Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[yellowjack]

Angrybiker said:

I agree. Cause doesn't matter, any reckless taking of a life should be met with stern punishment. The travesty I was talking about was how trivial the consequences are, but what I didn't express was comparative sentences. 7 years for money laundering for example.. Over 4 times the penalty than for robbing someone of a life and destroying who knows how many other lives. We have some weird priorities, for a species that has apparently outgrown the need for God.

In which case I think we are even more in agreement.

There is no need for a new specific offence with regard to cyclists who kill pedestrians,any more than there is a need for parliament to debate a new specific offence of "Causing Death by Careless/Dangerous Golf (or cricket)". The number of offences are low, and there is alternative legi=slation available to deal with offenders, as in this case.

And yes, I too find it bewildering that simple property offences can often be dealt with more harshly than offences against the person. Strange priorities indeed.

[zarjaz1991]

yellowjack said:

In which case I think we are even more in agreement.

There is no need for a new specific offence with regard to cyclists who kill pedestrians,any more than there is a need for parliament to debate a new specific offence of "Causing Death by Careless/Dangerous Golf (or cricket)". The number of offences are low, and there is alternative legi=slation available to deal with offenders, as in this case.

And yes, I too find it bewildering that simple property offences can often be dealt with more harshly than offences against the person. Strange priorities indeed.

Not at all strange really.

Any offence that involves depriving someone of money - *especially* if the 'someone' is a big corporation - will be dealt with more severely than anything that simply injures or kills someone.

Profit and money have long counted for more than life in our society.

[Frank7]

irocfan said:

@ Frank7 - apols there I kinda mis-read I'd managed to read it as ttfeatures was driving said tipper not being hit by it! That not-withstanding I'd expect the tipper/bus/van/car driver to be thoroughly investigated and if necessary prosecuted

Thanks irocfan for trying to clear it up.
I think I've got it now, but I'm still a tad unsure, or maybe obtuse.
I THINK you're saying if the offending cyclist had been driving a truck with defective brakes, and hit a pedestrian, then he should have been prosecuted, which is fine by me.
But you're "not withstanding" bit SEEMED to be saying that if a cyclist with defective brakes, couldn't stop, and collided with a (hopefully), legally driven truck, and died, you'd expect the truck driver to be investigated, and possibly prosecuted.
As I said, if I'm being obtuse, just ignore this, maybe the penny will drop for me later.

[Stickyfinger]

zarjaz1991 said:

Not at all strange really.

Any offence that involves depriving someone of money - *especially* if the 'someone' is a big corporation - will be dealt with more severely than anything that simply injures or kills someone.

Profit and money have long counted for more than life in our society.

Disagree to some extent:

Most offensives of that type have a massive weighting of "intent"........intent, eg making the choice (to defraud for example) will always carry a higher sanction than an offence where the guilty party made no such choice even if there was a reckless aspect.

The cyclist in this case made lots of choices that multiplied his "guilt" as well as the post event comments and attitude. These aspects are a refection of him as a person and his disregard for the law and his guilt.

Edited by Stickyfinger on Tuesday 19th September 13:39

[catso]

yellowjack said:

I'm alive today despite being hit by a Mercedes Sprinter van while riding my bicycle on a roundabout. This was a case of good luck.

And also probably an accident?

Assuming the van driver had a roadworthy vehicle with brakes, wasn't driving dangerously and shouting at you to move rather than attempting to stop then the circumstances are very different.

[fido]

_dobbo_ said:

There was so much focus on whether he could have stopped if he'd had a front brake, but in the summing up it appears by his own admission he didn't even try to stop.

So why the focus on stopping distances at all? He could have had a brake installed but the evidence he gave indicates he wouldn't have used it anyway.

I presume that he didn't try to stop because he knew that his lack of front brakes meant his best course would be to a) shout at the pedestrian b) attempt to steer around the pedestrian. So he was in effect a two-wheeled version of Speed where Keanu decided not to fit front brakes as legally required. Of course, Militant Cyclist will tell everyone that's he could have easily stopped on a sixpence using the pedals alone.

[Angrybiker]

fido said:

_dobbo_ said:

There was so much focus on whether he could have stopped if he'd had a front brake, but in the summing up it appears by his own admission he didn't even try to stop.

So why the focus on stopping distances at all? He could have had a brake installed but the evidence he gave indicates he wouldn't have used it anyway.

