18 months?

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.

Well never know because a jury containg 2 crap drivers and 4 more below average will never convict them.

wellsprop wrote:

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.

Even when the pedestrian is a child on the pavement.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-m...

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!

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.

wycombewheeler wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

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.

Even when the pedestrian is a child on the pavement. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-m...

Wow, that report made me feel physically sick. What the hell is wrong with people?

I can imagine the palm faces being pulled by the CPS when this failed to secure a conviction.

for those who don't want to read, may I summarise... 

 - child uses pavement exactly as they should

- van driver sees a parking space, mounts the pavement to enable him to park in that space, knocks down and kills child. 

- Claims didn't see the child, didn't have vision of pavement before making move

- quoted comment 'unless the driver had x-ray eyes, there was no way he could have seen the girl'

 - no case to answer.. as you were everyone.

Wow, like seriously... if you can't see the pavement you are about to drive on, it turns out you can just mount it and kill anything in your way.... as judged by a group of our peers.

What the hell is wrong with us? 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

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.

Even when the pedestrian is a child on the pavement. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-m...

Wow, that report made me feel physically sick. What the hell is wrong with people?

I can imagine the palm faces being pulled by the CPS when this failed to secure a conviction.

for those who don't want to read, may I summarise... 

 - child uses pavement exactly as they should

- van driver sees a parking space, mounts the pavement to enable him to park in that space, knocks down and kills child. 

- Claims didn't see the child, didn't have vision of pavement before making move

- quoted comment 'unless the driver had x-ray eyes, there was no way he could have seen the girl'

 - no case to answer.. as you were everyone.

Wow, like seriously... if you can't see the pavement you are about to drive on, it turns out you can just mount it and kill anything in your way.... as judged by a group of our peers.

What the hell is wrong with us? 

I wish I had stuck with your summary and not read that report, it made me physically sick to and I wish I could unread it.

The world is just not right.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.