Home

Looks like the fixie rider has gotten 18 months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41306738

44 comments

Avatar
wellsprop [506 posts] 2 months ago
2 likes

Literally just seen that. Makes me despair.

18 months because he didn't stop in time and didn't have a front brake.

Meanwhile, motorists run over pedestrians and it's called an accident.

Avatar
rollotommasi [38 posts] 2 months ago
6 likes

Wellsprop.

I've not read the judge's statement, and I guess you may not have either.

But, from what I understand, the proper comparison isn't simply with "motorists [who] run over pedestrians".  The proper comparison would be about what sentence was given to a motorist who drove a car they knew (or reasonably should have known) was unroadworthy; who drove in a reckless manner; and who showed no remorse for their actions.

I can't point to any specific cases.  But I'd guess any motorist convicted in those circumstances (unroadworthy vehicle; reckless driving; no remorse) should also expect a custodial sentence of at least the same length.

Avatar
wellsprop [506 posts] 2 months ago
7 likes
rollotommasi wrote:

Wellsprop.

I've not read the judge's statement, and I guess you may not have either.

But, from what I understand, the proper comparison isn't simply with "motorists [who] run over pedestrians".  The proper comparison would be about what sentence was given to a motorist who drove a car they knew (or reasonably should have known) was unroadworthy; who drove in a reckless manner; and who showed no remorse for their actions.

I can't point to any specific cases.  But I'd guess any motorist convicted in those circumstances (unroadworthy vehicle; reckless driving; no remorse) should also expect a custodial sentence of at least the same length.

I ought to clarify. The idiot was riding a fixed wheel track bike without a front brake on the road. Which is illegal.

He doesn't deserve to get off particularly lightly - I agree with tough sentencing.

It's just when you compare it to incidents like the bin lorry driver who knowingly drove with medical conditions - the CPS didn't even prosecute.

In reality, all road traffic offences - particularly involving death - should carry heavy sentences. I just wish judges would apply this to ALL road users equally.

 

Avatar
Bikebikebike [356 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
rollotommasi wrote:

Wellsprop.

I've not read the judge's statement, and I guess you may not have either.

But, from what I understand, the proper comparison isn't simply with "motorists [who] run over pedestrians".  The proper comparison would be about what sentence was given to a motorist who drove a car they knew (or reasonably should have known) was unroadworthy; who drove in a reckless manner; and who showed no remorse for their actions.

I can't point to any specific cases.  But I'd guess any motorist convicted in those circumstances (unroadworthy vehicle; reckless driving; no remorse) should also expect a custodial sentence of at least the same length.

18 mph = reckless?

Avatar
wellsprop [506 posts] 2 months ago
2 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:
rollotommasi wrote:

Wellsprop.

I've not read the judge's statement, and I guess you may not have either.

But, from what I understand, the proper comparison isn't simply with "motorists [who] run over pedestrians".  The proper comparison would be about what sentence was given to a motorist who drove a car they knew (or reasonably should have known) was unroadworthy; who drove in a reckless manner; and who showed no remorse for their actions.

I can't point to any specific cases.  But I'd guess any motorist convicted in those circumstances (unroadworthy vehicle; reckless driving; no remorse) should also expect a custodial sentence of at least the same length.

18 mph = reckless?

This is just it, 18mph (even in a city centre) is not reckless. The law needs to be bought up to date so he could have been charged appropriately.

I'm very concerned about what this ruling could potentially mean for me.

When I commute through Bristol, I keep up with the traffic (often I'm going faster than the traffic).

So, if I'm keeping up with the traffic at around 20mph in the city centre and someone steps into my path. In the event that I am unable to avoid a collision, am I liable for wanton and furious driving?!

I've had a couple of collisions with pedestrians in Bristol city centre. One was too busy looking at their phone to even check to see if the road was clear, the other just walked straight into my path after looking at me. I'm not alone either, most of my mates who cycle have had collisions with pedestrians who have stepped into the road without looking.

The stupid thing is I make sure I'm in primary position and cover my hands with my brakes at all times, both these collisions happened as I was following motor traffic.

Avatar
rollotommasi [38 posts] 2 months ago
3 likes
wellsprop wrote:

It's just when you compare it to incidents like the bin lorry driver who knowingly drove with medical conditions - the CPS didn't even prosecute.

