Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist facing manslaughter charge

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston...

So how come this guy is facing manslaughter charges whereas if he'd been driving a car he'd be able to say the sun was in his eyes and just walk away... (probably).

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

123 comments

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
1 like

Any car capable of 71mph must be a racing car, any car without abs has sub standard brakes, any car with cd player has distracting home entertainment system on board, faulty windscreen wiper potential cause even if no rain and on and on...

And sentiments echoed to anyone late to the discussion, been guilty of distracted by a mobile myself, or not been 100% vigilant when crossing. The victim here is just that and thoughts with friends and family.

Avatar
srchar | 6 years ago
4 likes

Cyclist was reported to have been "racing along" at... 18mph!  Imagine if a driver ran over and killed someone while travelling at 18mph.  They'd be completely exonerated.

What cyclists are complaining about here are the obvious double standards - I don't think anyone here would seriously argue that not having any brakes is a good idea.  Avoiding dopey peds in the city as well as all the vehicular traffic is hard enough with a full braking system.

That said, the fact that any of us could easily travel 6.65m without even pulling a brake, e.g. while doing a shoulder check or looking down to see what gear you're in, will unfortunately be irrelevant in this case. Most people are motorists first, peds second, and bike riders on towpaths in CenterParcs.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to srchar | 6 years ago
1 like

srchar wrote:

Cyclist was reported to have been "racing along" at... 18mph!  Imagine if a driver ran over and killed someone while travelling at 18mph.  They'd be completely exonerated.

What cyclists are complaining about here are the obvious double standards - I don't think anyone here would seriously argue that not having any brakes is a good idea.  Avoiding dopey peds in the city as well as all the vehicular traffic is hard enough with a full braking system.

The langauge being used by the prosecution isobviously  baised against the rider. The BBC was full of the bike being a racing bike, he was racing along at 18mph (29km/hr), which it shouldn't be doing.

It's a track bike and it isn't a racing bike until it's being raced and 29km/hr ain't racing.

I hope that this case will lead to more motorist prosecutions based on the standards being set here. All cars will be scrutinised to find faults, subsequent driver behaviour used against them,  weight of fault falling on the victim, etc, etc...

Thoughts out with the victim's friends and family, it can't be pleasant reliving the accident.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
0 likes

Absolutely. We haven't gone down the daily mail route and gone victim blaming here. If he'd had a decent set of brakes there's a fair chance the outcome would have been different and he should be held to account for that. It just massively highlights the difference though when such a rare case of negligence is reported/prosecuted and in all likelihood punished in such a way and less than 12 months trawling here will show us drivers using phones or intoxicated or hiding car and returning to the scene and on and on all walking free (and often driving).

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
0 likes

@alansmurphy - you're right about the poor quality of evidence. Unfortunately, this cyclist is going to be used as a scapegoat/made an example of. Whether or not he could have stopped is probably going to end up being irrelevant due to the fact that he had no right to be on that road (whereas the pedestrian had every right to cross in the wrong place at the wrong time without even looking).

Avatar
oldstrath replied to hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
4 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

@alansmurphy - you're right about the poor quality of evidence. Unfortunately, this cyclist is going to be used as a scapegoat/made an example of. Whether or not he could have stopped is probably going to end up being irrelevant due to the fact that he had no right to be on that road (whereas the pedestrian had every right to cross in the wrong place at the wrong time without even looking).

Which is fine, so long as every driver who has no right to be on the road while texting, tired, distracted, unable to see because of sun on a dirty windscreen, or in a vehicle as clearly unfit as most HGVs  is also tried and convictef of manslaughter when they succeed in killing someone. Want to bet?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to oldstrath | 6 years ago
0 likes

oldstrath wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

@alansmurphy - you're right about the poor quality of evidence. Unfortunately, this cyclist is going to be used as a scapegoat/made an example of. Whether or not he could have stopped is probably going to end up being irrelevant due to the fact that he had no right to be on that road (whereas the pedestrian had every right to cross in the wrong place at the wrong time without even looking).

