Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..
Discussion
Everyday I walk from the tube to my office its 10mins and its the same everyday ALL cyclist ignore the rules of the road / ignore signs, I have to dodge them over and over again. What I experience daily is,
1. Cyclist riding through Smithfield's Meat market where there are signs to say 'No Cycling', but they ignore that I have to avoid them, if you mention it to them you get abuse.
2. The traffic lights / crossing outside the market, its on red I can walk but apparently red does not mean cyclist stop it means navigate around the people walking across the road, bring it to the cyclist attention they just ignore give abuse.
3. A bit further up I walk down a wide path between 2 buildings, again big signs 'No Cycling' but they come flying down there, again point it out to them and its abuse.
The arrogant nature of the guy down for manslaughter seems to apply to the majority of London City cyclist, I never had an issue with them before and I don't drive much, but the fact I have avoid the majority of them because they don't want to follow the laws of the road, really gets on my t*ts.
1. Cyclist riding through Smithfield's Meat market where there are signs to say 'No Cycling', but they ignore that I have to avoid them, if you mention it to them you get abuse.
2. The traffic lights / crossing outside the market, its on red I can walk but apparently red does not mean cyclist stop it means navigate around the people walking across the road, bring it to the cyclist attention they just ignore give abuse.
3. A bit further up I walk down a wide path between 2 buildings, again big signs 'No Cycling' but they come flying down there, again point it out to them and its abuse.
The arrogant nature of the guy down for manslaughter seems to apply to the majority of London City cyclist, I never had an issue with them before and I don't drive much, but the fact I have avoid the majority of them because they don't want to follow the laws of the road, really gets on my t*ts.
heebeegeetee said:
Breadvan72 said:
I think that you misunderstand how causation works. The incident was avoidable by the cyclist. The cyclist could and should have slowed down. He pressed on, telling for his path to be cleared. Yes, the pedestrian was careless, but that did not cause her death. The causes were (1) the way in which the cyclist rode (that apparently being influenced by his selfish attitude); and (2) the absence of a front brake (ditto).
A careful road user makes allowances for the mistakes made by others. Just as a good driver drives defensively, so should a good cyclist, especially in a built up area Having the right of way is no excuse for whacking into somebody.
I still think, however, that undue attention is given to the few deaths caused by bad cycling and that arguably not enough is given to the many deaths caused by bad driving. Cars and lorries and buses are inherently more dangerous that bicycles, because the consequences of misuse of heavy and fast vehicles are greater than those for lighter and slower vehicles, but driver training is limited and there is no regular renewals training. Most people who operate dangerous machines have to re-validate their ability to do so at intervals, but because motoring is embedded in our culture we as motorists take minimal training and do one quite easy test just once (court ordered re-testing apart).
Driving is a bit like booze - culturally embedded and so allowed to get away with stuff that other drugs can't get away with. I write this as someone who likes driving and also booze (although not usually at the same time, as my cars are old and shaky and so they make my Martini spill, which is a bummer.)
Your first two paragraphs apply to both parties. The incident was avoidable by the pedestrian. It takes two to tangle, and in this case both parties failed to follow the HC, rules, laws and common sense. A careful road user makes allowances for the mistakes made by others. Just as a good driver drives defensively, so should a good cyclist, especially in a built up area Having the right of way is no excuse for whacking into somebody.
I still think, however, that undue attention is given to the few deaths caused by bad cycling and that arguably not enough is given to the many deaths caused by bad driving. Cars and lorries and buses are inherently more dangerous that bicycles, because the consequences of misuse of heavy and fast vehicles are greater than those for lighter and slower vehicles, but driver training is limited and there is no regular renewals training. Most people who operate dangerous machines have to re-validate their ability to do so at intervals, but because motoring is embedded in our culture we as motorists take minimal training and do one quite easy test just once (court ordered re-testing apart).
Driving is a bit like booze - culturally embedded and so allowed to get away with stuff that other drugs can't get away with. I write this as someone who likes driving and also booze (although not usually at the same time, as my cars are old and shaky and so they make my Martini spill, which is a bummer.)
It's also worth repeating that it's an extraordinarily rare event, and has generated three threads, headline news and so on.
I think it's worth repeating that 5,000 people are hurt and killed per annum just in London alone, just by hit and runs. This means there's been a sizeable number of people hurt and killed since this case occurred, indeed even since the case went to court.
But we're inured to these. We accept these, and there's been no interest whatsoever on this site or anywhere else in discussing what is going to be done about it.
Heaven knows what the figures are nationally.
These threads are totally lacking in balance and are all about attacking cycling.
The evidence is on cctv
From the summing up, once again.
