Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[will_]

Byker28i said:

So in comparison to the original case of the cyclist killing a pedestrian, yes there are similarities, excessive speed on a cycle causing death

Or stepping into a cyclist's path causing death?

[mac96]

Just because there is no relevant road traffic law allowing pedestrians who cause fatal accidents to be prosecuted, this does not stop the victim family taking civil action.
Surely they have good potential case- the pedestrian's actions look to have been negligent, albeit there may have been contributory negligence by the cyclist.

Or I there a legal getout for pedestrians in these circumstances(apart from not being worth pursuing due to possibly having no insurance or own funds)?

[irocfan]

boyse7en said:

How can 24mph be high speed on a bike but not in a car? If I drove everywhere at 24mph I'd be accused of driving too slowly!

two words - stopping distance (as an aside bikes in central London are faster than cars)

[essayer]

He's been jailed for 18 months

[Speed 3]

Arrogant prick would have only got a suspended sentence at most if he'd showed any form of contrition.

[Laurel Green]

In a young offenders institution - hopefully bum-raped daily.

[FN2TypeR]

Laurel Green said:

In a young offenders institution - hopefully bum-raped daily.

Why?

[heebeegeetee]

essayer said:

He's been jailed for 18 months

Interesting.

Well, I might as well start the debate by saying, not sure if it's the right sentence or not, but from everything I've seen over my past 30 odd years, it's massively more than a driver normally gets when he's killed someone on two wheels.

I can't help thinking this guy's been done for matters not directly linked to the collision itself, which whilst fully deserved, I'm not sure it's what the courts should be doing.

And now we only need wait for the usual numbnuts to come along and accuse me of defending the guy.

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

Interesting.

Well, I might as well start the debate by saying, not sure if it's the right sentence or not, but from everything I've seen over my past 30 odd years, it's massively more than a driver normally gets when he's killed someone on two wheels.

I can't help thinking this guy's been done for matters not directly linked to the collision itself, which whilst fully deserved, I'm not sure it's what the courts should be doing.

And now we only need wait for the usual numbnuts to come along and accuse me of defending the guy.

I think it was his attitude that got the sentence rather than the offence

[AnotherClarkey]

FN2TypeR said:

Laurel Green said:

In a young offenders institution - hopefully bum-raped daily.

Why?

Because any thread involving prison always attracts these kinds of anal rape enthusiasts/fantasists.

[FN2TypeR]

AnotherClarkey said:

FN2TypeR said:

Laurel Green said:

In a young offenders institution - hopefully bum-raped daily.

Why?

Because any thread involving prison always attracts these kinds of anal rape enthusiasts/fantasists.

I did wonder if it was a vicarious fantasy type thing

[Laurel Green]

FN2TypeR said:

AnotherClarkey said:

FN2TypeR said:

Laurel Green said:

In a young offenders institution - hopefully bum-raped daily.

Why?

Because any thread involving prison always attracts these kinds of anal rape enthusiasts/fantasists.

I did wonder if it was a vicarious fantasy type thing

Not at-all. A place that one does not want to return to has to be better deterrent than a holiday camp they'll now find themselves in.

[FiF]

Grahamdub said:

I think it was his attitude that got the sentence rather than the offence

Precisely,

Sentencing Alliston Judge Wendy Joseph QC said: “I am satisfied in some part it was this so-called thrill that motivated you to ride without a front brake shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way.

“I’ve heard your evidence and I have no doubt that even now you remain obstinately sure of yourself and your own abilities.
“I have no doubt you are wrong in this. You were an accident waiting to happen.”

[Robertj21a]

heebeegeetee said:

essayer said:

He's been jailed for 18 months

Interesting.

Well, I might as well start the debate by saying, not sure if it's the right sentence or not, but from everything I've seen over my past 30 odd years, it's massively more than a driver normally gets when he's killed someone on two wheels.

I can't help thinking this guy's been done for matters not directly linked to the collision itself, which whilst fully deserved, I'm not sure it's what the courts should be doing.

And now we only need wait for the usual numbnuts to come along and accuse me of defending the guy.

Well, as the courts are supposed to reflect public opinion, perhaps it's now time that they SHOULD take into account matters not directly linked to the collision itself. It he goes about life acting like a total prick then I, for one, am quite happy that he receives a tougher sentence. It's not so very different from any other idiot who pleads guilty in court and confirms that he's unbelievably sorry for all his misdemeanours, so as to get a lighter sentence - he then goes off laughing his head off at the silliness of it all.

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

essayer said:

He's been jailed for 18 months

Interesting.

Well, I might as well start the debate by saying, not sure if it's the right sentence or not, but from everything I've seen over my past 30 odd years, it's massively more than a driver normally gets when he's killed someone on two wheels.

I can't help thinking this guy's been done for matters not directly linked to the collision itself, which whilst fully deserved, I'm not sure it's what the courts should be doing.

And now we only need wait for the usual numbnuts to come along and accuse me of defending the guy.

You can't leave it can you? "Start the debate"? It's been your MO all along. Whatever the cyclists' lot is, car drivers are worse, get it easier, are more to blame etc. Nothing but incessant trollery.

A JUDGE, who is far more qualified (and less biased) than you, has sentenced him to 18 months. That's fair, as laid out in the legislation and judiciary of this country. Nobody cares if you think it's too high, too low, too lenient, making an example etc. There is no debate to be had.

She's dead. He's guilty. If I were him I'd be over the moon with 18 months, out in 9 - probaby less - and then will be the BBC's go-to vox-popper for cycling accident matters. He will probably end up better off for the fame, while the poor lady is still dead and her kids are without a mother. He just needs to learn to shut his mouth from time to time, or at least speak with a little more sense/respect/humility.


And get his fking ears fixed, the collosal hipster bell-end.

[AnotherClarkey]

heebeegeetee said:

Interesting.

Well, I might as well start the debate by saying, not sure if it's the right sentence or not, but from everything I've seen over my past 30 odd years, it's massively more than a driver normally gets when he's killed someone on two wheels.

I can't help thinking this guy's been done for matters not directly linked to the collision itself, which whilst fully deserved, I'm not sure it's what the courts should be doing.

And now we only need wait for the usual numbnuts to come along and accuse me of defending the guy.

Most road users who kill aren't using unroadworthy, illegal, vehicles. If they were, sentences may be higher.

[heebeegeetee]

OpulentBob said:

You can't leave it can you? "Start the debate"? It's been your MO all along. Whatever the cyclists' lot is, car drivers are worse, get it easier, are more to blame etc. Nothing but incessant trollery.

A JUDGE, who is far more qualified (and less biased) than you, has sentenced him to 18 months. That's fair, as laid out in the legislation and judiciary of this country. Nobody cares if you think it's too high, too low, too lenient, making an example etc. There is no debate to be had.

She's dead. He's guilty. If I were him I'd be over the moon with 18 months, out in 9 - probaby less - and then will be the BBC's go-to vox-popper for cycling accident matters. He will probably end up better off for the fame, while the poor lady is still dead and her kids are without a mother. He just needs to learn to shut his mouth from time to time, or at least speak with a little more sense/respect/humility.


And get his fking ears fixed, the collosal hipster bell-end.

Erm, the newspaper articles I've been reading about this case contradict you entirely, and indeed much debate has already been had. And you obviously care about what I've said because you've responded.

I just know who is most likely to hurt me, mine and yours too. I agree with the newspaper articles who say hard law makes bad law. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep...

[700BHP]

Why at a young offenders institution?

[FiF]

heebeegeetee said:

OpulentBob said:

You can't leave it can you? "Start the debate"? It's been your MO all along. Whatever the cyclists' lot is, car drivers are worse, get it easier, are more to blame etc. Nothing but incessant trollery.

A JUDGE, who is far more qualified (and less biased) than you, has sentenced him to 18 months. That's fair, as laid out in the legislation and judiciary of this country. Nobody cares if you think it's too high, too low, too lenient, making an example etc. There is no debate to be had.

She's dead. He's guilty. If I were him I'd be over the moon with 18 months, out in 9 - probaby less - and then will be the BBC's go-to vox-popper for cycling accident matters. He will probably end up better off for the fame, while the poor lady is still dead and her kids are without a mother. He just needs to learn to shut his mouth from time to time, or at least speak with a little more sense/respect/humility.


And get his fking ears fixed, the collosal hipster bell-end.

Erm, the newspaper articles I've been reading about this case contradict you entirely, and indeed much debate has already been had. And you obviously care about what I've said because you've responded.

I just know who is most likely to hurt me, mine and yours too. I agree with the newspaper articles who say hard law makes bad law. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep...

Just a point of order, the court, and therefore the judge have heard all the evidence, and made a decision, guilty. An experienced judge, who repeat, has heard all the evidence, has given a sentence.

Reading a few newspaper articles, which report a selective part of the evidence, possibly with their own agenda slanting what is included and excluded, and how anything is presented, just doesn't measure up in any way to being in the court and hearing all the evidence and the manner and credibility of the defendant and witnesses.

[Lance Catamaran]

700BHP said:

Why at a young offenders institution?

Generally won't get sent to an "adult" prison until you're 21/22