Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..
Discussion
If anyone missed this in the pedal power section..
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
more cyclist should be done for wanton or furious cycling, the speeds they go in cities is ridiculous. he is most like a hipster on his fixie.
''“35. Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”''
''“35. Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”''
Edited by The Spruce goose on Monday 14th August 21:26
Derek Smith said:
From what I've read he is unlikely to be found guilty of manslaughter. The offence charged carries a maximum penalty of 2 years.
I'm wondering if they prove the 'furious driving' whether that would satisfy the 'unlawful act' aspect of manslaughter through an unlawful act. Either way, clearly a case that provides ample evidence of why posting on a forum / social media about a potential crime is a bad idea.
HerrSchnell said:
I've commuted in and out of central Birmingham for a while so can see the point about people not hearing cyclists coming because they don't, especially when on the phone. Thing is that's totally reasonable as cyclists are silent in the city environment and as such it's down to the cyclist to make sure they can mitigate that risk.
My response was to go out and buy an old mountain bike with flat pedals, disc brakes and put a large bell and lights which get used every time I'm riding. It makes life a lot easier when people can see / hear you coming, being able to stop more effectively is incredibly useful and the ability to jettison the bike to the ground without having to twist out of cleats has helped me avoid ploughing at least four people down this year alone.
How this cocksprocket thought he could get away with riding through a London lunch hour flat out on a track bike is absolutely beyond me and his behaviour after the collision he caused is almost unbelievably disgusting even after taking the staggering levels of narcissism so prevalent among his peers into account.
Unfortunately though he is far from unique and I see poor form from that particular demographic of cyclists on a depressingly regular basis, when questioned on it the standard responses is condescending aggression so I've now given up pointing out to them why aping Line of Sight is a bad idea.
A lenghty custodial is entirely appropriate if for no other reason pour encourager les autres.
I agree with all your points, and I like to think I'm a balanced road user. My response was to go out and buy an old mountain bike with flat pedals, disc brakes and put a large bell and lights which get used every time I'm riding. It makes life a lot easier when people can see / hear you coming, being able to stop more effectively is incredibly useful and the ability to jettison the bike to the ground without having to twist out of cleats has helped me avoid ploughing at least four people down this year alone.
How this cocksprocket thought he could get away with riding through a London lunch hour flat out on a track bike is absolutely beyond me and his behaviour after the collision he caused is almost unbelievably disgusting even after taking the staggering levels of narcissism so prevalent among his peers into account.
Unfortunately though he is far from unique and I see poor form from that particular demographic of cyclists on a depressingly regular basis, when questioned on it the standard responses is condescending aggression so I've now given up pointing out to them why aping Line of Sight is a bad idea.
A lenghty custodial is entirely appropriate if for no other reason pour encourager les autres.
The bold bit is especially true on PH.
dandarez said:
Not read much about this but I did hear a witness testify that the cyclist had shouted to her to get out of the way. He didn't mention the f word.
Asides, the bit about no brakes on the front wheel. I don't know how they've changed recently but the principle must be the same.
Many years back I used to ride fixed wheels. Never had any front brakes for good reason. If you did have them fitted you avoided using them. If you did, and used them in anger, only one thing happened - you flew literally over the f........ front handlebars!
To stop was simple, but not easy. You applied braking force using both legs and bodyweight which resisted the rotation of the pedal crank, usually getting up off the saddle and standing up straight. We used to like fixed wheels (or fixies as they call them now) as kids simply because you could pedal and ride backwards!
One other point being missed here is the bloody mobile phone!
Only last month I nearly had 'another' dick on the front of my car bonnet - she simply stepped straight out into out into the road, eyes glued to her iPhone. Then she gives me a look to kill after I'd blown my horn.
Regardless of whether the idiot on the bike is at fault, perhaps too the story in question might be a lot different had she not been looking at her phone?
The numbers of dicks who walk around today, daily, eyes down glued to their phones is incredible.