One would have hoped this senseless death would provoke a shifting of attitudes but from the replies on here and calls to Ban the thread and thus any discussion...... I guess not.
Edited by Sylvaforever on Thursday 21st September 11:30
FiF said:
donutsina911 said:
Indeed an excellent read, thanks for posting, including the way it deals with certain combative points frequently raised on this thread and others.The culpability in one instance of one person (mis)using one form of transport has nothing to do with any numbers relating to those involved in (mis)using other modes.
Breadvan72 said:
Hilarious, including the Porter response of "claimed expenses are nothing like £25.000, it's actually 22,714."Sylvaforever said:
heebeegeetee said:
Breadvan72 said:
I think that you misunderstand how causation works. The incident was avoidable by the cyclist. The cyclist could and should have slowed down. He pressed on, telling for his path to be cleared. Yes, the pedestrian was careless, but that did not cause her death. The causes were (1) the way in which the cyclist rode (that apparently being influenced by his selfish attitude); and (2) the absence of a front brake (ditto).
A careful road user makes allowances for the mistakes made by others. Just as a good driver drives defensively, so should a good cyclist, especially in a built up area Having the right of way is no excuse for whacking into somebody.
I still think, however, that undue attention is given to the few deaths caused by bad cycling and that arguably not enough is given to the many deaths caused by bad driving. Cars and lorries and buses are inherently more dangerous that bicycles, because the consequences of misuse of heavy and fast vehicles are greater than those for lighter and slower vehicles, but driver training is limited and there is no regular renewals training. Most people who operate dangerous machines have to re-validate their ability to do so at intervals, but because motoring is embedded in our culture we as motorists take minimal training and do one quite easy test just once (court ordered re-testing apart).
Driving is a bit like booze - culturally embedded and so allowed to get away with stuff that other drugs can't get away with. I write this as someone who likes driving and also booze (although not usually at the same time, as my cars are old and shaky and so they make my Martini spill, which is a bummer.)
Your first two paragraphs apply to both parties. The incident was avoidable by the pedestrian. It takes two to tangle, and in this case both parties failed to follow the HC, rules, laws and common sense. A careful road user makes allowances for the mistakes made by others. Just as a good driver drives defensively, so should a good cyclist, especially in a built up area Having the right of way is no excuse for whacking into somebody.
I still think, however, that undue attention is given to the few deaths caused by bad cycling and that arguably not enough is given to the many deaths caused by bad driving. Cars and lorries and buses are inherently more dangerous that bicycles, because the consequences of misuse of heavy and fast vehicles are greater than those for lighter and slower vehicles, but driver training is limited and there is no regular renewals training. Most people who operate dangerous machines have to re-validate their ability to do so at intervals, but because motoring is embedded in our culture we as motorists take minimal training and do one quite easy test just once (court ordered re-testing apart).
Driving is a bit like booze - culturally embedded and so allowed to get away with stuff that other drugs can't get away with. I write this as someone who likes driving and also booze (although not usually at the same time, as my cars are old and shaky and so they make my Martini spill, which is a bummer.)
It's also worth repeating that it's an extraordinarily rare event, and has generated three threads, headline news and so on.
I think it's worth repeating that 5,000 people are hurt and killed per annum just in London alone, just by hit and runs. This means there's been a sizeable number of people hurt and killed since this case occurred, indeed even since the case went to court.
But we're inured to these. We accept these, and there's been no interest whatsoever on this site or anywhere else in discussing what is going to be done about it.
Heaven knows what the figures are nationally.
These threads are totally lacking in balance and are all about attacking cycling.
The evidence is on cctv
From the summing up, once again.
From the secretbarrister link with content based on evidence and sentencing from the trial: "When he came across Mrs Briggs on 12 February 2016, she having stepped out into the road as he travelled at 18 mph, he had no means of stopping. He shouted at her twice to “get out of the f
king way” and slowed to 14mph, but kept going, of the view that she should move. Other traffic meant that she could not. He struck her, she hit the ground and she suffered catastrophic, fatal brain injury. A husband lost his wife. Two children lost their mother. Had Alliston’s bike been legal, he would have been able to stop."PostHeads123 said:
Everyday I walk from the tube to my office its 10mins and its the same everyday ALL cyclist ignore the rules of the road / ignore signs, I have to dodge them over and over again. What I experience daily is,
1. Cyclist riding through Smithfield's Meat market where there are signs to say 'No Cycling', but they ignore that I have to avoid them, if you mention it to them you get abuse.
2. The traffic lights / crossing outside the market, its on red I can walk but apparently red does not mean cyclist stop it means navigate around the people walking across the road, bring it to the cyclist attention they just ignore give abuse.
3. A bit further up I walk down a wide path between 2 buildings, again big signs 'No Cycling' but they come flying down there, again point it out to them and its abuse.