Which is fine, so long as every driver who has no right to be on the road while texting, tired, distracted, unable to see because of sun on a dirty windscreen, or in a vehicle as clearly unfit as most HGVs  is also tried and convictef of manslaughter when they succeed in killing someone. Want to bet?

I'd agree with that and it's a shame that motons aren't hold more to account. In general I believe in presumed liability - the bigger/faster vehicle should be presumed liable and in this case the cctv footage doesn't prove the cyclist to be blameless.

I'd quite happily support a law that makes actively using a mobile phone illegal on the roads, whether you're walking, cycling or driving (passengers would be exempt). Although in this case, that would confuse the issue even more.

The nature of the reporting and the general anti-cyclist feeling are not going to help this poor bloke.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
3 likes

I kind of started this and am very much in agreement with BTBS.

I think there are so many variables that there's no correct answer. If as a driver you glance at your speedo it could massively change how long it takes to react but surely there's a need to check in a 20, 30 or 40 zone. How does this translate to looking at a Garmin on a bike for example. Again, compare to motons killing cyclists where the expert has said there was clear vision for 15 seconds. Maybe just a shoulder check, by the time you've looked again and there's a pedestrian 6 metres from you, when will you stop.

My major issue here is this testimony is being accepted as an expert view and us as merely people on bikes can tear it to shreds. Experts seem to not be able to explain how a car driver actually managed to kill a cyclist and they walk. Judge and jury by media here and the expert is providing terrible 'evidence' that he could have stopped*

*Obvious brake caveats in terms of them missing. He was clearly irresponsible but there could be a shocking precedent set here.

Avatar
silkred | 6 years ago
3 likes

Feels to me that we are already hobbled trying to understand the objective specifics as they are filtered through this guaridan journalist - the words used to describe the cyclist are not objective or neutral - the really sobering thing is the way his social media posts are being used to characterise him...

I have been in a similar colision - a woman walked out - I had no time - hit her and ended up all over the road - by the time I had picked myself up she was gone... I was left bleeding and with my spaners out getting everything back in allignement... these things happen in a flash - other incidents I have had with my fixie while leaving Richmond Park at night at speed due to a car driver holding the gates open and waving me through then finding a pedestrian step out in front of me - I was doing maybe 25mph - hit the brakes and piledrove myself into the tarmac - the ped and the car driver simple made off - left me there on the street - with my then tribars if I had hit the ped' likely he would have taken all the force been impaled and I may have done better - still have shoulder problems akin to rugby shoulder

I guess its pointless for us as distant observers to judge this bloke - in the end she stepped out into the road without being fully aware - in my personal opinion knowing the limited stuff I do via the papers if I was on the jury I would find him not guilty of the crimes he is being tried for - he is not even all that stupid - simply human - if you are a cyclist reading this then you will have sworn at someone who got in your way or cut you up or put you at risk - every single one of you - he acted after the way he is reported to have because he had been put on the floor - there is no good answer to this but putting him in prison is not one of them.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to silkred | 6 years ago
1 like

silkred wrote:

Feels to me that we are already hobbled trying to understand the objective specifics as they are filtered through this guaridan journalist - the words used to describe the cyclist are not objective or neutral - the really sobering thing is the way his social media posts are being used to characterise him...

I have been in a similar colision - a woman walked out - I had no time - hit her and ended up all over the road - by the time I had picked myself up she was gone... I was left bleeding and with my spaners out getting everything back in allignement... these things happen in a flash - other incidents I have had with my fixie while leaving Richmond Park at night at speed due to a car driver holding the gates open and waving me through then finding a pedestrian step out in front of me - I was doing maybe 25mph - hit the brakes and piledrove myself into the tarmac - the ped and the car driver simple made off - left me there on the street - with my then tribars if I had hit the ped' likely he would have taken all the force been impaled and I may have done better - still have shoulder problems akin to rugby shoulder

I guess its pointless for us as distant observers to judge this bloke - in the end she stepped out into the road without being fully aware - in my personal opinion knowing the limited stuff I do via the papers if I was on the jury I would find him not guilty of the crimes he is being tried for - he is not even all that stupid - simply human - if you are a cyclist reading this then you will have sworn at someone who got in your way or cut you up or put you at risk - every single one of you - he acted after the way he is reported to have because he had been put on the floor - there is no good answer to this but putting him in prison is not one of them.