I have some sympathy with the argument that he should have been prosecuted.  But, from my reading of that case, the Procurator Fiscal Service (i.e. the Scottish version of the CPS) didn't choose to treat that driver leniently.  They concluded that dangerous driving laws as they stand didn't allow them to prosecute in a way that would secure conviction, because they couldn't show criminal intent from reckless actions when the crash occurred as he was unconscious then.  

In other words, I think your example is good at showing why dangerous road use laws should be revisited (if the PFS wasn't able to build a prosecution on the fact that he should have known that his health condition could lead to him driving dangerously).

But it doesn't show a driver being treated more leniently than a cyclist.

Avatar
markfireblade [59 posts] 2 months ago
5 likes

It's not the speed of impact, it's cheerfully doing it on a bike with no front brake and the twat's general attitue to everyone else on the road that makes it "reckless" I'd think. If you show consideration for everyone else and don't ride like a knob, no-one's really that bothered about your speed....

Avatar
rollotommasi [38 posts] 2 months ago
2 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:

18 mph = reckless?

18 mph may be reasonable, unreasonable or reckless.  It depends on the road conditions at the time.

To give a slightly exaggerated example, which can still apply in some way to a high street.  The speed limits on the roads around Murrayfield or Wembley may be 30mph.  But that doesn't give me the right as a cyclist or driver to drive at those speeds if crowds are spilling out of the stadium onto the streets.

In this case, the Evening Standard reports the judge as saying that Alliston was shouting and swearing at pedestrians (plural, not just Ms Briggs) to get out of the way.  So he knew there was a clear risk of collision but still chose to cycle on at 18mph.

Avatar
theironduck [92 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
Bikebikebike wrote:

18 mph = reckless?

From the other thread, the judge commented that "If your bicycle had a front wheel brake you could have stopped but on this illegal bike you could not and on your evidence, by this stage, you were not even trying to slow or stop...You expected her to get out of the way".  I'm not really sure what to make of this.  Was it the illegal bike that was reckless?  Was it his supposed failure to try to stop (which seems to contradict the prosecution case that he was incapable of stopping) that was reckless?  Some clarity would be helpful.

Avatar
jh27 [99 posts] 2 months ago
0 likes
wellsprop wrote:

The stupid thing is I make sure I'm in primary position and cover my hands with my brakes at all times, both these collisions happened as I was following motor traffic.

 

The fact that you were in primary position and covering your brakes (presumably not your hands), possibly contributes to the fact that you are here to tell the tale and not under some vehicle that was trying to over take you (which far to many motorists will do, if you aren't in primary, even when you are travelling at the same speed as the vehicle in front).  That said, and I'm not accusing you, it is possible that if you were in primary position and closely following the vehicle in front, said vehicle may have obscured you from the view of any pedestrians looking to cross the road (assuming they looked).

Avatar
wellsprop [506 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
jh27 wrote:
wellsprop wrote:

The stupid thing is I make sure I'm in primary position and cover my hands with my brakes at all times, both these collisions happened as I was following motor traffic.

 

The fact that you were in primary position and covering your brakes (presumably not your hands), possibly contributes to the fact that you are here to tell the tale and not under some vehicle that was trying to over take you (which far to many motorists will do, if you aren't in primary, even when you are travelling at the same speed as the vehicle in front).  That said, and I'm not accusing you, it is possible that if you were in primary position and closely following the vehicle in front, said vehicle may have obscured you from the view of any pedestrians looking to cross the road (assuming they looked).

I was following reasonably close (as close as you'd expect most motor vehicles to follow each other and in primary position - so you are right that it is possible I could have been slightly hidden.

The annoying thing is, if I rode not in primary position and followed the traffic from a distance, some impatient nutcase will overtake then cut in front.

What do you want to die of I guess  7

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will [817 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
theironduck wrote:
Bikebikebike wrote:

18 mph = reckless?

From the other thread, the judge commented that "If your bicycle had a front wheel brake you could have stopped but on this illegal bike you could not and on your evidence, by this stage, you were not even trying to slow or stop...You expected her to get out of the way".  I'm not really sure what to make of this.  Was it the illegal bike that was reckless?  Was it his supposed failure to try to stop (which seems to contradict the prosecution case that he was incapable of stopping) that was reckless?  Some clarity would be helpful.

 

This just highlights how emotive and non objective this case was. 