The arrogant nature of the guy down for manslaughter seems to apply to the majority of London City cyclist, I never had an issue with them before and I don't drive much, but the fact I have avoid the majority of them because they don't want to follow the laws of the road, really gets on my t*ts.
I cycle in to town on one of the superhighways. Generally at a red light, the majority stop and wait - you get the odd person sail through, but it's certainly the minority on my route.1. Cyclist riding through Smithfield's Meat market where there are signs to say 'No Cycling', but they ignore that I have to avoid them, if you mention it to them you get abuse.
2. The traffic lights / crossing outside the market, its on red I can walk but apparently red does not mean cyclist stop it means navigate around the people walking across the road, bring it to the cyclist attention they just ignore give abuse.
3. A bit further up I walk down a wide path between 2 buildings, again big signs 'No Cycling' but they come flying down there, again point it out to them and its abuse.
The arrogant nature of the guy down for manslaughter seems to apply to the majority of London City cyclist, I never had an issue with them before and I don't drive much, but the fact I have avoid the majority of them because they don't want to follow the laws of the road, really gets on my t*ts.
Its a bit of a mob mentality I think, when loads of people are already waiting, you'd be a knob to go past them and through the light. I guess the reverse is also true - if everybody else is doing it, it's easy to just join in. Don't we have a ton of 'community support police' or whatever? Why not get them to actually enforce some of the rules? Have you reported your experiences to 111?
What a lot of people seem to forget, while talking of jaywalking laws etc, is that Walking is the ground state of being for the hairless ape. How exactly do people want to legislate anything to with our natural form of movement?
I drive, and I cycle. I understand that neither is a natural state, and I am in control of a piece of machinery that will bloody well hurt, at the least, if I hit someone.
If I then have a stinky attitude, and try to blame anyone but myself, it should not surprise me if the rest of civilisation disagrees with me.
FF
I drive, and I cycle. I understand that neither is a natural state, and I am in control of a piece of machinery that will bloody well hurt, at the least, if I hit someone.
If I then have a stinky attitude, and try to blame anyone but myself, it should not surprise me if the rest of civilisation disagrees with me.
FF
Maxf said:
I cycle in to town on one of the superhighways. Generally at a red light, the majority stop and wait - you get the odd person sail through, but it's certainly the minority on my route.
Its a bit of a mob mentality I think, when loads of people are already waiting, you'd be a knob to go past them and through the light. I guess the reverse is also true - if everybody else is doing it, it's easy to just join in. Don't we have a ton of 'community support police' or whatever? Why not get them to actually enforce some of the rules? Have you reported your experiences to 111?
If he has reported his experiences to 111, then an NHS operator will have been rightly pee'd off with him for wasting their time. You might want to ring 101, though, if you wish to contact the police when use of the emergency 999 number is not appropriate...Its a bit of a mob mentality I think, when loads of people are already waiting, you'd be a knob to go past them and through the light. I guess the reverse is also true - if everybody else is doing it, it's easy to just join in. Don't we have a ton of 'community support police' or whatever? Why not get them to actually enforce some of the rules? Have you reported your experiences to 111?
Breadvan72 said:
Yes. I'm just trying to determine if he's contradicted himself when he uses the term 'there but for the grace of god ' in both articles. Haven't been able to decide yet. 
Fat Fairy said:
What a lot of people seem to forget, while talking of jaywalking laws etc, is that Walking is the ground state of being for the hairless ape. How exactly do people want to legislate anything to with our natural form of movement?
I drive, and I cycle. I understand that neither is a natural state, and I am in control of a piece of machinery that will bloody well hurt, at the least, if I hit someone.
If I then have a stinky attitude, and try to blame anyone but myself, it should not surprise me if the rest of civilisation disagrees with me.
FF
Well said.I drive, and I cycle. I understand that neither is a natural state, and I am in control of a piece of machinery that will bloody well hurt, at the least, if I hit someone.
If I then have a stinky attitude, and try to blame anyone but myself, it should not surprise me if the rest of civilisation disagrees with me.
FF
Maxf said:
King Herald said:
We need more of those big steel barriers like they threw up along Westminster bridge to stop terrorist rammers. Put them right where she got killed and the problem is solved for ever more, surely?
Knee jerk reactions are always the best, got to be seen to be doing something, the main rule of Health and Safety.
No good for cyclists when a car driver decide to give you -0.01cm passing space, as you have nowhere to go and can even end up bouncing off under the wheels of the next car/lorry.Knee jerk reactions are always the best, got to be seen to be doing something, the main rule of Health and Safety.
yellowjack said:
Robertj21a said:
Why should the thread be closed down ? - why shouldn't it be discussed openly ?
