Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[heebeegeetee]

FiF said:

It cited two cases only where juries acquitted the defendant. Seems to me, like Porter, that you want a rule of law but only as long as the system gives the result that conforms with your own prejudices, and where it doesn't then desire to rig the system.

Furthermore in the first case cited, against the lesser charge of careless driving, a charge to which the driver returned a guilty plea, in my personal opinion, considering the aggravating factors, on the surface I'm rather surprised at the leniency of the sentence, but then I don't have all the facts, neither do you.

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I've discussed the cases, beyond perhaps linking to them.

I read the article that was linked to and then read the article that was being discussed. In that article I read of the death of a 26 yr old German student. I then read of the agony of her parents. Very depressing to read indeed.

So with something of a heavy heart I then returned to PH to see that these articles being referred to by the word 'fun' and a smilie.

I can only presume that nobody actually bothered to read the article referred to - perhaps people are just happy that their prejudices are being supported, or whatever.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 21st September 22:40

[FiF]

heebeegeetee said:

FiF said:

It cited two cases only where juries acquitted the defendant. Seems to me, like Porter, that you want a rule of law but only as long as the system gives the result that conforms with your own prejudices, and where it doesn't then desire to rig the system.

Furthermore in the first case cited, against the lesser charge of careless driving, a charge to which the driver returned a guilty plea, in my personal opinion, considering the aggravating factors, on the surface I'm rather surprised at the leniency of the sentence, but then I don't have all the facts, neither do you.

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I've discussed the cases, beyond perhaps linking to them.

I read the article that was linked to and then read the article that was being discussed. In that article I read of the death of a 26 yr old German student. I then read of the agony of her parents. Very depressing to read indeed.

So with something of a heavy heart I then returned to PH to see that these articles being referred to by the word 'fun' and a smilie.

I can only presume that nobody actually bothered to read the article referred to - perhaps people are just happy that their prejudices are being supported, or whatever.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 21st September 22:40

I think probably nobody did read the original by Porter, and furthermore followed the nested links therein.

I also think, being totally blunt, that you unjustly took a high and mighty attitude over any amusement expressed, because let's face it, people made it quite clear that they were finding fun in the clinical pricking of a particularly contentious and flawed proposal by someone who likes to present himself as objective commentator but who in reality is anything but, and really is himself quite prejudiced. Perhaps he supports your own prejudices so you don't actually see them as prejudices.

[heebeegeetee]

irocfan said:

and yet, unlike with the dhead on the bike, you'd be lucky to find a single drive who'd defend these scum. In the sad cases above the law is at fault/wrong (or possibly the system, IDK-IANAL). With scumbag being referenced here there are, even on here, mutterings of if not sympathy then something not far removed from that.

Point the second - just because the wastes of skin above were not properly put behind bars does not make it right that some other twunt doesn't get put behind bars (but sir, but sir, he did it first/did the same!)

I think you might be evading the point.
Firstly, I was pointing out that the sentence possibly wasn't lenient when compared to much worse behaviour imo.
Secondly,?I've been reading of staggering leniency for 30 years. For the first few years I was reading about staggering leniency when motorcyclists were being killed. It just so happens that I haven't read motorcycling media since about 1990, but when reading a colleagues Motorcycling News in the 1980s, I found myself being repeatedly gobsmacked at the shocking leniency afforded to motorists who killed.

Fast forward nearly 20-30 years, and I now read PH. We don't seem to be at all concerned at the off-the-scale casualty rate of motorcyclists (fair enough), but by gum there's one hell of an obsession with cyclists going on. So, I get into reading about this, and I see that the staggering leniency, and trivialising of seriously bad behaviour which causes such devastation for families, still continues.

So its not a case of 'he' did it first - it's been going on for ever! Question is, given that there's virtually no chance whatsoever of any of us ever being seriously harmed by a cyclist - why are we all not complaining about the leniency and the gaps in laws etc etc shown to people who most definitely will harm some of our number over time to come?