Perhaps they think they are f invincible and the road safety onus is on everyone else?
Just why would being a fixed wheel bike cause a front brake to be so dangerous?Asides, the bit about no brakes on the front wheel. I don't know how they've changed recently but the principle must be the same.
Many years back I used to ride fixed wheels. Never had any front brakes for good reason. If you did have them fitted you avoided using them. If you did, and used them in anger, only one thing happened - you flew literally over the f........ front handlebars!
To stop was simple, but not easy. You applied braking force using both legs and bodyweight which resisted the rotation of the pedal crank, usually getting up off the saddle and standing up straight. We used to like fixed wheels (or fixies as they call them now) as kids simply because you could pedal and ride backwards!
One other point being missed here is the bloody mobile phone!
Only last month I nearly had 'another' dick on the front of my car bonnet - she simply stepped straight out into out into the road, eyes glued to her iPhone. Then she gives me a look to kill after I'd blown my horn.
Regardless of whether the idiot on the bike is at fault, perhaps too the story in question might be a lot different had she not been looking at her phone?
The numbers of dicks who walk around today, daily, eyes down glued to their phones is incredible.
Perhaps they think they are f invincible and the road safety onus is on everyone else?
In any case many (most?) 'fixies' do have at least front brakes.
On a more sensible bike at a more sensible speed, WITH BRAKES, he had a much better chance of avoiding her.
I can't believe people are excusing him and blaming the victim.
What would be the outcome if a car driver with no front brakes hit a pedestrian? Both are vehicles that require a braking system in order to be used on the road.
Given the posts above, it would suggest that experienced cyclists are aware of pedesteron lemmings and experience them regularly. How many of them have killed someone? None, because they have brakes and don't KOM it everywhere.
I can't believe people are excusing him and blaming the victim.
What would be the outcome if a car driver with no front brakes hit a pedestrian? Both are vehicles that require a braking system in order to be used on the road.
Given the posts above, it would suggest that experienced cyclists are aware of pedesteron lemmings and experience them regularly. How many of them have killed someone? None, because they have brakes and don't KOM it everywhere.
Dindoit said:
fido said:
bikes could be more dangerous (than cars) in this type of collision.
HahahaNo
Quite possible actually, as this case shows.
Well over 90% of people hit by a car at 20mph would survive. Being hit by a bike and rider at the same speed can't be that much better if at all.
VolvoT5 said:
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...
Alas such is the vocality of today's "keen" cyclist. Just look at any cycling thread on here. Zero f
ks given by the pedallists about people being inconvenienced, hurt etc; to them, car drivers are just "fat". Derek Smith said:
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?http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driv...
Disliking this d
head for his attitude can't trump legal precedent.The sooner there is the better.
Zigster said:
The Surveyor said:
It's not right to simply compare this incident with any motoring accident, the correct comparison would be a motoring accident where the pedestrian died and the car was found to be knowingly defective. i.e. a driver in a car with no brakes or with seriously bald tyres who kills a pedestrian would face a more serious punishment than one in a perfectly legal car, that driver being more negligent.
£180 fine seems to be the going rate for killing four cyclists.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5241798.stm
Hardly. Plenty of motorists have been jailed for causing the deaths of cyclists by dangerous driving.
will_ said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How did you reach that conclusion? Couldn't it just as well be indicative of the holier than thou attitude displayed by lots of [men][young people][everybody nowadays] (delete as appropriate). will_ said:
WestyCarl said:
will_ said:
To what extent do you think that any new law would "deter" such behaviour any more than it is deterred already by (i) the risk posed to third parties and (ii) the laws already in place in respect of cyclists? People who already don't care still won't care whatever new law is put in place.
As it stands on the charge for which he was convicted he can go to prison for up to two years. Do many drivers who kill get much more custodial time than that?