I disagree. Even though I can totally understand and relate to the cyclist, he was riding a bike that is not allowed on public roads and he was riding it sufficiently quickly so that he couldn't perform an emergency stop. Now, I can see that if the pedestrian had stepped out in front of someone else, then maybe they wouldn't have been able to stop either, but that's not entirely relevant as this particular cyclist had already made a regrettable decision to use that specific bike on the roads.

It's extremely unfortunate, but I do think the cyclist should be found guilty and sentenced appropriately (I don't think putting him in prison is necessary, though) if only to send a message that vehicles on a public road have to be road legal.

And yes, I feel dismayed that I'm agreeing with the pitchfork wielding mobs on this one.

Avatar
kevvjj replied to silkred | 6 years ago
2 likes

silkred wrote:

I guess its pointless for us as distant observers to judge this bloke - in the end she stepped out into the road without being fully aware - in my personal opinion knowing the limited stuff I do via the papers if I was on the jury I would find him not guilty of the crimes he is being tried for - he is not even all that stupid - simply human - if you are a cyclist reading this then you will have sworn at someone who got in your way or cut you up or put you at risk - every single one of you - he acted after the way he is reported to have because he had been put on the floor - there is no good answer to this but putting him in prison is not one of them.

Hmmm. The fact that he had time to yell out twice and then try to go around her (his words) indicates to me that he wasn't going to stop but was aiming to veer around her. I think he had plenty of time to react (and stop?) but she apparently "stepped back" into his path (his words again) as he tried to go around her (no front brake notwithstanding). I'm afraid it doesn't look good for this young man - no front brake makes the bike illegal and contrary to what he (or his lawyer) might say it does make all the difference - even if he had had still collided with her the front brake would have made a dramatic difference to the collision speed, resulting in potetially fewer injuries. In fact a front brake would mostlikely have had him going over the bars and their heads not colliding at all. I do agree that prison will not solve anything here.

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
4 likes

kevvjj wrote:

silkred wrote:

I guess its pointless for us as distant observers to judge this bloke - in the end she stepped out into the road without being fully aware - in my personal opinion knowing the limited stuff I do via the papers if I was on the jury I would find him not guilty of the crimes he is being tried for - he is not even all that stupid - simply human - if you are a cyclist reading this then you will have sworn at someone who got in your way or cut you up or put you at risk - every single one of you - he acted after the way he is reported to have because he had been put on the floor - there is no good answer to this but putting him in prison is not one of them.

Hmmm. The fact that he had time to yell out twice and then try to go around her (his words) indicates to me that he wasn't going to stop but was aiming to veer around her. I think he had plenty of time to react (and stop?) but she apparently "stepped back" into his path (his words again) as he tried to go around her (no front brake notwithstanding). I'm afraid it doesn't look good for this young man - no front brake makes the bike illegal and contrary to what he (or his lawyer) might say it does make all the difference - even if he had had still collided with her the front brake would have made a dramatic difference to the collision speed, resulting in potetially fewer injuries. In fact a front brake would mostlikely have had him going over the bars and their heads not colliding at all. I do agree that prison will not solve anything here.

Do you come to a full stop when someone walks out in front of you (if you are cycling or driving) or do you slow down a bit and predict as would be normal they would continue on across?

Given the 3.8 seconds from her stepping off  to impact how could one reasonably predict that she would not simply walk across the lane and no longer even be in the highway at all (2mph walking speed is 3.8 seconds to cross 3.8m carriageway BTW). How can one predict that a pedestrian would dither about to the point that they were still in the carriageway and despite all your efforts at trying to avoid them despite giving two audible warnings AND already having braked (this is a fact already) that there would be a collision.

How is this incident comparative to others of motorists v ped/person on bike/other motorists?

It's a fucking witch-hunt on the back of him stating that it was her fault for walking out in front of him on her phone and that 2 years ago he mentioned on twitter taking the front brake off his Cinelli.

As for the 3metres stopping distance on a police MTB from 18mph, absolute bullshit and the defence should have called that to be scrubbed/ignored by the jurors.

You've got at least 1.5seconds thinking time for a start off, it's already known he braked, she dithered, he had to rethink again what he was going to do after not clearing the carriageway.

Avatar
kevvjj replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

silkred wrote:

I guess its pointless for us as distant observers to judge this bloke - in the end she stepped out into the road without being fully aware - in my personal opinion knowing the limited stuff I do via the papers if I was on the jury I would find him not guilty of the crimes he is being tried for - he is not even all that stupid - simply human - if you are a cyclist reading this then you will have sworn at someone who got in your way or cut you up or put you at risk - every single one of you - he acted after the way he is reported to have because he had been put on the floor - there is no good answer to this but putting him in prison is not one of them.

Hmmm. The fact that he had time to yell out twice and then try to go around her (his words) indicates to me that he wasn't going to stop but was aiming to veer around her. I think he had plenty of time to react (and stop?) but she apparently "stepped back" into his path (his words again) as he tried to go around her (no front brake notwithstanding). I'm afraid it doesn't look good for this young man - no front brake makes the bike illegal and contrary to what he (or his lawyer) might say it does make all the difference - even if he had had still collided with her the front brake would have made a dramatic difference to the collision speed, resulting in potetially fewer injuries. In fact a front brake would mostlikely have had him going over the bars and their heads not colliding at all. I do agree that prison will not solve anything here.

Do you come to a full stop when someone walks out in front of you (if you are cycling or driving) or do you slow down a bit and predict as would be normal they would continue on across?

Given the 3.8 seconds from her stepping off  to impact how could one reasonably predict that she would not simply walk across the lane and no longer even be in the highway at all (2mph walking speed is 3.8 seconds to cross 3.8m carriageway BTW). How can one predict that a pedestrian would dither about to the point that they were still in the carriageway and despite all your efforts at trying to avoid them despite giving two audible warnings AND already having braked (this is a fact already) that there would be a collision.

How is this incident comparative to others of motorists v ped/person on bike/other motorists?

It's a fucking witch-hunt on the back of him stating that it was her fault for walking out in front of him on her phone and that 2 years ago he mentioned on twitter taking the front brake off his Cinelli.

As for the 3metres stopping distance on a police MTB from 18mph, absolute bullshit and the defence should have called that to be scrubbed/ignored by the jurors.

You've got at least 1.5seconds thinking time for a start off, it's already known he braked, she dithered, he had to rethink again what he was going to do after not clearing the carriageway.

Agree with most of what you say. However, there is no getting away from the fact that he had no front brake. In 3.8s he probably would still have hit her - but, WITH a front brake the speed would have been much less and I think this is the issue - not his attitude, manner or bravado.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
2 likes

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

silkred wrote:

I guess its pointless for us as distant observers to judge this bloke - in the end she stepped out into the road without being fully aware - in my personal opinion knowing the limited stuff I do via the papers if I was on the jury I would find him not guilty of the crimes he is being tried for - he is not even all that stupid - simply human - if you are a cyclist reading this then you will have sworn at someone who got in your way or cut you up or put you at risk - every single one of you - he acted after the way he is reported to have because he had been put on the floor - there is no good answer to this but putting him in prison is not one of them.