There's just no sense or logic to it, but then there's none attached to the obsession with cyclists either (beyond sheer gross hypocrisy - and numptyism, and dishonesty, etc etc) .

[heebeegeetee]

FiF said:

I think probably nobody did read the original by Porter, and furthermore followed the nested links therein.

I think you're right, and it shows that people are perfectly happy to be told how to think. Never mind reading the article to see if they agree, just follow their prejudices.

Re your comments on Martin Porter - I would suggest that if someone in his profession was so badly prejudiced, he wouldn't last long. I've been reading blogs like his for some time and find that they put the meat on the bones that the newspapers don't.

So presumably you guys are happy to just get your info from the newspapers, cos they're totally accurate and impartial, aren't they?

[FiF]

heebeegeetee said:

FiF said:

I think probably nobody did read the original by Porter, and furthermore followed the nested links therein.

I think you're right, and it shows that people are perfectly happy to be told how to think. Never mind reading the article to see if they agree, just follow their prejudices.

Re your comments on Martin Porter - I would suggest that if someone in his profession was so badly prejudiced, he wouldn't last long. I've been reading blogs like his for some time and find that they put the meat on the bones that the newspapers don't.

So presumably you guys are happy to just get your info from the newspapers, cos they're totally accurate and impartial, aren't they?

I can't speak for others, but if you read what I have written on PH and elsewhere you would find that I support and do read a wide range of material. This includes blogs and media which I know will not be supportive of my own opinions. This is because it is important to get outside the bubble and challenge views. I am particularly supportive of the work blogs and output away from main stream media in raising and reporting on issues that the MSM is particularly ignorant.

However, very significant however, what is important is to recognise as far as possible that everyone has an agenda and prejudices, usually not on everything but in.particular areas. Porter is no exception. To claim he holds no prejudice simply because QC is an utterly risible application of vacuous appeal to authority when there is clear evidence to the contrary. If you don't recognise his prejudice then, to repeat, it may because he supports your own prejudices, which you fail to recognise and account. Everyone has an agenda or background opinion, often the really difficult part is working out what that agenda is and how it may have influenced what you are reading.

[Mick50NCD]

Gazza What are the classic cars are you suggesting because I had a 1937 Ford 8 which had rod brakes on every wheel. Any engineer would be appalled to hear that anyone would think that a cycle with only one front brake would contemplate using that contraption on a
public road.
The law needs modifying to make it that a two wheeled track bike must have both wheels braked if it is to be used on a public road.
If a person takes a motorcycle test and does not use BOTH brakes so as to bring his machine to a stop when instructed he fails.
I would have thought by experience that a rider of any two wheeled vehicle would find it absolutely necessary to have both wheels braked for full control and especially in an emergency. Those disobeying the laws requirements should have their machines crushed.

Another item is in question that stupid young man lacked & that is perception. There are many drivers who are an accident waiting to happen that do not have perception. Good advice wherever any driver drives is to drive with the idea indelible in their heads is to drive expecting any thing to happen. In other words try never to hit anything whatever the circumstances.

A traffic police officer gave me excellent advice when I was only two years past my test. I thought that most of the 30 mph speed limits were 'fixed' too low. He replied that 'there is a 30MPH limit on a certain 'shopping road' full of pedestrians on a Saturday morning and while the limit is 30 it would be safer to drop down to 20 on that road to avoid hitting a pedestrian who may step off the kirb. HE WAS RIGHT.

[yellowjack]

Mick50NCD said:

Gazza What are the classic cars are you suggesting because I had a 1937 Ford 8 which had rod brakes on every wheel. Any engineer would be appalled to hear that anyone would think that a cycle with only one front brake would contemplate using that contraption on a
public road.
The law needs modifying to make it that a two wheeled track bike must have both wheels braked if it is to be used on a public road.
If a person takes a motorcycle test and does not use BOTH brakes so as to bring his machine to a stop when instructed he fails.
I would have thought by experience that a rider of any two wheeled vehicle would find it absolutely necessary to have both wheels braked for full control and especially in an emergency. Those disobeying the laws requirements should have their machines crushed.