Much like car drivers, cyclists regardless of what they are doing don't think about the risk to others.As it stands on the charge for which he was convicted he can go to prison for up to two years. Do many drivers who kill get much more custodial time than that?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 24th August 16:33
A new up to date law to replace a 150 old "wanton and furious cycling" law would make it more relevant. Much like the mobile phone ban (without hands free) in 2003, I'm sure the Courts could have still done you for dangerous or reckless driving, however the specific law made it more prominent.
I suspect the reality is many cyclists get away with it so continue, and there are too many of them for the limited Police resources to start clamping down on.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycl... many people cycle and how often?
I agree with your last paragraph and would go further; if extra police resources could be found, I would much rather they focus on the sorts of behaviours which put us all in far greater danger - wouldn't everyone? Hint, that's not cyclists. The last "clamp down" on poor road behaviour in London lead to twice as many drivers getting tickets as cyclists.....
Of course, because bikes haven't developed at all. The difficulties they must have had in Victorian times with all those fixies, CF racers and MTBs on the highway.
By the way a 'clamp down' leading to more drivers being sanctioned than riders is hardly surprising given the absence of laws that cyclists need to adhere to.
heebeegeetee said:
Interesting.
Well, I might as well start the debate by saying, not sure if it's the right sentence or not, but from everything I've seen over my past 30 odd years, it's massively more than a driver normally gets when he's killed someone on two wheels.
I can't help thinking this guy's been done for matters not directly linked to the collision itself, which whilst fully deserved, I'm not sure it's what the courts should be doing.
And now we only need wait for the usual numbnuts to come along and accuse me of defending the guy.
I think it was his attitude that got the sentence rather than the offenceWell, I might as well start the debate by saying, not sure if it's the right sentence or not, but from everything I've seen over my past 30 odd years, it's massively more than a driver normally gets when he's killed someone on two wheels.
I can't help thinking this guy's been done for matters not directly linked to the collision itself, which whilst fully deserved, I'm not sure it's what the courts should be doing.
And now we only need wait for the usual numbnuts to come along and accuse me of defending the guy.
heebeegeetee said:
essayer said:
He's been jailed for 18 months
Interesting.Well, I might as well start the debate by saying, not sure if it's the right sentence or not, but from everything I've seen over my past 30 odd years, it's massively more than a driver normally gets when he's killed someone on two wheels.
I can't help thinking this guy's been done for matters not directly linked to the collision itself, which whilst fully deserved, I'm not sure it's what the courts should be doing.
And now we only need wait for the usual numbnuts to come along and accuse me of defending the guy.
You can't leave it can you? "Start the debate"? It's been your MO all along. Whatever the cyclists' lot is, car drivers are worse, get it easier, are more to blame etc. Nothing but incessant trollery.
A JUDGE, who is far more qualified (and less biased) than you, has sentenced him to 18 months. That's fair, as laid out in the legislation and judiciary of this country. Nobody cares if you think it's too high, too low, too lenient, making an example etc. There is no debate to be had.
She's dead. He's guilty. If I were him I'd be over the moon with 18 months, out in 9 - probaby less - and then will be the BBC's go-to vox-popper for cycling accident matters. He will probably end up better off for the fame, while the poor lady is still dead and her kids are without a mother. He just needs to learn to shut his mouth from time to time, or at least speak with a little more sense/respect/humility.
And get his f
king ears fixed, the collosal hipster bell-end.Laurel Green said:
FN2TypeR said:
AnotherClarkey said:
FN2TypeR said:
Laurel Green said:
In a young offenders institution - hopefully bum-raped daily.
Why?
Are you seriously suggesting that this offender should be subject to daily rape? Almost every time I come in here I wonder if many of the posters live in a sort of "Saudi Arabia but worse" Hell Hole, but I gather that most of them live in the UK (but dearly want the UK to be a savage Hell Hole). It seems odd to live with all the advantages of civilisation but yearn for barbarism, but, hey.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 18th September 14:05
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff