Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

18 months?

Looks like the fixie rider has gotten 18 months.

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

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

44 comments

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
0 likes

Gotten?

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
1 like

So, Alliston is going to prison for 18 months, demonstrating that the archaic furious driving law is still fit for purpose, but that's just not good enough for some people : 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41337440

Is this the beginning of "sweeping the roads clear ready for autonomous vehicles"? Legislating bikes off the road in the name of safety??

Avatar
oldstrath replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

So, Alliston is going to prison for 18 months, demonstrating that the archaic furious driving law is still fit for purpose, but that's just not good enough for some people : 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41337440

Is this the beginning of "sweeping the roads clear ready for autonomous vehicles"? Legislating bikes off the road in the name of safety??

Seems a good bet alas. As you say, it's hard to see any other intelligible motive for the campaign (and the government's urgency) to replace a law that already delivers at least as much punishment as anything ever visited on drivers. Which presumably makes Briggs a ' useful idiot' at best, complete with his unbelievable ' I am a cyclist' spiel.

Trouble is, most people won't believe this is the plan until it's too late. Cue the claims of tinfoil hat wearing.

Avatar
Ush | 6 years ago
0 likes

The judge referred to CCTV evidence in her summation.  Anyone seen it?

Avatar
rollotommasi | 6 years 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
BehindTheBikesheds replied to rollotommasi | 6 years ago
0 likes

rollotommasi wrote:

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.

Haha, i bet my roadcraft is better than yours sonshine, tell me again when you pull an emergency stop to a complete dead stop (as represented by the police as evidence) when a ped walks into the road well ahead of you, if you say you do you're a LIAR!

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Haha, i bet my roadcraft is better than yours sonshine, tell me again when you pull an emergency stop to a complete dead stop (as represented by the police as evidence) when a ped walks into the road well ahead of you, if you say you do you're a LIAR!

 

I have taken exactly that course of action, not an emergency stop, but stopped dead in the road on 2 occasions in the last 6 weeks or so. Once on my bicycle where a ped wearing headphones gave every indcation of wandering off the pavement (and then did so) and did not respond to a shouted warning. Just yesterday driving down a narrow 1 way street when I saw 3 kids riding their bikes the wrong way against the traffic. So I simply stopped the car and the traffic behind me until they had gone past.

My rule of thumb is that nothing that happens in your forward field of view should really come as a surprise requiring an emergency stop. I really cannot think of the last time I had to brake heavily let alone emergency stop. The last time the ABS on the car got used was in an icy carpark last winter as I demonstrated how it worked to my son. The downside is that I am probably the world's most boring driver.

Stopping is an underestimated option when dealing with an unclear situation.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
1 like

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Haha, i bet my roadcraft is better than yours sonshine, tell me again when you pull an emergency stop to a complete dead stop (as represented by the police as evidence) when a ped walks into the road well ahead of you, if you say you do you're a LIAR!

 

I have taken exactly that course of action, not an emergency stop, but stopped dead in the road on 2 occasions in the last 6 weeks or so. Once on my bicycle where a ped wearing headphones gave every indcation of wandering off the pavement (and then did so) and did not respond to a shouted warning. Just yesterday driving down a narrow 1 way street when I saw 3 kids riding their bikes the wrong way against the traffic. So I simply stopped the car and the traffic behind me until they had gone past.

My rule of thumb is that nothing that happens in your forward field of view should really come as a surprise requiring an emergency stop. I really cannot think of the last time I had to brake heavily let alone emergency stop. The last time the ABS on the car got used was in an icy carpark last winter as I demonstrated how it worked to my son. The downside is that I am probably the world's most boring driver.

Stopping is an underestimated option when dealing with an unclear situation.

So you haven't ever stopped within 3metres from 18mph (an emergency stop) with a pedestrian walking out into the road some 20 or so metres ahead as what was expected of the convicted?

The only time i was involved with a pedstrian in 30 years of commuting/serious road riding was when a kid (of about 14/15) sprinted out from the side of the road into me about 5 years ago, I was a good 3 metres from the kerb edge, I'd positioned myself there just in case he stepped out, I slowed from about 22mph to roughly 15mph give or take, I'd eyeballed him, I was covering my brakes as I always do, i have excellent brakes and pretty good reactions. Guess what, he timed his run to perfection, as if he deliberately aimed to run into me, I fractured my elbow and wrist/knackered my thumb, bent derailleur, he was totally unhurt.

Should I have slammed on at the mere sight of him standing at the side of the road or should I have done what i did, which is what a careful and considerate person would do, the rest just fucking plough on regardless. Would you, even if he stepped off the road much further away and already be well across the road as per the deceased in this case, come to a complete halt and slam on the brakes? I certainly wouldn't have, I'd have slowed down, slower than the 15, probably even to 10mph like Charlie Alliston did and simply direct myself behind his line of travel, because that's pretty normal and at 10mph it's hardly 'racing' or 'mowing down' or 'wanton or furious' speed/action is it?

And if he had then stepped back into my path whilst I was SLOWLY (because 10mph is slow, can we at least accept that?) going around the back of him would I really be at fault for the collison, Are you saying that in pretty much most circumstances on a highway that 10mph is not acceptable to merely steer around someone, is 10mph reckless, is it to be construed as wanton and/or furious?

You've stated you've come to a stop but that is a fairly rare occurence for when a ped crosses well ahead of you, I slow down and wave peds across quite often,  in 30 years I could maybe count a handful of times when i thought it was necessary to come to stop but then they've just carried on walking across in a predictable manner, they certainly didn't salmon back but they'd looked up the road, they had seen me and I had seen them, that mutual thing were I can see they've seen me and i can slow to let them cross safely (As they are standing on the kerb edge), and yes circumstances will dictate that you might have to come to a stop when the way forward is blocked, because they physically are standing as a person right in the centre of the road even as a group, when there's simply no gap at all even at a slow speed or the person is already hinting at turning back. However that wasn't the case here is it? 

Doing an emergency stop from that far back would be unexpected to say the least - you'll not want to do it for the mostpart in any case on busy roads because the vehicle behind is more than likely not to stop in time to that action, but this is the expectation of the prosection, the police and all the plebs who have no idea what the real world is like.

people ignore that reacting to stimuli is not one continous thing, that a scenario that unfolds you have to think about a reaction/what to do, that final bit that unfolds in front of you that was once in control, now isn't and you've no time to react even if you want to because the human brain doesn't work like a computer, that unexpected thing takes approx 1.5seconds for you to react to, in fear/panic mode that can be even longer(or simply not at all as seen quite often where people 'freeze'), even the action of the brake itself takes almost half a second to come on (mechanical action time).

So you slowed right down from 18mph to as low as 10mph, you gave a warning (the swearing aspect is irrelevant, a bell is really just not working in a big city environ), because in pretty much every situation the pedestrian doesn't salmon back right into your path and you are slowly going around them.  Except the pedestrian does something VERY unexpected after still ignoring two warning shouts after still not looking as to what was in the carriageway and still didn't appear to be going to salmon back into your path, until they did and it was too late to hit the brakes because you couldn't think quick enough and that lowly 10mph is now racing speeds in everyones eyes and you're now a criminal up for manslaughter and wanton or furious actions.

So, in my situation was I at fault when he moved out into the road and he collided with me? What if i had died, I'd be blamed for not wearing a helmet (I went over the bars as my wheel jammed against his body (assisted by some braking on my part) and that would be that. How is my situation from 5 years ago much different to Charlie Alliston's, well he wrote stuff on social media and the person that was involved died, in my case i got off 'lightly' with minor injuries and financially out of pocket - he and his dad buggered who he was running across the road too buggered off. 

I'm sorry that you disagree but he was faced with a particularly abnormal situation, a situation that unfolded that he was not 100% powerless to avoid (yes in theory he maybe could have stopped or gone even slower than 10mph) but in normal circumstances that happen millions of times a day (pedestrians walking out ahead of you) it wasn't unreasonable for him to not come to a complete stop never mind do an emergency stop as again, the police et al were expecting him to do so.

Avatar
rollotommasi replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
3 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Haha, i bet my roadcraft is better than yours sonshine, tell me again when you pull an emergency stop to a complete dead stop (as represented by the police as evidence) when a ped walks into the road well ahead of you, if you say you do you're a LIAR!

Who's talking about "emergency stops"?  I've not talked about it.  The judge didn't in her sentencing statement.  

The issue is that Alliston DELIBERATELY CHOSE not to take all reasonable steps to avoid an accident.  He slowed down a bit.  Then he decided he didn't have to slow down any more because he felt entitled to carry on.  If he'd kept slowing down, he might have stopped before reaching Mrs Briggs.  But even if that didn't happen, he'd still have allowed more time to avoid a collision and reduced the impact if they had collided.

If someone (or something, like a dog) comes out in front of me I will brake as hard and for as long as I think necessary to avoid an accident.  That may mean coming to a complete stop; usually it means going slowly enough that the other person/thing and I can avoid a collision.

What I won't do is do a bit of braking, and then decide I've done enough if there's still a risk of collision.  

What I won't do is say that my speed is now 10-14mph, and that must be safe, if there's still a risk of collision.

And what I won't do is put my right to keep cycling at a certain speed at a higher priority than trying to avoid an accident.

These differences, my friend, is why I challenge your roadcraft. 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to rollotommasi | 6 years ago
0 likes

rollotommasi wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Haha, i bet my roadcraft is better than yours sonshine, tell me again when you pull an emergency stop to a complete dead stop (as represented by the police as evidence) when a ped walks into the road well ahead of you, if you say you do you're a LIAR!

Who's talking about "emergency stops"?  I've not talked about it.  The judge didn't in her sentencing statement.  

The issue is that Alliston DELIBERATELY CHOSE not to take all reasonable steps to avoid an accident.  He slowed down a bit.  Then he decided he didn't have to slow down any more because he felt entitled to carry on.  If he'd kept slowing down, he might have stopped before reaching Mrs Briggs.  But even if that didn't happen, he'd still have allowed more time to avoid a collision and reduced the impact if they had collided.

If someone (or something, like a dog) comes out in front of me I will brake as hard and for as long as I think necessary to avoid an accident.  That may mean coming to a complete stop; usually it means going slowly enough that the other person/thing and I can avoid a collision.

What I won't do is do a bit of braking, and then decide I've done enough if there's still a risk of collision.  

What I won't do is say that my speed is now 10-14mph, and that must be safe, if there's still a risk of collision.

And what I won't do is put my right to keep cycling at a certain speed at a higher priority than trying to avoid an accident.

These differences, my friend, is why I challenge your roadcraft. 

The video done by the police used as evidence against CA shows an emergency stop, one that brakes as hard as one can, this is very clearly an 'emergency stop' they managed to stop the bike within 3 metres from 18mph. This emergency stop procedure is used against him as a crucial part of the evidence.

If a ped steps out about 20metres ahead and is already part way across do you come to a complete stop (As is inferred CA must do by the 3 metre braking distance), if so, how often would you do that, 100%, 50%, 20%, 10%, 1% of the time or less? Or, do you, as CA did retard your speed to a slow speed (circa 10mph) so the ped can carry on crossing whilst you are still several metres away? next time a ped steps out in the road well ahead of you have a think, do you slam on the brakes to a stop or do you retard your speed, how fast are you going when you retard your speed, 15mph? 10mph? 10mph is what the prosecution say CA could have being doing when the deceased stepped back into him, think about that.

Avatar
rollotommasi replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The video done by the police used as evidence against CA shows an emergency stop, one that brakes as hard as one can, this is very clearly an 'emergency stop' they managed to stop the bike within 3 metres from 18mph. This emergency stop procedure is used against him as a crucial part of the evidence.

If a ped steps out about 20metres ahead and is already part way across do you come to a complete stop (As is inferred CA must do by the 3 metre braking distance), if so, how often would you do that, 100%, 50%, 20%, 10%, 1% of the time or less? Or, do you, as CA did retard your speed to a slow speed (circa 10mph) so the ped can carry on crossing whilst you are still several metres away? next time a ped steps out in the road well ahead of you have a think, do you slam on the brakes to a stop or do you retard your speed, how fast are you going when you retard your speed, 15mph? 10mph? 10mph is what the prosecution say CA could have being doing when the deceased stepped back into him, think about that.

But the judge didn't refer to the video in her sentencing statement.  And the reason why he was sentenced wasn't that he didn't stop quickly enough.  It was that he didn't do all he reasonably could and should to either stop or slow down.

I go back to the point that the judge found that Alliston slowed down a bit (she said to between 10-14mph, so that's the figure I'm using).  He could have chosen to slow further. BUT he CHOSE not to, because he felt entitled to go on.

Thankfully I've not had to make an emergency stop in the recent past, although I've certainly had to brake sharply sometimes.  It would never cross my mind to think that, provided I get myself down to a designated speed (whether that's 10mph, 14mph or whatever), then I've done what I need to do.

There is no single defined safe speed in these circumstances.  It's about what, in the particular circumstances I find myself, I'm both able to slow down to and I'm confident is enough to avoid an accident.  It also helps to eyeball whoever's in my way.

In this particular case, Alliston's primary objective was to keep going, not to avoid a collision.  He chose to ride right past Mrs Briggs.  Which meant finding a narrow path between her in the middle of the road and a parked lorry on his left.  Because he hadn't slowed down more, there was less time for him and Mrs Briggs to work out between themselves how to avoid each other.  The judge said that when Mrs Briggs realised the danger, she clearly didn't know what to do or which way to move for the best.  

The judge's statement doesn't mention that Mrs Briggs took a step back into his path.  But even if she did, Alliston would have needed to be steering a course he already knew would be passing very close to her, if a single step could result in them not just brushing against each other but having a heavy collision.  And because he was steering a path so close to her, it would have been harder for her to work out in the heat of the moment what his intentions were.  That's an obvious point that he should have been aware of.

In those circumstances, and given Alliston had the choice to slow down further, there is no way 10-14mph was a "safe" speed.

 

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 6 years 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
davel replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 6 years 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
Awavey replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 6 years 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.

Avatar
madcarew | 6 years ago
4 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
Canyon48 replied to madcarew | 6 years 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
jh27 replied to Canyon48 | 6 years 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
kil0ran | 6 years 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
markfireblade | 6 years ago
4 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 | 6 years 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
Canyon48 replied to rollotommasi | 6 years 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
rollotommasi replied to Canyon48 | 6 years 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
Bikebikebike replied to rollotommasi | 6 years 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
Canyon48 replied to Bikebikebike | 6 years 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
jh27 replied to Canyon48 | 6 years 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
Canyon48 replied to jh27 | 6 years 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
Simboid replied to Canyon48 | 6 years 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 replied to Simboid | 6 years 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
rollotommasi replied to Bikebikebike | 6 years 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
Bikebikebike replied to rollotommasi | 6 years 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.

Pages

Latest Comments