Another item is in question that stupid young man lacked & that is perception. There are many drivers who are an accident waiting to happen that do not have perception. Good advice wherever any driver drives is to drive with the idea indelible in their heads is to drive expecting any thing to happen. In other words try never to hit anything whatever the circumstances.

A traffic police officer gave me excellent advice when I was only two years past my test. I thought that most of the 30 mph speed limits were 'fixed' too low. He replied that 'there is a 30MPH limit on a certain 'shopping road' full of pedestrians on a Saturday morning and while the limit is 30 it would be safer to drop down to 20 on that road to avoid hitting a pedestrian who may step off the kirb. HE WAS RIGHT.

The law does NOT need modifying in this regard. It is already illegal to use, on public roads, a bicycle which does not have two independently operated means of braking, one for each wheel. In the case of a bicycle with a 'fixed gear' the law requires a brake for the front wheel, but the rear wheel does not require a separate brake. This is because, in the case of a fixed gear with no facility for "freewheeling", the action of the rider applying "back pressure" on the pedals is (legally at least) regarded as being an operable, effective system of braking. If your bicycle is a 'single speed' type (much like many of the "Dutch Bike" types that so many anti-lycra muppets extol the virtues of, then you need two brakes, one operating on each wheel. To those unfamiliar with the specifics, and non-cyclists especially, there is often confusion between a 'fixie' and a 'single speed'.

There is, among a certain portion of 'fixie' riders, and I imagine that Alliston belongs to this group, a thrill to be had in riding without fitting (or choosing not to use) a front brake. They waffle on about the "fixie skid"...


...and rely on it to stop in an emergency. Although those who go about "alley cat racing" prefer not to brake at all, instead swerving around anyone or anything that a "normal" person would regard as a hazard and slow down for.

Personally I've never even considered using a 'fixed gear bike'. I might use one if I were to try track riding/racing, because then it would be the proper tool for the job. This is because "freewheeling" on a banked velodrome can result in a sudden and catastrophic loss of traction, and whilst it might make Olympic track cycling a LOT more interesting, it would injure more riders. I can see no purpose that is served in riding a fixed gear bike on a public road, other than giving the rider of such a bicycle an Adrenalin rush. A single speed bike with the same size gearing would confer all of the advantages of a 'fixie' without the ridiculous disadvantage of not being fully in control of one's braking effort.

So whilst I am rabidly "pro-cycling", I would not shed a tear at all if a review of the law made the riding of a bicycle with a Fixed Gear on public roads completely illegal. It wouldn't even put (most) current 'fixies' out to scrap, as the fixed rear gear can (in most cases) be readily replaced by a single gear containing a freewheel device. The bicycle that Alliston was riding was a dedicated track racing frame, in so far as it did not even have the provision for fitting a front brake. It was designed solely and specifically for velodrome use, and was never intended by the manufacturer to be used on public roads.

In short, Charlie Alliston deserved his sentence. Possibly more. He actively sought out and bought a bicycle that was not legal for use on public roads, and when it came down to it he was incapable of stopping or slowing it sufficiently to avoid the collision that led to the death of Kim Briggs. For all my pro-cycling leanings, I have to say that I do not identify with Alliston, and have very little sympathy for him. The collision, and the fall-out from it, may not even have been avoidable if he had been riding a traditional road bicycle with two effective brakes (The prosecution convinced the jury that this would have been the case, but it does not necessarily make it so), but we will never know now. No amount of "ifs", "buts" or "maybes" will bring Kim Briggs back, so there is no sense in speculating over every minor variation in cause/outcome. She is dead, and a jury of his peers decided that it WAS his fault. His best course of action now is to accept that, reflect on what he has done, and issue a genuine apology to the family.

Edited by yellowjack on Friday 22 September 13:20

[Mr2Mike]

yellowjack said:

This is because "freewheeling" on a banked velodrome can result in a sudden and catastrophic loss of traction,

Sorry for OT, but what causes this?

