Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[glasgow mega snake]

I agree with you, everyone should drive/ride/walk to the conditions. But if 20mph on a bike is too fast if there are pedestrians around, because they may step off the pavement, how can we justify 30mph in a car in the presence of pedestrians?

[jmorgan]

glasgow mega snake said:

I agree with you, everyone should drive/ride/walk to the conditions. But if 20mph on a bike is too fast if there are pedestrians around, because they may step off the pavement, how can we justify 30mph in a car in the presence of pedestrians?

Limit is not a target. Apart from the ones that feel they need to bolt bonnet ornaments on, I thought cars these days were designed to be safer for such impacts. Whilst not a certainty, a better option.

However, seeing the danger first is often key, anticipating it.

[4x4Tyke]

fido said:

I think they were also being careful not to set a precedent of manslaughter (for future cycling-pedestrian accidents) but nevertheless a suitably harsh punishment for those who wilfully ride an illegal bike through pedestrians like a bell-end.

Juries do not set a precedent, Judges do.
Juries decide the facts of the case, e.g. was his riding wilfully reckless,
Judges make the legal decisions, does wanton riding include bicycles, is a fixie one brake,
The Judge's legal decision can set a precedent or apply a previous precedent.

Edited by 4x4Tyke on Thursday 24th August 10:46

[Coolbanana]

alfaman said:

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

You are absolutely correct, the rear hub brake does allow you to coast on Dutch bikes, unlike the 'fixie' Track version. Having ridden both extensively I find no difference whatsoever apart from the inability to coast. All 3 cycles shops nearest my Amsterdam home sell 'fixies' that are ridden on the road but the Dutch Law does state at least one brake...so that would make them illegal and yet they are sold for road use so how strictly it is enforced is perhaps debatable.

I nearly bought one; a Track bike in every respect but with straight handlebars. However, cornering quickly would be an issue hence I didn't.

[Coolbanana]

Vipers said:

Do they cycle around Amsterdam like they think they arein the Tour de France?

Some do!

You can easily spot the Tourists on bikes in Amsterdam; they are the ones that will stop at a pedestrian crossing. Many of the locals are absolute terrorists and will keep going and simply swerve around you.

It is legal to hold and operate a mobile phone while cycling and you'll see this often.

Cycling in the Netherlands and Belgium is a very different experience to that of the UK. Indeed, many of the anti-cyclists on PH would have heart attacks if they spent much time there.

[Derek Smith]

Some Gump said:

Bit of perspective for people that are calling for manslaughter:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driv...

Disliking this dhead for his attitude can't trump legal precedent.

I thought the double charge was a bit out of order. If he could be done for manslaughter then so can vehicle drivers. But they aren't. Causing death by dangerous driving is indistinguishable from manslaughter in the vast majority of cases but never charged. Why pick on a cyclist?

The lorry driver's conduct in the linked article is outrageous, much worse than the cyclist's, but found NG.

[Slaav]

glasgow mega snake said:

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."

May I suggest to all that this link is worth following; both as a cyclist reading it, a cyclist writing it and more importantly right now, it makes some excellent legal points.

I also think that the Alliston is a bit of a d1ck but as someone has stated already, having a ste attitude doesn't top trump legal precedents....

Unfortunately (possibly) in this case.

[Donbot]

It appears the manslaughter charge has been dropped and he will be prosecuted for furious cycling instead.

[Byker28i]

glasgow mega snake said:

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."

That is a cycling blog so is biased?
Didn't we have reported earlier from the court evidence that the accused called out twice to warn her and video footage showed 3.5 secs and several metres of travel?

[Eric Mc]

I am not sure "calling out" is a good enough warning when cycling.

What's the legal situation regarding bicycle bells these days?

[steveL98]

foxbody-87 said:

Vipers said:

Do they cycle around Amsterdam like they think they arein the Tour de France?

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

Oddly enough, when I drive my car to work I try really hard not to wear a fireproof racing suit and full face helmet!


Seriously, this guy knowingly drove his illegal and unsafe (not knowing this is no defence) bike on the public road at high speed (for a bike) in the town in full knowledge that he could possibly hit and injure someone, therefore he must take responsibility for what happened knowing full well that in a busy town the possibility of encountering a pedestrian who had in all probability, looked left and right for traffic but not expecting a cyclist to suddenly and silently appear from nowhere.

The fault is 90% his, and as such he needs to grow up, admit responsibility and try not to invoke the cycling community for moral support citing "the public has no respect for cyclists" and take his medicine.

This is a landmark case and I for one hope it deeply affects cycling behaviour (severe penalties and destruction of bikes etc) throughout the UK to rein in the lunatic cycling fringe who think the rules don't apply to them. We're all just trying to get somewhere and we need to consider the other road users above ourselves, in short understand simple courtesy.

[Sportidge]

Eric Mc said:

I am not sure "calling out" is a good enough warning when cycling.

What's the legal situation regarding bicycle bells these days?

HC says:

"be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted."

So not even a "should" in the HC language......

I'm sure it used to say something on the lines of "Or any other ‘audible warning’ – horn, rattle, duck call or the human voice"....

[Eric Mc]

The thing about a bicycle bell is that it tells you pretty certainly that the object coming up behind you is a bike - not a car, other pedestrian, jogger or anything else.

When a person shouts a warning, there is no certainty that they are on a bike - unless they have the presence of mind to mention the fact - which I doubt ever happens.

[glasgow mega snake]

steveL98 said:

Oddly enough, when I drive my car to work I try really hard not to wear a fireproof racing suit and full face helmet!


Seriously, this guy knowingly drove his illegal and unsafe (not knowing this is no defence) bike on the public road at high speed (for a bike) in the town in full knowledge that he could possibly hit and injure someone, therefore he must take responsibility for what happened

actually the defendant said he wasn't aware that it was illegal not to have a front brake fitted to a bicycle.

steveL98 said:

knowing full well that in a busy town the possibility of encountering a pedestrian who had in all probability, looked left and right for traffic but not expecting a cyclist to suddenly and silently appear from nowhere.

it's reasonable to expect cyclists to also be on the road in a town. If the pedestrian had not considered that possibility before stepping in to the road, they were clearly also negligent.

[Slaav]

Byker28i said:

glasgow mega snake said:

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."

That is a cycling blog so is biased?
Didn't we have reported earlier from the court evidence that the accused called out twice to warn her and video footage showed 3.5 secs and several metres of travel?

HAve you read it in full? He seems to make some very valid points. I quite like the issue surrounding his lack of a 1st class defence; maybe that was elsewhere??

It seems the prosecution have carried out tests etc on a mountain bike (eg) with two working brakes. They have done further sample tests and have therefore 'conclusively' illustrated that the brake (or lack thereof) was a major contributing factor. That 'biased' blog reasonably refutes this argument and 'proof'. It does however then proceed to ignore the fact that even if a collision was inevitable due to the ped. stepping out - a much slower impact MAY have had a much lesser outcome. One could argue that is selective bias??

At the end of the day, I think if he had a limitless budget and defending experts/team, the trial may have gone a slightly different path?? Of course, he may have had; I don't know - but I am guessing not!!

He is still an 4rse who gives cyclists a bad name; as does the aggressive idiot in Regents Park this morning shouting at me to slow down when a box van pulled out right in front of me when I was doing 25 or so causing me to brake hard and give him 'some horn'

[steveL98]

glasgow mega snake said:

steveL98 said:

Oddly enough, when I drive my car to work I try really hard not to wear a fireproof racing suit and full face helmet!


Seriously, this guy knowingly drove his illegal and unsafe (not knowing this is no defence) bike on the public road at high speed (for a bike) in the town in full knowledge that he could possibly hit and injure someone, therefore he must take responsibility for what happened

actually the defendant said he wasn't aware that it was illegal not to have a front brake fitted to a bicycle. This is no defence. You are legally assumed to know exactly what is right and what is wrong.

steveL98 said:

knowing full well that in a busy town the possibility of encountering a pedestrian who had in all probability, looked left and right for traffic but not expecting a cyclist to suddenly and silently appear from nowhere.

it's reasonable to expect cyclists to also be on the road in a town. If the pedestrian had not considered that possibility before stepping in to the road, they were clearly also negligent. Yes, but not to the same degree. Therefore the cyclist must bear the greater part of the responsibility as the bike was illegal and without a method of warning driven in a busy public area.

Guilty as charged and a penalty to set a precedent should be administered..

[evilmunkey]

Having never before heard of Furious cycling charge before, what would be the penalty ? would it be similar to causing death due to dangerous driving ? i have seen many cyclists going the wrong way down one way streets and going through red lights etc. just wondering if the consequences are similar to motorists. Thinking it may be time to have some sort of reg plate system on bicycles nowadays. i dont have issues with folks who ride them as long as they follow the rules of the road but there does need to be some form of tracing cyclists who do not care about the rules of the road and knowingly ignore them.

[VolvoT5]

Not read the whole of this thread but my feeling is this young man has been found guilty and is being punished for his attitude as much as anything else - had he shown some contrition and not spouted off on social media I doubt he would now be facing jail time... same applies if he had been a nice middle class middle aged woman riding a poorly maintained vintage cycle.

The victim was careless to step into the road but also incredibly unlucky to die at from a 20mph blow from a bicycle considering even being hit by a car at that speed involves an 80% chance of survival.

It is tragic all round in my view. I also don't see how jail time will benefit or protect anyone really - he didn't deliberately run her over, this was an accident not a premeditated violent offence. There should be (if there isn't already) other punishments available.

neilr said:

What needs to change is society's attitudes to each other,. The UK has a particularly unpleasant ' My Me Mine' attitude in general. Everyone is so blinkered in their belief that they are right , or on the road that they have right of way and in no way could they be wrong. Regardless of what mode of transport they are using (legs included, just look at how people walk around a shop ).

^ This is so true. The country has become increasingly selfish and almost vindictive over the last 20 years or so. A lot of people just don't seem to give a toss about their fellow man any more.

[catso]

glasgow mega snake said:

actually the defendant said he wasn't aware that it was illegal not to have a front brake fitted to a bicycle.

But we (particularly road users) are always told that ignorance of the law is no defence.

It is clearly monumentally stupid to ride a bike at speed in an urban environment with no brakes (if only for self-preservation) and he should get the maximum sentence available for the offence - 2 years I believe.

[Eric Mc]

glasgow mega snake said:

steveL98 said:

Oddly enough, when I drive my car to work I try really hard not to wear a fireproof racing suit and full face helmet!


Seriously, this guy knowingly drove his illegal and unsafe (not knowing this is no defence) bike on the public road at high speed (for a bike) in the town in full knowledge that he could possibly hit and injure someone, therefore he must take responsibility for what happened

actually the defendant said he wasn't aware that it was illegal not to have a front brake fitted to a bicycle.

steveL98 said:

knowing full well that in a busy town the possibility of encountering a pedestrian who had in all probability, looked left and right for traffic but not expecting a cyclist to suddenly and silently appear from nowhere.

it's reasonable to expect cyclists to also be on the road in a town. If the pedestrian had not considered that possibility before stepping in to the road, they were clearly also negligent.

Not knowing the law to which you are supposed to be complying is absolutely and legally no defence when you break that law.