I felt the judge had a job to do in comments and failed here. It is not possible to say if 18mph, or 14mph or even 10mph, which I believe were all put forward as potential speeds the cyclist was travelling at, was objectively reckless. What made it objectively reckless was that without a front brake, practically any speed was unsafe. 

To me that should have been the focus. Shouting, not shouting, braking, not braking at the time of impact... its totally irrelevant. 

I have shouted at pedestrians being stupid and risking both their own and my safety. I was right to do so as well. Is it right, that should I have hit someone 2 minutes later that my previous shouting shoud be seen as evidence of recklessness? It doesn't prove or demonstrate a thing. 

The finer points of the impact were equally irrelevant in my opinion. He shouted because he couldn't stop... because he didn't have a front brake. He was not neglecting his responsibilities beyond not having a front brake. shouting was probably the best thing he could do. It does not objectively show recklessness.

Who cares if he swore or not, either before or after the incident. He wasn't being a twat he was acting in the heat of the moment. A moment that was more heated than it could have been if he'd had a front brake. Swearing does not objectively demonstrate recklessness.

Not braking at the point of impact wasn't displaying objective recklessness... it was, I'm sure the best course of action the rider felt he could take at the time... Again, because no other course of action was in place because he didn't have a front brake. 

There should be two takeaways from this case.

1. There needs to be tigher control of bikes being sold without front brakes as standard. 

2. Cyclists need to be made more aware of their legal requirements when it comes to equipment. For every knowingly reckless hipster 'dude' out there, there is a simply ignorant person riding around without working brakes... we need to stop ignorance ruining lives. 

Avatar
Bikebikebike [356 posts] 2 months ago
3 likes
rollotommasi wrote:
Bikebikebike wrote:

18 mph = reckless?

18 mph may be reasonable, unreasonable or reckless.  It depends on the road conditions at the time.

To give a slightly exaggerated example, which can still apply in some way to a high street.  The speed limits on the roads around Murrayfield or Wembley may be 30mph.  But that doesn't give me the right as a cyclist or driver to drive at those speeds if crowds are spilling out of the stadium onto the streets.

In this case, the Evening Standard reports the judge as saying that Alliston was shouting and swearing at pedestrians (plural, not just Ms Briggs) to get out of the way.  So he knew there was a clear risk of collision but still chose to cycle on at 18mph.

If you haven't got a bell then shouting is what you do.  If he was ringing a bell whilst going along does that indicate he know there was a clear risk of a collision?

Plus we all know that if a car had hit a pedestrian who had stepped out without looking going at 18mph then they would not be looking at a custodial sentence, or even a prosecution.  The stopping distances quoted in the trial for the single-brake bike were about the same as a car.  And given you're less likely to hurt someone going at 18mph on a bike than a car, it's really a struggle to say that 18mph on a bike is criminally reckless.

Avatar
rollotommasi [38 posts] 2 months ago
4 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:

The stopping distances quoted in the trial for the single-brake bike were about the same as a car.  And given you're less likely to hurt someone going at 18mph on a bike than a car, it's really a struggle to say that 18mph on a bike is criminally reckless.

But it's not the cycling at 18mph in itself that's criminally reckless.  It's cycling in a way that's reckless for the current road conditions.  Plus failure to take reasonable steps to avoid a collision (i.e. braking).  Plus using what he knew (or should have known) was an unroadworthy and unsafe bike.  Plus lack of remorse.

 

 

Avatar
kil0ran [597 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
Bikebikebike wrote:
rollotommasi wrote:
Bikebikebike wrote:

18 mph = reckless?

18 mph may be reasonable, unreasonable or reckless.  It depends on the road conditions at the time.

To give a slightly exaggerated example, which can still apply in some way to a high street.  The speed limits on the roads around Murrayfield or Wembley may be 30mph.  But that doesn't give me the right as a cyclist or driver to drive at those speeds if crowds are spilling out of the stadium onto the streets.

In this case, the Evening Standard reports the judge as saying that Alliston was shouting and swearing at pedestrians (plural, not just Ms Briggs) to get out of the way.  So he knew there was a clear risk of collision but still chose to cycle on at 18mph.

If you haven't got a bell then shouting is what you do.  If he was ringing a bell whilst going along does that indicate he know there was a clear risk of a collision?

Purpose of the bell (and car horn) is to alert others of your presence, shouldn't be an issue in Court. Neither should shouting but it depends on what was said I think. "Look Out" probably OK, "Get the fuck out of my way" probably not.