[FiF]

Is it just me but isn't that 'fixie skid' just an alternative version of what we used to frustrate our parents with, namely going out and causing excessively short tyre life by jamming on the back brake doing skids?

Fixie skids, my arse.

[mac96]

FiF said:

Is it just me but isn't that 'fixie skid' just an alternative version of what we used to frustrate our parents with, namely going out and causing excessively short tyre life by jamming on the back brake doing skids?

Fixie skids, my arse.

That was my thought too- in any case, how can a locked wheel sliding diagonally stop you much faster than the same locked wheel sliding forwards? Unless you fall off.

[Fastpedeller]

yellowjack said:

So whilst I am rabidly "pro-cycling", I would not shed a tear at all if a review of the law made the riding of a bicycle with a Fixed Gear on public roads completely illegal. It wouldn't even put (most) current 'fixies' out to scrap, as the fixed rear gear can (in most cases) be readily replaced by a single gear containing a freewheel device. The bicycle that Alliston was riding was a dedicated track racing frame, in so far as it did not even have the provision for fitting a front brake. It was designed solely and specifically for velodrome use, and was never intended by the manufacturer to be used on public roads.

Edited by yellowjack on Friday 22 September 13:20

I agree with everything regarding Alliston, the sentencing etc, but why would you want bikes with a fixed gear banned from the roads? With an effective front brake and a fixed gear, a bike is safe. In fact in some instances safer than a bike with a single freewheel and both brakes. One example.... Many years ago I was riding a fixed wheel bike (I hate the 'american' term BTW) in a clubrun group, the road was covered with slippery leaves, and my bike slipped, but It recovered and I remained upright, one clubmate was astonished that a bike could possibly lean so far and recover. Anyway, the thing is that fixed wheel is a direct drive (like with a manual car, when you lift the accelerator and it slows, and gives added stability around corners) so as long as it's functioning correctly there is no problem, hence it's use (rather than a freewheel) on the banked track.

[oyster]

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.

The fact you open your post with the claim that ALL cyclists ignore the rules marks you out has having little to add.

I work near Smithfield and probably see less than 1 in 20 cyclists use the pedestrian-only bits.

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

The article is specifically about an article written by Martin Porter QC. That article highlights a couple of tragic cases, including the death of a 26 year old German student. Another link describes the agonising distress her family went through.

Split your sides over it, makes no odds to me. Take the piss right out of Martin Porter or any you like who tries to bring numpty or killer drivers to account.

It's just the gross hypocrisy from people such as yourself, when you pretend to make out that you care about road safety by whining and whinging about cyclists.

Of course we all know that were it your 26 year old daughter, you wouldn't be laughing for a long time.

[Europa1]

yellowjack said:

There is, among a certain portion of 'fixie' riders, and I imagine that Alliston belongs to this group, a thrill to be had in riding without fitting (or choosing not to use) a front brake. They waffle on about the "fixie skid"...

Edited by yellowjack on Friday 22 September 13:20

Indeed - at the trial one of his Tweets was read out: “The time when you first take your brakes off and feeling like you’re in a lucasbrunelle movie,”

[Stickyfinger]

oyster said:

The fact you open your post with the claim that ALL cyclists ignore the rules marks you out has having little to add.

I work near Smithfield and probably see less than 1 in 20 cyclists use the pedestrian-only bits.

That is a large number

[yellowjack]

Mr2Mike said:

yellowjack said:

This is because "freewheeling" on a banked velodrome can result in a sudden and catastrophic loss of traction,

Sorry for OT, but what causes this?

As someone with very little experience of fixed gear cycling, I really don't know the physics of it, I was just passing on what was explained to me. Fastpedeller here explains it better than I could...

Fastpedeller said:

I agree with everything regarding Alliston, the sentencing etc, but why would you want bikes with a fixed gear banned from the roads? With an effective front brake and a fixed gear, a bike is safe. In fact in some instances safer than a bike with a single freewheel and both brakes. One example.... Many years ago I was riding a fixed wheel bike (I hate the 'american' term BTW) in a clubrun group, the road was covered with slippery leaves, and my bike slipped, but It recovered and I remained upright, one clubmate was astonished that a bike could possibly lean so far and recover. Anyway, the thing is that fixed wheel is a direct drive (like with a manual car, when you lift the accelerator and it slows, and gives added stability around corners) so as long as it's functioning correctly there is no problem, hence it's use (rather than a freewheel) on the banked track..

[anonymous-user]

Fastpedeller said:

...like with a manual car, when you lift the accelerator and it slows, and gives added stability around corners...

[Sa Calobra]

heebeegeetee said:

Exactly, what's the problem? The dead woman is one of 1500 every year.

This woman sadly did contribute to her own demise by not ceding priority as she should, but a great many of the 1500 are genuinely innocent. However possibly none of these generate the same concern as this case. Would anyone care to suggest why?

Not even the 8 dead on the M1 has generated as much comment.

The numerous hgv collisions in London, with lack of visibility from the vehicles being a major - numerous people on ph continue to argue that they must be used because the safer alternatives might cost some money.

Look at the flack BRAKE get on this forum , with every suggestion for road safety they make. This is the forum on which the suggestion was made that the brake pipes of the founder should be cut, remember?

Guys, spare me your crocodile tears, stop pretending you care. This is all about attacking cycling, and desperately trying to suggest that this tt on his fixie is representative of anything beyond himself.

Tens of thousands of people are hurt and killed every year by motorised vehicles. If the issue of bad drivers got as much publicity and was dealt with as strenuously, we would all be much safer. None of us are going to be killed by a bicycle with a missing front brake.

Hi one of my bikes costs more than my car. I cycle to work too but I love driving. I plan on a road trip from Manchester to Italy in a few weeks. There's my internet credentials on cycling loving laid out. It's not crocodile tears. When you are able to read more into a story it becomes personable to you. You mentioned the 8 on the motorway. Sadly the motorway is a very dangerous place. It needs an answer. One would be truck restrictions to certain times that also uses up spare capcity and frees up road space at peak times but that has drawbacks too in other ways for the hauliers and businesses receiving goods. If you told me more in detail about the deaths on the motorway it would illicit more discussion.

In a direct basic comparison the bicycle wasn't suitable or fit for the road, it was in a dangerous condition and the rider had an appalling attitude.

You get this happen in drivers too which results in road deaths. Too often you read of driver mount kerb, kill and leave car on pedestrians and flee the scene.

Why the perceived ire to cyclists? In general we cyclists are good on the roads, yes we can annoy but I think that's partly due to our speed difference to cars holding up impatient and over self-important drivers. They do the same to horse riders too then bang on about the POLITE jackets or tabards that they wear.

We stand out as we are quite vocal especially on forums so we are always around when a bike topic is discussed

[Fastpedeller]

fblm said:

Fastpedeller said:

...like with a manual car, when you lift the accelerator and it slows, and gives added stability around corners...

Why the yikes? Maybe some confusion? I was meaning the direct drive gives stability in corners (c/f a freewheel), not 'lifting off the accelerator in corners gives more stability' Sorry if that wasn't clear, but thought it would be obvious.

[FiF]

Fastpedeller said:

fblm said:

Fastpedeller said:

...like with a manual car, when you lift the accelerator and it slows, and gives added stability around corners...

Why the yikes? Maybe some confusion? I was meaning the direct drive gives stability in corners (c/f a freewheel), not 'lifting off the accelerator in corners gives more stability' Sorry if that wasn't clear, but thought it would be obvious.

To be frank, it's not clear. One thing a rather well known Scandinavvian rally driver taught me was the technique of disengaging clutch, ie freewheel, when you are in such a position that you need every bit of available grip to get round a bend. It works, it really does. Furthermore the same technique is taught by skidpan instructors, certainly the police instructors teach that, sadly they frown upon delicately held opposite lock drift circuits round the skid pan, at least they did when I was enjoying myself.