I presume that he didn't try to stop because he knew that his lack of front brakes meant his best course would be to a) shout at the pedestrian b) attempt to steer around the pedestrian. This was in effect a two-wheeled version of Speed where Keanu decided not to fit front brakes as legally required. Of course, Militant Cyclist wil nowl tell everyone that's he could have easily stopped on a sixpence using the pedals alone.

I think his words around 'not my fault if people don't respect cyclists' may be more of a clue about the driver behind his choice to shout at the pedestrian and not have or operate brakes.

[Sa Calobra]

eldar said:

rambo19 said:

A sad case for all involved, but................



From what I have read, the woman walks out without looking, she was less than 20 meters from a crossing and was playing with her phone.

The phone accusation was from the cyclist, then retracted.

The wonders of CCTV. Glad it caught his lies

[Sa Calobra]

gazza285 said:

What happens when a pedestrian walks out in front of a cyclist and as a consequence the cyclist dies? Will there be a prosecution here?

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist...

Do you know all the facts or Google searching to fit into your train of thought? There's mention of speed and other factors that may cast doubt.

[jakesmith]

Sa Calobra said:

Do you know all the facts or Google searching to fit into your train of thought? There's mention of speed and other factors that may cast doubt.

You can see what sort of person he & his family are by their demeanor on way to sentencing, angrily trying to shove the journalists out of the way as though they are the ones being wronged in this situation. It reminded me of when the 5 accused of killing Stephen Lawrence arrived at court. They showed no humility whatsoever, only contempt for the situation, I am sure they all feel this is a massive miscarriage of justice and their little darling has been made an unfair example of etc.

My experience of cyclists on the roads is generally negative and different to how I cycle. Last Sunday I was returning from the supermarket and a group of about 15 cyclists had crossed half a road, effectively blocking one lane completely waiting for a gap in the traffic to progress. I didn't stop to let them in, it was my right of way, I was in a hurry and I didn't fancy sitting behind them as they would no doubt ride 2-3 abreast for the next several miles shouting to eachother. As I passed, one of them felt the need to say that Maserati drivers are all **** (didn't make it out but am assuming non favorable).

[yellowjack]

jakesmith said:

...My experience of cyclists on the roads is generally negative and different to how I cycle. Last Sunday I was returning from the supermarket and a group of about 15 cyclists had crossed half a road, effectively blocking one lane completely waiting for a gap in the traffic to progress. I didn't stop to let them in, it was my right of way, I was in a hurry and I didn't fancy sitting behind them as they would no doubt ride 2-3 abreast for the next several miles shouting to each other. As I passed, one of them felt the need to say that Maserati drivers are all **** (didn't make it out but am assuming non favorable).

Meanwhile in this thread... https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... ...some festering carbuncles on the buttocks of humanity are arguing that YOU are the knob in that situation for not letting them in, and that it is entirely safe, reasonable, and indeed desirable on occasion for car drivers to carry out such a manoeuvre, and to expect to be let in to traffic.

Examples:

mattwhite709 said:

The other day I was leaving work. I am waiting to turn right onto a major road. I wait until there is no traffic coming towards me and pull out half way blocking the oncoming lane of traffic which was clear.

Whilst I am waiting for the traffic on the other side of the road to be clear to complete my manouvre I notice this mini cooper S speed up on purpose despite her seeing me. She then proceeds to slam on her breaks last minute and starts staring at me.

I am like really?? She then says well dont block my lane init bruv. I was like it was clear when I pulled out. Really top knobish behaviour by her.

Burnzyb said:

You quite obviously don't drive in heavy traffic, people are so arrogant nowadays that they will happily leave you sitting there for 15 minutes or more because no one has the decency to let you into the lane they are using, yes you could wait but then you are creating traffic yourself, by doing said manouvre you get let in and it frees up the junction you leaving, yes there is exceptions where people take the wee but that goes for many things in life, some of the Highway Code is out of date and needs bringing upto the 21st century.

Personally I do it and I'm happy to wait for someone doing it too as really the people you should be annoyed at are the ones not letting them in as it'll delay there journey.

Pistonheads - home to double standards over driver/cyclist behaviour since 1998...


It is either acceptable to pull half way across a road in a bid to force/blackmail your way into the flow of traffic when turning right from a minor road, or it isn't. The type of vehicle, the make or model of the car, or the sex/sexuality/attraciveness of the person blocking a lane is not relevant. If it is acceptable behaviour when driving a car, it follows that it MUST be acceptable when riding a bicycle.