 

Avatar
kil0ran [597 posts] 2 months ago
3 likes

I try to ride defensively around pedestrians but sometimes its impossible short of pootling along at 5mph. Fortunately on my commute there isn't much pedestrian traffic, and as its mostly through an industrial area peds are quite focused on not being flattened by container lorries.

Ultimately though you just can't account for all eventualities. This morning, cycling east (so fully illuminated by the 9am sun), with my front dyno light running, with reflective mudguards, with an 18st bloke kitted out in red and blue cycling kit, a driver completely failed to see me somehow and turned right straight across me into a car park. Fortunately I was covering my brakes and did a really decent endo (hydro disks FTW). Adrenalin being what it is there was then a hell of a lot of swearing and gesturing. No doubt if I'd subsequently twatted the pedestrian that ambled across in front of me on her phone the idiot would have testified against me

I have pretty much zero sympathy for Alliston because I just can't see how anyone would think riding around London on a bike with no front brake would be A Good Idea.

Equally though this campaign to change the law is utterly out of proportion and the MoJ will deserve all the contempt they get if they do, particularly considering that they've kicked around the road sentencing review for the best part of 4 years. 

I think all anyone asks is that the law be equal and proportionate and road law definitely isn't

Avatar
madcarew [465 posts] 2 months ago
5 likes

From the judges comments it sounds as though (and CCTV would be interesting) that he was weaving in amongst traffic and other road users shouting and swearing. Personally I think the sentence is a result of bad luck (it was very unfortunate that Miss Briggs died, as she essentially died from a fall), a result of his lack of compassion, behaviour in public after the event, and it would seem his behaviour leading up to the event. Basically he seems the cycling equivalent of a boy racer who has been seen dropping donuts, swearing and being a yob, and then a few minutes later, while in an unroadworthy car hits someone  and then pouts and is unpleasant on social media. He may not deserve 18 months in the clink, but he certainly was asking for more than a slap on the wrist, which is likely what he would have got if Miss Briggs had not died.

Avatar
Simboid [94 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
wellsprop]</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[quote=rollotommasi

wrote:

 

One was too busy looking at their phone to even check to see if the road was clear, the other just walked straight into my path after looking at me. I'm not alone either, most of my mates who cycle have had collisions with pedestrians who have stepped into the road without looking.

 

 

This happens to me all the time, usually they're staring at a phone. Stupid as it is it's sort of understandable, phones are very immersive and distracting.

What I don't understand is people looking, seeing you approach and then just stepping out anyway. Seriously, what are they thinking? Are these the same people who shout at you to "get a car" or "get off the road" when they're driving? Is it an arrogant act of defiance against cyclists? Do they think we aren't part of the traffic?

What goes through their minds when they do this?

Avatar
oldstrath [921 posts] 2 months ago
2 likes
Simboid]</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[quote=Bikebikebike

wrote:
rollotommasi wrote:

 

One was too busy looking at their phone to even check to see if the road was clear, the other just walked straight into my path after looking at me. I'm not alone either, most of my mates who cycle have had collisions with pedestrians who have stepped into the road without looking.

 

 

This happens to me all the time, usually they're staring at a phone. Stupid as it is it's sort of understandable, phones are very immersive and distracting.

What I don't understand is people looking, seeing you approach and then just stepping out anyway. Seriously, what are they thinking? Are these the same people who shout at you to "get a car" or "get off the road" when they're driving? Is it an arrogant act of defiance against cyclists? Do they think we aren't part of the traffic?

What goes through their minds when they do this?

I think generally they are expecting cyclists to be travelling at about 4 mph, which is about what they managed when last on a bike.

Avatar
wellsprop [506 posts] 2 months ago
0 likes
madcarew wrote:

From the judges comments it sounds as though (and CCTV would be interesting) that he was weaving in amongst traffic and other road users shouting and swearing. Personally I think the sentence is a result of bad luck (it was very unfortunate that Miss Briggs died, as she essentially died from a fall), a result of his lack of compassion, behaviour in public after the event, and it would seem his behaviour leading up to the event. Basically he seems the cycling equivalent of a boy racer who has been seen dropping donuts, swearing and being a yob, and then a few minutes later, while in an unroadworthy car hits someone  and then pouts and is unpleasant on social media. He may not deserve 18 months in the clink, but he certainly was asking for more than a slap on the wrist, which is likely what he would have got if Miss Briggs had not died.

