Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..
Discussion
glasgow mega snake said:
it seems very hard to get a conviction for manslaughter in road traffic accidents though. certainly there are many examples of cyclists and pedestrians being killed by negligent drivers and the drivers only receive light sentences...
But there are plenty of other offences which cover negligent car use, causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care etc meaning there isn't a need for a manslaughter charge for drivers. Cycling incidents don't have those precedents so can't really be compared. This incident has to be seen in the context of a negligent cyclist causing the death of a pedestrian.The Surveyor said:
But there are plenty of other offences which cover negligent car use, causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care etc meaning there isn't a need for a manslaughter charge for drivers. Cycling incidents don't have those precedents so can't really be compared. This incident has to be seen in the context of a negligent cyclist causing the death of a pedestrian.
A pedestrian stepping off the pavement into the road whilst looking at a phone is also negligent. glasgow mega snake said:
The Surveyor said:
That is exactly what I was thinking, he didn't set out to kill her, but his 'wanton and furious' actions show a similar suggestion of aggression as a push or punch that results in a manslaughter conviction.
It looks like a legal cop-out to me.
it seems very hard to get a conviction for manslaughter in road traffic accidents though. certainly there are many examples of cyclists and pedestrians being killed by negligent drivers and the drivers only receive light sentences...It looks like a legal cop-out to me.
- you set out with the aim of hurting somebody, and they end up dying because of this. This covers the 'I punched somebody and they hit their head on the way down' situation - and clearly isn't the case here.
- somebody dies because you exhibit gross negligence when carrying out an action in which you have a duty of care towards that person. Directing an employee to use machinery which you know to be inadequately guarded might come under this. A cyclist generally speaking does not have a duty of care towards pedestrians, so this doesn't apply either.
- somebody dies because you have carried out an illegal act, and the fact that there was a likelihood of somebody being hurt or killed was obvious to a reasonable person
It will be the third that they will have been gunning for and, to be fair, I think this is the correct outcome. Whilst it might be illegal to ride around without properly effective brakes, it's not immediately obvious to most people that a likely outcome is that you're going to kill somebody. At the end of the day, he was minding his own business cycling down a road, which isn't an unreasonable thing to do on a bike.
Of course the fact that he's not technically guilty of manslaughter doesn't make him any less of a bellend.
The Surveyor said:
But there are plenty of other offences which cover negligent car use, causing death by dangerous driving, driving without due care etc meaning there isn't a need for a manslaughter charge for drivers. Cycling incidents don't have those precedents so can't really be compared. This incident has to be seen in the context of a negligent cyclist causing the death of a pedestrian.
yes, but I think the maximum sentences are much shorter for those offences than for manslaughter, certainly the sentences proscribed frequently are. deckster said:
.........
It will be the third that they will have been gunning for and, to be fair, I think this is the correct outcome. Whilst it might be illegal to ride around without properly effective brakes, it's not immediately obvious to most people that a likely outcome is that you're going to kill somebody. At the end of the day, he was minding his own business cycling down a road, which isn't an unreasonable thing to do on a bike.
Of course the fact that he's not technically guilty of manslaughter doesn't make him any less of a bellend.
Sensible view, on both the verdict and the rider... given that accidents occur between pedestrians and cyclists would suggest that he could have foreseen a bike without brakes may have increased the chance of an accident, but I take your point that would be very difficult to prove. It will be the third that they will have been gunning for and, to be fair, I think this is the correct outcome. Whilst it might be illegal to ride around without properly effective brakes, it's not immediately obvious to most people that a likely outcome is that you're going to kill somebody. At the end of the day, he was minding his own business cycling down a road, which isn't an unreasonable thing to do on a bike.
Of course the fact that he's not technically guilty of manslaughter doesn't make him any less of a bellend.
Bit of perspective for people that are calling for manslaughter:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driv...
Disliking this d
head for his attitude can't trump legal precedent.
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driv...
Disliking this d
head for his attitude can't trump legal precedent.The Surveyor said:
A cyclist speeding (in relative terms) through a busy town with lots of pedestrians who then hits a pedestrian without tempering their speed would be negligent. To do the same without any proper brakes on a bike which is illegal for the road has to be 'gross negligence'... doesn't it?
You are technically correct in terms of UK Law. He had a 'proper' brake in that the bike had a brake, Unfortunately for him, he is subject to UK Law and the requirement is for a brake both front and rear.
I live in Amsterdam for a week every month. My wife's bike and my bike there do not have front brakes; they have back-pedal brakes. Most bikes there don't have front brakes. It's legal and normal and there are thousands more cyclists in that city per km than in any UK city; Amsterdam is the most bicycle-friendly city in the World and so you would think they knew a thing or two about how to build and operate a bike.