The way I read your post I assume that you are against the pulling of such an arrogant stunt. I certainly am. I wouldn't consider blocking a lane when in my car because I would (potentially) inconvenience other traffic were I not to get "let in" by traffic from my left. I would absolutely not do it on my bicycle for self-preservation reasons. I don't know you, so can't say that you have, but if, however, you have EVER pulled that move in your car, then I'd suggest it would be hypocritical in the extreme to then call a bunch of cyclists out over them doing exactly the same thing...

[gazza285]

Sa Calobra said:

gazza285 said:

What happens when a pedestrian walks out in front of a cyclist and as a consequence the cyclist dies? Will there be a prosecution here?

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist...

Do you know all the facts or Google searching to fit into your train of thought? There's mention of speed and other factors that may cast doubt.

Exactly what train of thought is that? I do not know the facts, hence asking what the collective PH wisdom thinks.

[Angrybiker]

I am like really?? She then says well dont block my lane init bruv. I was like it was clear when I pulled out

.... ahhhh kids nowadays, masters of the simile.

What exactly is LIKE 'really?', but not ACTUALLY 'really?' I'm struggling to think. And what does it mean to be 'really?', even if that were the actual thing that one was being or feeling?
and I'm really not sure how it feels to be 'it was clear when I pulled out'.

[vivalebeaver]

I can't help but think that if a pedestrian stepped off a pavement without looking, went into the middle of the road and then stepped backwards into the path of a car going at 12mph then a motorist wouldn't have been jailed for the same offence. The cycling barrister on his blog gives an interesting summary of this case, he also found some mathematical type person who worked out that even if the bike had a front brake it wouldn't have been able to,stop in time when allowing for reaction time.

[Stickyfinger]

vivalebeaver said:

I can't help but think that if a pedestrian stepped off a pavement without looking, went into the middle of the road and then stepped backwards into the path of a car going at 12mph then a motorist wouldn't have been jailed for the same offence. The cycling barrister on his blog gives an interesting summary of this case, he also found some mathematical type person who worked out that even if the bike had a front brake it wouldn't have been able to,stop in time when allowing for reaction time.

Judge and Jury disagree, end of discussion. He is free to encourage the little moron to appeal.

[powerstroke]

High time we banned wearing lycra while cycling in public ,unless its being worn during a competitve event ...

[turbobloke]

vivalebeaver said:

I can't help but think that if a pedestrian stepped off a pavement without looking, went into the middle of the road and then stepped backwards into the path of a car going at 12mph then a motorist wouldn't have been jailed for the same offence. The cycling barrister on his blog gives an interesting summary of this case, he also found some mathematical type person who worked out that even if the bike had a front brake it wouldn't have been able to,stop in time when allowing for reaction time.

Presumably the mathematical type apologist took into account that the criminal had time to shout at the woman twice to get out of the firkin way. That first shout represented the end of thinking time and the start of braking time - for anyone with an ounce of road sense, decency and consideration for other road users...and two workable brakes.

[jakesmith]

yellowjack said:

Pistonheads - home to double standards over driver/cyclist behaviour since 1998...


It is either acceptable to pull half way across a road in a bid to force/blackmail your way into the flow of traffic when turning right from a minor road, or it isn't. The type of vehicle, the make or model of the car, or the sex/sexuality/attraciveness of the person blocking a lane is not relevant. If it is acceptable behaviour when driving a car, it follows that it MUST be acceptable when riding a bicycle.

The way I read your post I assume that you are against the pulling of such an arrogant stunt. I certainly am. I wouldn't consider blocking a lane when in my car because I would (potentially) inconvenience other traffic were I not to get "let in" by traffic from my left. I would absolutely not do it on my bicycle for self-preservation reasons. I don't know you, so can't say that you have, but if, however, you have EVER pulled that move in your car, then I'd suggest it would be hypocritical in the extreme to then call a bunch of cyclists out over them doing exactly the same thing...

I absolutely don't drive this way, I have a nice car, value my life, and hate to inconvenience others.

[Ali G]

With hope, perhaps the law can be updated to clarify aspects of furious cycling which are acceptable.

The bicycle in this particular case could not be considered to be fit for purpose, and perhaps the chap should have been restrained legally from such foolhardy behaviour which has resulted in a death.

[heebeegeetee]

Ali G said:

With hope, perhaps the law can be updated to clarify aspects of furious cycling which are acceptable.

The bicycle in this particular case could not be considered to be fit for purpose, and perhaps the chap should have been restrained legally from such foolhardy behaviour which has resulted in a death.

Eh? He was restrained legally, it was illegal. Do you mean physically restrained?