+1

So, hopefully, for the rest of us it means that providing we aren't riding like anti-social plebs, we're alright.

I reckon this idiot is one of those cyclists I occasionally come across on my commute with total disregard for anyone but themselves. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, there are a lot of younger people riding fixed with no front brakes and they don't seem to care about anyone's safety.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will [817 posts] 2 months ago
1 like

I was thinking about this fear 'motorists' have around cyclists not having insurance. I'm sure deep down these moaners know that they aren't going to come to any personal harm from a cyclist, so when they speak if insurance it is to cover damage to their car. 

But why on earth do they believe that every cyclist is going to smash into their car? 

And then it struck me. Most people stop cycling at a very young age... probably with a very poorly maintained bike by the time they got their first moped / car. 

Therefore, their perception of a bike and cycling is young kids / youths with minimal skills riding a terribly maintained bike... of course they look at us like hooligans when we are filtering through traffic, riding above 5mph. 

Maybe there is an argument to better publicise the capabilities of the modern bike and competent rider? 

Maybe then pedestrians won't step out assuming you are doing 5mph. Maybe drivers wouldn't assume we are all pheasants riding around looking for the first opportunity to impale ourselves on a car bonnet. 

who knows. 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [982 posts] 2 months ago
0 likes
rollotommasi wrote:
Bikebikebike wrote:

The stopping distances quoted in the trial for the single-brake bike were about the same as a car.  And given you're less likely to hurt someone going at 18mph on a bike than a car, it's really a struggle to say that 18mph on a bike is criminally reckless.

But it's not the cycling at 18mph in itself that's criminally reckless.  It's cycling in a way that's reckless for the current road conditions.  Plus failure to take reasonable steps to avoid a collision (i.e. braking).  Plus using what he knew (or should have known) was an unroadworthy and unsafe bike.  Plus lack of remorse.

 

 

Yet AGAIN ... he DID brake, virtually halved his speed, no-one comes to a complete emergency stop (as fallaciously portrayed by plod) when a ped crosses in front some way ahead.
He steered at a low speed, admitted by the prosecution to be as low as 10mph.
How can his actions be deemed reckless for the environment/situation? To state it's because he didn't have the front brake utterly misses the pount.
Sure, do him for no front brake, that's a Con & Use 1984 breach. But a brake if affixed would not have changed the outcome, it was not that that caused the collision, it was not reckless to brake to 10mph and steer around someone dawdling in the road deliberately trying to avoid them. Step back into your path at the last moment and you simply have no chance to even start to operate the lever, the human brain cannot work that fast for unknown events.(crash investigators work on 1.5s thinking time for singular eventoccurences for good alert drivers)
The Wanton and furious does not hold up to dcrutiny and it's clear the judge has acted in a discriminatory and unlawful manner. She should be arrested for perverting the course of justice, she's a fucking disgrace.
She even unlawfully instructed the jury never mind her summing up just before handing out sentence which was full of lues and contradictory BS!

Avatar
davel [1983 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I was thinking about this fear 'motorists' have around cyclists not having insurance. I'm sure deep down these moaners know that they aren't going to come to any personal harm from a cyclist, so when they speak if insurance it is to cover damage to their car. 

But why on earth do they believe that every cyclist is going to smash into their car? 

And then it struck me. Most people stop cycling at a very young age... probably with a very poorly maintained bike by the time they got their first moped / car. 

Therefore, their perception of a bike and cycling is young kids / youths with minimal skills riding a terribly maintained bike... of course they look at us like hooligans when we are filtering through traffic, riding above 5mph. 

Maybe there is an argument to better publicise the capabilities of the modern bike and competent rider? 

Maybe then pedestrians won't step out assuming you are doing 5mph. Maybe drivers wouldn't assume we are all pheasants riding around looking for the first opportunity to impale ourselves on a car bonnet. 

who knows. 

I think it's even more basic than that.

It's an argument usually espoused by a simpleton who hasn't grasped any of the issues, along with any one, or combination of
'cyclists hold me up'
'cyclists don't pay road tax'
'cyclists should be licensed'
'cyclists zip all over the road when you're stuck in traffic'.

It's a perception of cyclists being a law unto themselves, when in reality it's them failing to grasp the causes of their road-based misery, and that cyclists have some legal freedoms that drivers don't for good reason.