It HAS been discussed openly. On a repeating loop. If this thread were a horse, a vet with a revolver would have been summoned long ago...Our discussion achieves nothing, facts can be read from news media, so what It this forum for again???
Sylvaforever said:
He quite deliberately rode into her.
The evidence is on cctv
From the summing up, once again.
One would have hoped this senseless death would provoke a shifting of attitudes but from the replies on here and calls to Ban the thread and thus any discussion...... I guess not.
You haven't seen the cctv.The evidence is on cctv
From the summing up, once again.
One would have hoped this senseless death would provoke a shifting of attitudes but from the replies on here and calls to Ban the thread and thus any discussion...... I guess not.
Edited by Sylvaforever on Thursday 21st September 11:30
Nobody, but nobody, other than you, has stated he deliberately rode into her. Not even the most rabid press, not even the Daily Mail, has even remotely suggested any such thing.
The prosecution didn't say that, not even on the charge for manslaughter, for which he was found not guilty. Were the case being made that he deliberately rode into her, I think we would have read about it, I think we would have seen the evidence , I think the judge would have said so, I think he would have been found guilty of manslaughter.
But *nobody* , including the people who have seen the cctv, nor any witnesses whose comments have been reported, nor the judge, have remotely approached the case from that angle.
yellowjack said:
If he has reported his experiences to 111, then an NHS operator will have been rightly pee'd off with him for wasting their time. You might want to ring 101, though, if you wish to contact the police when use of the emergency 999 number is not appropriate...
haha - I knew there was a non emergency number with some 1s in it! I'm a 999 man - go big or go home PostHeads123 said:
Everyday I walk from the tube to my office its 10mins and its the same everyday ALL cyclist ignore the rules of the road / ignore signs, I have to dodge them over and over again. What I experience daily is,
1. Cyclist riding through Smithfield's Meat market where there are signs to say 'No Cycling', but they ignore that I have to avoid them, if you mention it to them you get abuse.
2. The traffic lights / crossing outside the market, its on red I can walk but apparently red does not mean cyclist stop it means navigate around the people walking across the road, bring it to the cyclist attention they just ignore give abuse.
3. A bit further up I walk down a wide path between 2 buildings, again big signs 'No Cycling' but they come flying down there, again point it out to them and its abuse.
The arrogant nature of the guy down for manslaughter seems to apply to the majority of London City cyclist, I never had an issue with them before and I don't drive much, but the fact I have avoid the majority of them because they don't want to follow the laws of the road, really gets on my t*ts.
+11. Cyclist riding through Smithfield's Meat market where there are signs to say 'No Cycling', but they ignore that I have to avoid them, if you mention it to them you get abuse.
2. The traffic lights / crossing outside the market, its on red I can walk but apparently red does not mean cyclist stop it means navigate around the people walking across the road, bring it to the cyclist attention they just ignore give abuse.
3. A bit further up I walk down a wide path between 2 buildings, again big signs 'No Cycling' but they come flying down there, again point it out to them and its abuse.
The arrogant nature of the guy down for manslaughter seems to apply to the majority of London City cyclist, I never had an issue with them before and I don't drive much, but the fact I have avoid the majority of them because they don't want to follow the laws of the road, really gets on my t*ts.
I commute on motorbike. Every day the same. Last night cyclist in front of me and to the left. I drift right to give maximum room as I pass him. He then suddenly veers right without checking, without warning, directly into my path. Is this a mistake? Is he going to veer left again? which side should I pass? I decide to veer left to avoid. At the next lights I politely point out that if he checked or warned or showed any indication whatsoever of a manoeuvre prior to making one, it would be a good idea and might save him an accident. Abuse.
Perhaps I should have just run into him, killed him and then said 'it's not my fault that cyclists don't respect motorcyclists'.
Watch two skiers collide on piste. Then during the recriminations the uphill skier (especially if he or she is a Millennial) may say "you got in my way". That skier has not learned a basic rule - the uphill skier must avoid the skier downhill, and that means anticipating the chance of a sudden crazy move (or a tumble) by the downhill skier. Much the same when it comes to being on a road - we are supposed to be ready to react if another road user does a daft thing.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st September 12:34
Breadvan72 said:
Watch two skiers collide on piste. Then during the recriminations the uphill skier (especially if he or she is a Millennial) may say "you got in my way". That skier has not not learned a basic rule - the uphill skier must avoid the skier downhill, and that means anticipating the chance of a sudden crazy move (or a tumble) by the downhill skier. Much the same when it comes to being on a road - we are supposed to be ready to react if another road user does a daft thing.
Similar to ploughing your boat into someone else's while bellowing 'I am the stand-on vessel'. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff