vehicles who kill people on the roads" despite spending far too much time here.

We might get the occasional thread (not that I can recall right now) whereby a motorist has been denounced, but the denouncing ends/never begins if a cyclist is involved in any way.

I'd say nothing has achieved the vitriol of this cyclist, not even drunk-driving hit and run cases. The drunk trucker who recently sparked off the collision that killed 8 on the M1 didn't get 3 threads. As has been said, we are completely inured to the harm that motorists do.

[Engineer792]

Apologies, what I said earlier was not quite what I intended to say.
I've now edited my post to fix it.

[anonymous-user]

will_ said:

That is hardly surprising in a forum which revolves around cars. Serious offences by cyclists are in any event incredibly rare, so there is not much "context" to be gleaned from them when looking at how motorists are treated - just look at this thread as an example - it is much longer than any that I can remember relating to any number of deaths caused by motorists. Why do we care so much about the (relatively, in context) limited harm caused by cyclists?

On the flipside, looking at how motorists are treated does and should provide context for how cyclists are or should be treated, because such cases are more common.

The wider point is that there is a lot of hatred for cyclists, seemingly based largely on the fact that they do not "obey the rules of the road". That is a staggeringly hypocritical and ironic approach by people who are largely going to be motorists, and who therefore represent an enormous body of people who happily speed, have no insurance, no licence, no MOT, bald tyres and all the rest. Indeed, the lawlessness of cyclists it is used as an excuse for the poor treatment of cyclists, either on the roads or (less obviously) through the media and perhaps even the unconscious bias of the criminal justice system. Given the much greater risk posed my motorists, it should be the other way around - if any group of road users are blameworthy for things that really matter, such as deaths and serious injuries, it is motorists - and it is bizarre that it the greatest ire is reserved for cyclists.

I've read some self righteous bks in my time but this load of nonsense takes the cake! The percentage of cyclists acting like utter knobs on the roads far outweighs the percentage of motorised vehicle drivers doing likewise. That is why such ire is reserved for cyclists! End of!