Avatar
jh27 [99 posts] 2 months ago
4 likes
wellsprop wrote:

+1

So, hopefully, for the rest of us it means that providing we aren't riding like anti-social plebs, we're alright.

I reckon this idiot is one of those cyclists I occasionally come across on my commute with total disregard for anyone but themselves. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, there are a lot of younger people riding fixed with no front brakes and they don't seem to care about anyone's safety.

 

I actually collided with a pedestrian the other day (his arm and my handlebar collided), on a shared use path, whilst travelling at about 6 mph, with my eldest child cycling behind me and the youngest in a child seat behind me.  He had headphones in and was walking directly in the middle of the path (leaving very little space for anyone to pass) with his headphones in.

 

If I'd been on my own I probably would slowed to walking pace until there was a wider space to pass.  Unfortunately 6 mph is about as slow as I can manage with young child bouncing about on the back.  He then, without warning, indication or for any apparent reason, decided to move to the left of the path, as I started to pass him on the left.  I could have slammed the brakes on, but there's always the risk that my eldest (whilst I do all I can to instill a sense of vigilance and the importance of keeping a safe distance) won't notice in time and run into the back of me, injuring herself.

 

This leaves me with the option of:

 a. Running into someone who is completly ignorant of their surroundings, choosing not to look and to dull their hearing - using a shared path, in a completely antisocial manner.

 b. Risking my child's safety.

 

I suppose the point I am getting to, is that we might occasionally see cyclists apparently "with total disregard for anyone but themselves", but I personally, see a lot more pedestrians without any regard for anyones safety or the consequences of their actions.  That's fine, they're ignorant, unless they cycle themselves, why wouldn't they be?  I give them as wide a berth as possible.

 

When I am driving my car, my primary concern is the safety of those around me, especially those who are more vulnerable.  My primary concern when I am on my bike is my own safety and that of my family.  If I collide with a pedestrian, I imagine that I am likely to come off worst.  I have concern for others, but my fate is closely tied to theirs.  Unfortunately some cyclists are ignorant of the dangers that pedestrians pose - but I think we need to be careful not to attribute "conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"?

Avatar
rollotommasi [38 posts] 2 months ago
3 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Yet AGAIN ... he DID brake, virtually halved his speed, no-one comes to a complete emergency stop (as fallaciously portrayed by plod) when a ped crosses in front some way ahead. He steered at a low speed, admitted by the prosecution to be as low as 10mph. How can his actions be deemed reckless for the environment/situation? To state it's because he didn't have the front brake utterly misses the pount. Sure, do him for no front brake, that's a Con & Use 1984 breach. But a brake if affixed would not have changed the outcome, it was not that that caused the collision, it was not reckless to brake to 10mph and steer around someone dawdling in the road deliberately trying to avoid them. Step back into your path at the last moment and you simply have no chance to even start to operate the lever, the human brain cannot work that fast for unknown events.(crash investigators work on 1.5s thinking time for singular eventoccurences for good alert drivers).

No. He made a LIMITED attempt to brake, which got his speed down to between 10-14 mph.  But he this is what you forget/ignore....

He had the choice to slow down further, but he CHOSE not to. His primary motivation was not to avoid an accident, but that he was entitled to go on (as he said in evidence) and that she should get out of his way.  That meant trying to thread a path between Mrs Briggs and a parked lorry on his left.  If he had made more of an effort to slow down, he may or may not have been able to stop in front of her.  It would almost certainly have been easier for the two of them to avoid each other.  And, even if they had collided, the impact would have been lower.

As the judge said: "On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident."

 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The Wanton and furious does not hold up to dcrutiny and it's clear the judge has acted in a discriminatory and unlawful manner. She should be arrested for perverting the course of justice, she's a fucking disgrace. She even unlawfully instructed the jury never mind her summing up just before handing out sentence which was full of lues and contradictory BS!

That's a really strong accusation to make.  Unless you have a detailed understanding of the case and the law that lies behind it, it's out of order to be throwing dirt like that around.

Avatar
hawkinspeter [1131 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
rollotommasi wrote:

That's a really strong accusation to make.  Unless you have a detailed understanding of the case and the law that lies behind it, it's out of order to be throwing dirt like that around.

To be fair, an internet forum is exactly the right place to throw dirt around (whether true or not).

I think you'll find lots of posts on here that make strong accusations.

Avatar
davel [1983 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
hawkinspeter wrote:
rollotommasi wrote:

That's a really strong accusation to make.  Unless you have a detailed understanding of the case and the law that lies behind it, it's out of order to be throwing dirt like that around.

To be fair, an internet forum is exactly the right place to throw dirt around (whether true or not).

I think you'll find lots of posts on here that make strong accusations.

especially about lues

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [982 posts] 2 months ago
0 likes
rollotommasi wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Yet AGAIN ... he DID brake, virtually halved his speed, no-one comes to a complete emergency stop (as fallaciously portrayed by plod) when a ped crosses in front some way ahead. He steered at a low speed, admitted by the prosecution to be as low as 10mph. How can his actions be deemed reckless for the environment/situation? To state it's because he didn't have the front brake utterly misses the pount. Sure, do him for no front brake, that's a Con & Use 1984 breach. But a brake if affixed would not have changed the outcome, it was not that that caused the collision, it was not reckless to brake to 10mph and steer around someone dawdling in the road deliberately trying to avoid them. Step back into your path at the last moment and you simply have no chance to even start to operate the lever, the human brain cannot work that fast for unknown events.(crash investigators work on 1.5s thinking time for singular eventoccurences for good alert drivers).

No. He made a LIMITED attempt to brake, which got his speed down to between 10-14 mph.  But he this is what you forget/ignore....

He had the choice to slow down further, but he CHOSE not to. His primary motivation was not to avoid an accident, but that he was entitled to go on (as he said in evidence) and that she should get out of his way.  That meant trying to thread a path between Mrs Briggs and a parked lorry on his left.  If he had made more of an effort to slow down, he may or may not have been able to stop in front of her.  It would almost certainly have been easier for the two of them to avoid each other.  And, even if they had collided, the impact would have been lower.

As the judge said: "On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident."

 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The Wanton and furious does not hold up to dcrutiny and it's clear the judge has acted in a discriminatory and unlawful manner. She should be arrested for perverting the course of justice, she's a fucking disgrace. She even unlawfully instructed the jury never mind her summing up just before handing out sentence which was full of lues and contradictory BS!

That's a really strong accusation to make.  Unless you have a detailed understanding of the case and the law that lies behind it, it's out of order to be throwing dirt like that around.

NO, read again, he braked, where did i say he did an emergency stop (As per the police video) why would he do an emergency stop or come to a complete stop at all? In the same scenario replicated on every street in every town and city not one single person would do the emergency stop because some twat decided to walk right into the middle of the road without looking 20 or so metres ahead when only doing 18mph to start with, they'd BRAKE to a slower speed and think that they would carry on their way, they might even BRAKE again or swerve if there was space, which in this case there was room to move around the person at a slow speed. You admit 10mph is a slow speed right?

You're clearly deranged and have avoided all semblance of logic and understanding of what happens all the time and how human beings cannot react instantaneously to unknown situations even when taking precautions.

his use of certain words are irrelevant, his actions of BRAKING/SLOWING and attempting to avoid collision are all we need to know with regards to the charges, the charge of Wanton or Furious are not met unless the CPS think he mowed her down on purpose, oh wait, they and pretty much everyone else think he did because he shouted at the stupid person after she collided with him.

 

Your narrow mindedness idiocy is beyond reproach.

Avatar
rollotommasi [38 posts] 2 months ago
3 likes

Wow, BehindTheBikeSheds. I don't know what I find more scary.  Your complete ignorance of proper roadcraft.  Or your raging temper when someone disagrees with you. If this is how you blow up on a forum, I shudder to think how you must behave on the road.

I just hope you never come cycling on any roads near me or my loved ones.

Avatar
Awavey [357 posts] 2 months ago
1 like
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I was thinking about this fear 'motorists' have around cyclists not having insurance. I'm sure deep down these moaners know that they aren't going to come to any personal harm from a cyclist, so when they speak if insurance it is to cover damage to their car. 

Ive always believed its to do with motorists view that its part of their ritual to being allowed on the road, for a car you must have MOT, you must have insurance and you must have a licence to drive which you took a test for and passed, and all those things (including "road tax") together are what permit you ti use the roads, so they see it as irresponsible for anyone to use the road without doing all those things, they miss the elephant in the room that because a motor vehicle has way more potential to cause harm, those "certificates" are there to try and lessen the harm and impact and is the only way that you can control access to them.

Pages