Hmmm. The fact that he had time to yell out twice and then try to go around her (his words) indicates to me that he wasn't going to stop but was aiming to veer around her. I think he had plenty of time to react (and stop?) but she apparently "stepped back" into his path (his words again) as he tried to go around her (no front brake notwithstanding). I'm afraid it doesn't look good for this young man - no front brake makes the bike illegal and contrary to what he (or his lawyer) might say it does make all the difference - even if he had had still collided with her the front brake would have made a dramatic difference to the collision speed, resulting in potetially fewer injuries. In fact a front brake would mostlikely have had him going over the bars and their heads not colliding at all. I do agree that prison will not solve anything here.

Do you come to a full stop when someone walks out in front of you (if you are cycling or driving) or do you slow down a bit and predict as would be normal they would continue on across?

Given the 3.8 seconds from her stepping off  to impact how could one reasonably predict that she would not simply walk across the lane and no longer even be in the highway at all (2mph walking speed is 3.8 seconds to cross 3.8m carriageway BTW). How can one predict that a pedestrian would dither about to the point that they were still in the carriageway and despite all your efforts at trying to avoid them despite giving two audible warnings AND already having braked (this is a fact already) that there would be a collision.

How is this incident comparative to others of motorists v ped/person on bike/other motorists?

It's a fucking witch-hunt on the back of him stating that it was her fault for walking out in front of him on her phone and that 2 years ago he mentioned on twitter taking the front brake off his Cinelli.

As for the 3metres stopping distance on a police MTB from 18mph, absolute bullshit and the defence should have called that to be scrubbed/ignored by the jurors.

You've got at least 1.5seconds thinking time for a start off, it's already known he braked, she dithered, he had to rethink again what he was going to do after not clearing the carriageway.

Agree with most of what you say. However, there is no getting away from the fact that he had no front brake. In 3.8s he probably would still have hit her - but, WITH a front brake the speed would have been much less and I think this is the issue - not his attitude, manner or bravado.

The no front brake is irrelevant to the actual death/manslaughter, this has already being determined in a court of law when a motorist killed FOUR cyclists when he had THREE defective tyres, he was slapped on the wrist for the faulty tyres to the tune of £180. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398901/Fury-driver-killed-cyclis...

stating that having the brake would have meant the deceased didn't die is wild speculation.

One cannot know if the women would have died if he'd have nudged into her at 1mph and she fell surprised that he was even there, speculation on that is simply that, speculation as to outcome. We know people that trip under their own steam whilst walking and die from head injuries.

We already know that this case has had the law applied to this person differently than to if he was in a more dangerous vehicle, we already know that he will not be tried by his peers but by a group of people with an inherrent bias/hatred towards his kind.

Already the media and cycle forummers have condemned him, without even understanding how these things happen and the timescales involved, even the 3m offered up by the prosecution is misleading and total BS.

All too often motorists blame the victim when it's a cyclist and the police, the CPS, jurists AND judges take it as read the cyclist is to blame for their demise and yet this flips 180 degrees when there is a cyclist involved in a collision with someone whom ends up dying as a result.

Application of the law and this case being fair is all I'm asking for, that and some actual understanding of what happens when an incident takes place, it really isn't as cut and dried as the absolute numbers are being made out to be, not even close.

 

Avatar
kevvjj replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

stating that having the brake would have meant the deceased didn't die is wild speculation.

One cannot know if the women would have died if he'd have nudged into her at 1mph and she fell surprised that he was even there, speculation on that is simply that, speculation as to outcome. We know people that trip under their own steam whilst walking and die from head injuries.

 

Perhaps I've been following a different case. The whole prosecution case is based on speculation that a lack of front brake resulted in the death of the poor woman. Perhaps she would have died if she tripped over in the kitchen - totally irrelevant. Simple physics tells us that lower speeds in collisions decreases significantly the level of injury and or death - this is why urban speed limits are much lower than motorway limits. Yes, death can still occur, but the chances are much diminished.

Avatar
Simontuck | 6 years ago
1 like

I think the key thing here comparing this to a car vs ped death is that generally the cases I've seen involve a car that is road-legal. That would have changed the whole situation. I can't see him getting out of going to prison, especially after his questionable behaviour pre and post collision. He clearly had overestimated his skill level, which is the premise of the young.

The bloke is a courier, going by the articles I've read, so should know London and the stupidness of pedestrians. I've commuted through Central London for years and only ever had one hard knock into a ped but I was on a bike with brakes and I stopped to make sure he got up. He certainly regretted stepping out on a red man whilst talking on his phone on the ear he should have been looking out of but he didn't die, probably. I always wondered if internal injuries might have caught him later on in the day cos he went down like a sack of bricks! Having ridden track a fair bit I wouldn't contemplate riding any bike in London with no brakes, even if I was great at fixie-skidding.

Cyclists without brakes is a massive issue in London especially. The amount of fixie riders doesn't come close to the amount of people riding BSO's with v-brakes that are disconnected due to warped wheels, or just missing parts due to poor maintenance. There's nothing stopping them, and in I often wonder if the Police/ Ministry might one day set up a check point to check bike safety at strategic locations, as they do spot checks on cars and larger vehicles.

Avatar
kitsunegari | 6 years ago
2 likes

All he had to say was the sun was in his eyes and he'd have gotten off scott free..

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
1 like

I think one lesson from all this is don't put your point of view on social media. You have already shafted yourself if you do.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
2 likes

CCC depends very much on bike gearing and rider. As a full on roadie that mashes big gears with a rather full on fixie (struggles to climb), I can't stop mine using the rear pedal action - not even close to having the hamstring strength...

Avatar
cyclisto | 6 years ago
1 like

The problem here is that young lad killed a lady with a illegal vehicle to be driven on the roads. It is the equivalent of killing somebody with an Formula 1 car on the road for the judges.
My point is that brakeless fixies look cool but the combination of skinny 23mm tyres and a brake force applied only on the wrong wheel and that highly relies on the riders skills simply doesn't work. Don't encourage brakeless fixie riding on public roads

Avatar
Dantenspeed | 6 years ago
4 likes

I fancied riding a fixed gear on the road, right up until the point I actually tried one in the velodrome. Braking by resisting the pedals is not substitute for a proper brake.

He should have had at least a front brake - end of.

Planet X - and indeed other track bikes retailers - could do with being more explicit on their websites with what the bikes are for. They've been riding the 'fixie boom' for years and they need to clearly differentiate their models. I've seen this particular model online with a front brake attached with what looks like the original forks - though I could be wrong. There's nothing stopping them selling them all with a front brake either attached or included, or even use it as an upgrade but they shouldn't wash their hands of that possibility given that a significant number will end up on the road.

As it stands they make no mention of its road use whatsoever - they should either explicitly say it shouldn't be used or provide the option with a front brake.

Some of these comments about the pedestrian are pretty distasteful, she shouldn't have had to pay with her life whatever the mode of transport that hit her.

Avatar
CasperCCC | 6 years ago
5 likes

Who here rides fixed? Do you have any idea how much less effective skidding is than using your brakes?

i used to ride with a front brake only, but when I started going out on clubruns I fitted a rear brake, because I thought it was safer.

Riding at almost 20mph through a busy London street without the ability to stop properly is the act of a selfish idiot. If he *has* to ride brakeless, then it's his responsibility to ride at a speed where he's in control of his bike.

Yes, pedestrians step out in front of cyclists (and drivers), and they shouldn't. But it's the moral responsibility of the vehicle user to make sure that they're in control of their vehicle.

Seriously, imagine how this board would be reacting if someone was killed by a driver in a vehicle that was missing the *most fundamental* safety mechanism.

I agree that the coverage is sensational, and that people are killed by irresponsible drivers every day. And that it's "man bites dog" - this only gets the amount of coverage as it does because it's so rare. And that drivers get away with things they shouldn't. And that pedestrians can be idiots, and will walk out in front of cyclists without checking properly.

But there's a whole load of Trump-esque comments on here with a "bad people on both sides... on both sides..."approach. If you're in control of a vehicle, you've got a moral responsibility to be look after more vulnerable road users.  Riding at 20mph on a city street with no front brake is so far short of what's acceptable that all the whataboutery should fade into the background.

Avatar
LastBoyScout | 6 years ago
3 likes

So far, no question of why wasn't the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

Double standards, much?

Avatar
peted76 replied to LastBoyScout | 6 years ago
2 likes

LastBoyScout wrote:

So far, no question of why wasn't the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

Double standards, much?

Have you ever been to London? It can get quite busy at times and pedestrians are only moved to use infrastructure when infrastructure is either needed or convienient.. ergo the path of least resistance. Unless you'd prefer we were more American and had laws in place such as 'jaywalking' (which even sounds obnoxious) to add to the list of  things we can't do this country. 
 

 

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to peted76 | 6 years ago
2 likes

peted76 wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

So far, no question of why wasn't the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

Double standards, much?

Have you ever been to London? It can get quite busy at times and pedestrians are only moved to use infrastructure when infrastructure is either needed or convienient.. ergo the path of least resistance. Unless you'd prefer we were more American and had laws in place such as 'jaywalking' (which even sounds obnoxious) to add to the list of  things we can't do this country. 

Yes, many times. I've walked, cycled, driven a car and ridden a motorbike around London at all sorts of time of the day and week - I know what it's like.

My point was about the differences in reporting style - if it had been a cyclist knocked over by a car, there would no doubt have been a biased comment about the cyclist not being in a nearby cycle lane, or similar, and all the associated victim blaming.

Avatar
freespirit1 replied to LastBoyScout | 6 years ago
1 like

LastBoyScout wrote:

So far, no question of why wasn't the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

Double standards, much?

Pedestrians are under NO obligation to use pedestrian crossings or to even cross only  the green man is shown.

It cannot be classed as jaywalking as the offence does not exist in the UK.

Therefore it cannot be double standards.

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to freespirit1 | 6 years ago
2 likes

freespirit1 wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

So far, no question by the media of why wasn't the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

Double standards of reporting, much?

Pedestrians are under NO obligation to use pedestrian crossings or to even cross only  the green man is shown.

It cannot be classed as jaywalking as the offence does not exist in the UK.

Therefore it cannot be double standards.

Perhaps I should have put the bits in bold in in the first place.

Cyclists are under NO obligation to use cycle lanes, either, but it hasn't stopped me being shouted at to use them.

Avatar
kitsunegari replied to freespirit1 | 6 years ago
4 likes

freespirit1 wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

So far, no question of why wasn't the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

Double standards, much?

Pedestrians are under NO obligation to use pedestrian crossings or to even cross only  the green man is shown.

It cannot be classed as jaywalking as the offence does not exist in the UK.

Therefore it cannot be double standards.

Uh, he's clearly referring to the off-cited motorist tirade questioning why cyclists were not in the provided cycling infrastructure, often used to victim blame cyclists.

Cyclists are also under no obligation to use cycle lanes.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to LastBoyScout | 6 years ago
0 likes

LastBoyScout wrote:

So far, no question of why wasn't the pedestrian using the official, safe, crossing infrastructure (provided at great expense for her convenience) that was a mere 30 feet away?

Double standards, much?

You can't say that....... because that completely rules out an argument that cyclists have on a daily basis..... "Why are you cycling on the road when there is and official safe cycling path (provided at great expense for your conveniece) that runs alongside the road"

Avatar
TriTaxMan | 6 years ago
7 likes

I think the key to this matter is the fact that the cyclist was on the road with a bike which was not road legal.  If the bike had a front brake fitted, then I think this would never have seen the light of day, but because he was cycling without a front brake he is being held to account.

As people had said if this had been a car and a pedestrian had died, then in all likelyhood this would have been a non-event, however, if it had been a car with no valid MOT then the charges would likely be similar.

Too many people are getting hung up on the cyclist being the perpetrator here and ignoring the deficiencies in his equipment.

Pages

Latest Comments