If this unfortunate accident had happened there and not in the UK, the matter of a front brake would not have entered into the equation.
Coolbanana said:
The Surveyor said:
A cyclist speeding (in relative terms) through a busy town with lots of pedestrians who then hits a pedestrian without tempering their speed would be negligent. To do the same without any proper brakes on a bike which is illegal for the road has to be 'gross negligence'... doesn't it?
You are technically correct in terms of UK Law. He had a 'proper' brake in that the bike had a brake, Unfortunately for him, he is subject to UK Law and the requirement is for a brake both front and rear.
I live in Amsterdam for a week every month. My wife's bike and my bike there do not have front brakes; they have back-pedal brakes. Most bikes there don't have front brakes. It's legal and normal and there are thousands more cyclists in that city per km than in any UK city; Amsterdam is the most bicycle-friendly city in the World and so you would think they knew a thing or two about how to build and operate a bike.
If this unfortunate accident had happened there and not in the UK, the matter of a front brake would not have entered into the equation.
Coolbanana said:
If this unfortunate accident had happened there and not in the UK, the matter of a front brake would not have entered into the equation.
I doubt that - the dutch bikes will have the rear hub 'coaster' brakes - which are proper brakes ( used to get them on US made sting ray bikes in my youth ) whereas a 'fixie' has NO real brakes at all ... and was being ridden very aggressively at high speed with no concern for other road users.
the d1ckhead cyclist should go to jail
alfaman said:
whereas a 'fixie' has NO real brakes at all ... and was being ridden very aggressively at high speed with no concern for other road users.
Only quoted bit of your post. On the ITV news he said he had removed the front brake, short of ploughing back through this thread I thought that bike had none in the first place.a very interesting discussion of the case, the evidence, some of the apparently crazy prosecution arguments, and some thoughts on what a motorist would have been charged with here: https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-...
jmorgan said:
His comment, noted by a few news outlets
"At all times I would know what I'm doing and completely responsible for my actions. I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe."
Eh?
I tried a few un scientific stops and in a short distance. No fancy brakes. Just V brakes.
interesting facts in the above-linked article."At all times I would know what I'm doing and completely responsible for my actions. I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe."
Eh?
I tried a few un scientific stops and in a short distance. No fancy brakes. Just V brakes.
the pedestrian stepped into the road 6.5 metres ahead of the cyclist.
the cyclist was travelling at 18 mph (before braking) according to police reports.
a seated cyclist can brake at approx 0.5 g before going over the handlebars. a car can brake at (conservatively) 0.8g.
the prosecution suggested that on a bike equipped with two brakes that it would have been possible to stop in 3 metres (!)
stopping distances for a bike decelerating at 0.5g (2 brakes) from 18 mph are are 6.5 metres, and 12 metres for one (rear) brake (0.25g).
stopping distance for a car at 20mph is 12 metres (highway code, not including 'thinking time').
(i.e. if the pedestrian had stepped in front of a car, she still would have been hit).
stopping distances for rim-braked bikes increase by a factor of 4 in the wet. it's perfectly legal and generally accepted as permissible to ride a bike in the rain.
the guy was/is most unpleasant in his public comments after the accident, but it's interesting how this case was handled and how the charges were selected in comparison to the same kind of accident between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian (which very, very rarely result in manslaughter charges).
glasgow mega snake said:
the pedestrian stepped into the road 6.5 metres ahead of the cyclist.
the cyclist was travelling at 18 mph (before braking) according to police reports.
My manmaths says that he would have had about three quarters of a second from her stepping out to him hitting her, are you/they sure it was only 6.5m in front? I'm sure part of the evidence said 3-4 seconds.the cyclist was travelling at 18 mph (before braking) according to police reports.
Twilkes said:
My manmaths says that he would have had about three quarters of a second from her stepping out to him hitting her, are you/they sure it was only 6.5m in front? I'm sure part of the evidence said 3-4 seconds.
just quoting from here: https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-..."Given that the prosecution case was that Alliston was 6.53 metres away when Mrs Briggs stepped out, this difference is crucial."
Vipers said:
Do they cycle around Amsterdam like they think they arein the Tour de France?
Can't speak for NL but over in Sweden city bikes are popular and most are fitted with a coaster brake and no brake levers. They seem pretty effective when compared with using just a back brake on a regular bike. Also they are usually ridden in a sedate manner in people wearing everyday clothes. The bike is seen as just a cheap way of moving around, you see very few "cyclists" as such. I ride in the UK and the flak I have received for not being togged up with a helmet and hi-viz is comical. Edited by foxbody-87 on Wednesday 23 August 21:10
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff