Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to OPINION
OPINION

Involved in a crash? Here's a modest proposal

Avatar
Avatar
by John Stevenson
Tue, Aug 29, 2017 16:53
145
Involved in a crash? Here's a modest proposalCrash (CC 2.0 BY-NC Edmund white|Flickr).jpg
In the wake of the Charlie Alliston case there's only one sensible thing to do — but you're not going to like it

In the aftermath of the Alliston case, what should you do if you are a cyclist involved in a crash with a pedestrian?

I have one word of advice for you: Leave.

That’s right. Leave the scene. Get out of Dodge. Get away from the situation as fast as you can. Say nothing to anyone. Give nobody your details. Don’t hang around long enough for anyone to get their phone out. Split. Bugger off. Go home the long way — down as many alleys and across as many parks as possible to avoid CCTV.

Say nothing about the crash to anyone. Don’t discuss it in forums. Don’t tweet or post on Facebook about it. Don’t search on Google for news of the crash or its aftermath. Don’t get your bike repaired. Carry on with your life as if nothing happened.

“But, John,” I can hear you say, “that’s awful advice. Ethically you should stop and help, and isn’t leaving the scene an offence?”

Road Traffic Act: leaving the scene

Last point first: no, it isn’t. Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act makes it an offence for the driver of a motor vehicle to leave the scene of a crash, but it specifically only applies to drivers of “mechanically propelled vehicles” as it quaintly calls them. (That means an engine or motor; your bike’s chain and gears don’t count as the propulsion comes from your legs.)

Section 168 makes it an offence to refuse to give your name and address to “any person having reasonable ground” to require it. But they have to ask for it first. Leave before anyone can ask your name, and you’re in the clear. Martin Porter QC, who drew my attention to this part of the Road Traffic Act, added: “I have never yet been supplied with name and address by [a] motorist I have reasonably suspected of careless driving. Asked a few times.”

Ethically, yes, all of this is dreadful. But the Alliston case has put cyclists in the position where we cannot be sure of being dealt with justly. In fact, we can be sure that we will not be treated justly.

There is no way that Charlie Alliston was guilty of manslaughter, and he was rightly acquitted.

But there is also no way he was riding furiously and wantonly. He was riding at 18mph. Traffic and parked vehicles around him left him with nowhere to go and when he yelled to warn Kim Briggs she stepped back into his path. If that’s furious and wanton riding, I’m a banana.

The brakeless fixie issue

You could argue that Alliston would not have ended up in court in the first place if he hadn’t been riding a bike that wasn’t street legal. Would the Met and the CPS have gone after him if he’d been riding a fixie with a front brake? I believe they would.

The tide is turning against cycling in London. The nonsensical claims that a few short stretches of protected cycleway have caused huge increases in congestion and pollution have stuck. Mayor Sadiq Khan has cancelled or postponed shovel-ready cycling schemes and TfL has mysteriously forgotten how to design new ones if its hopeless, inept Nine Elms and Fiveways schemes are anything to go by. I expect that before the end of Khan’s first term, TfL will announce that Cycle Superhighway 3, the world-class protected cycle lane along the Embankment is to be ripped up.

Meanwhile cycling and walking commissioner Will Norman doesn’t realise that his job is to enable active travel, not to run spin for Sadiq Khan’s preference for roads and buses. Khan is running a PR mayoralty, all talk and no delivery, and calling on others to fix problems like air pollution that are well within his power. But to do so would put him into conflict with the influential bus, taxi and haulage lobbies.

With public opinion increasingly hostile to cycling, the Met and the CPS would have gone after Alliston anyway. After all, a mother of two was, tragically, dead. Something Had To Be Done, and prosecuting Alliston was Something. Alliston had dug a huge hole for himself by his forum and Evening Standard postings. He really was a dream defendant — if you’re a prosecutor.

Given the general ignorance about cycling, a fixie with a front brake could still be easily represented as the equivalent to a Formula One car, and equally inappropriate for the streets. Alliston’s lawyer failed to challenge the Met’s nonsensical braking distance tests in either premise or execution; it’s vanishingly unlikely he’d have been able to mount a defence against the charge of furious and wanton cycling even if Alliston had been riding a bike with brakes.

And I don’t believe the bike made any substantial difference. The instinctive reaction when a pedestrian steps into your path is to try and avoid hitting them. Yes, you’ll slow down too and Alliston did, but Kim Briggs stepped back into his path, they butted heads and she fell to the ground. Had he been going slower (as he would not have had time to stop, despite the Met’s staged video), she might still have fallen, she might still have hit her head on the ground. We just don’t know, and we cannot therefore know that Alliston’s inability to stop faster was the primary cause of Kim Briggs’s death.

The not guilty verdict shows that the jury did not think it was. If Alliston was guilty of an illegal act in not having a front brake, and that illegal act led to Kim Briggs’s death, then he was guilty of manslaughter. If he was not guilty, then his illegal act did not cause Kim Briggs’s death.

That also makes the conviction for wanton and furious driving unsafe too, unless the jury took the view that the injuries that Kim Briggs sustained as a result of Alliston riding into her did not cause her death. That would be a somewhat bizarre conclusion, but that’s juries for you. However, I’m not a lawyer and there may be some twist to the legal reasoning here that I’ve missed. Happy to be corrected in the comments or via Twitter.

The justice system is stacked against cyclists

More broadly, the Alliston case is only the latest example of the justice system failing a cyclist, but it’s unusual in that the rider was accused of perpetrating a fatal crash, instead of being its victim.

London’s police have largely been on the back foot when it comes to cycling since the debacle of Operation Safeway, in which the police targeted minor cycling infringements after several cyclists were killed in London in November, rather than going after the motor vehicle behaviour that kills cyclists. They were pilloried for it by cycling groups, and rightly so.

Presented with an unsympathetic defendant in a cocky, pierced teenager riding a hipster bike, the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service must have thought all their Christmases had come at once.

They therefore charged Alliston with offences that had to be heard in Crown Court, rather than any of the more appropriate lesser offences that would have been heard by magistrates, as Martin Porter QC has pointed out.

There’s a legal maxim that if you want to get off a charge, you go for a jury trial if you can. Juries are composed of people who can’t convince the court they’re too important to be excused jury duty. They tend to be sympathetic to mundane criminality, which is why there are so many breathtaking not guilty verdicts in cases of causing death by careless or dangerous driving.

Charlie Alliston, Daily Mail stereotype

Unfortunately for him, with his tattoos and piercings, Charlie Alliston was as close as it gets to the Daily Mail stereotype of an arrogant, reckless, young tearaway, scofflaw cyclist. There was no way he was going to get a sympathetic hearing from a jury of Londoners who are encouraged to hate cyclists by every story about cycling on the local news, in the London papers, in the national papers, on the BBC and on LBC.

And so it went. Anyone who rides bike knows Alliston’s account of the crash was entirely plausible. Between a parked lorry and moving cars he had nowhere to go. Kim Briggs stepped back into his path (presumably seeing the cars, but not registering Alliston) and he was unable to avoid her.

But by bringing the absurd charge of manslaughter, the CPS could be confident they’d get Alliston for something. I can imagine the jury room discussions. “All right, it’s not manslaughter, but the arrogant git’s guilty of something. What’s this wanton and furious thing? Up to two years bird? Yeah, that’ll do.”

Lynch mob

The resulting atmosphere is that of a lynch mob. I’ve seen posts hoping that Alliston gets anally raped if he goes to prison, and wanting to know his usual riding route so they can string wire in his path. Have you ever seen that for a killer driver?

I fear for the safety of the cyclist next time one of us is involved in a crash with a pedestrian who doesn’t immediately get up and walk away. By bringing this spurious prosecution, the CPS has failed in its duty to act in the public interest. It has made the roads more dangerous, not less.

Cyclists have long known that we will not get justice if we are victims of road violence. Now we can be sure we will not get justice if we are accused of being its perpetrators.

And that means our only recourse is to get away from a crash immediately.

Footnote: If you do choose to stay at the scene of a crash, and there’s even the slightest possibility you might be blamed (in other words, any crash at all in the current climate) say nothing to the police without a lawyer present. Don’t try and be helpful, don’t give a statement. Ask for a lawyer and shut up till he or she arrives.

Charlie Alliston
Crime
Road Safety
justice
CPS
Metropolitan Police
John Stevenson

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

145 comments

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
2 likes

Rich_cb wrote:

This article is bullshit. If you've injured another human being stop and help them. Ask yourself what you would want people to do if it was your relative lying there injured. Then do exactly that. The Daily Mail are currently trawling cycling websites looking for anything to paint cyclists in a negative light. Well done for making their job a whole lot easier.

What's the alternative: cyclists write reasonable articles pointing out discrepancies? Been done for years - how is it panning out? It isn't making the Mail alter their course of cyclistbashing; it isn't making the CPS charge drivers appropriately.

Ped steps out in front of car; driver swerves to avoid them; ped readjusts into car's path; car hits them around 10mph. That's a set of circumstances that would see a driver hailed as trying to avoid the collision.

Accepting the status quo isn't working. Something drastic is needed... Not sure what, and I'm not sure eschewing decency (as some are interpreting the artice as) is the way to go, but some sort of diversion away from just shrugging and trying not to get killed is badly needed.

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to davel | 7 years ago
2 likes

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

This article is bullshit. If you've injured another human being stop and help them. Ask yourself what you would want people to do if it was your relative lying there injured. Then do exactly that. The Daily Mail are currently trawling cycling websites looking for anything to paint cyclists in a negative light. Well done for making their job a whole lot easier.

What's the alternative: cyclists write reasonable articles pointing out discrepancies? Been done for years - how is it panning out? It isn't making the Mail alter their course of cyclistbashing; it isn't making the CPS charge drivers appropriately.

Ped steps out in front of car; driver swerves to avoid them; ped readjusts into car's path; car hits them around 10mph. That's a set of circumstances that would see a driver hailed as trying to avoid the collision.

Accepting the status quo isn't working. Something drastic is needed... Not sure what, and I'm not sure eschewing decency (as some are interpreting the artice as) is the way to go, but some sort of diversion away from just shrugging and trying not to get killed is badly needed.

 

Furthermore - in most discussions here you will have seen most people agree that Alliston was wrong and should be facing a form of punishment. Many people are saying they don't agree with this article from a moral standpoint and are unlikely to do as suggested.

 

To have reasoned debate about incident, laws, moral, the application of them shouldn't really be too scary even for the Daily Heil; reading below the line on their site (where cyclist should be hung, drawn and quartered) is where the problem lies...

 

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to davel | 7 years ago
1 like
davel wrote:

What's the alternative: cyclists write reasonable articles pointing out discrepancies? Been done for years - how is it panning out? It isn't making the Mail alter their course of cyclistbashing; it isn't making the CPS charge drivers appropriately.

Ped steps out in front of car; driver swerves to avoid them; ped readjusts into car's path; car hits them around 10mph. That's a set of circumstances that would see a driver hailed as trying to avoid the collision.

Accepting the status quo isn't working. Something drastic is needed... Not sure what, and I'm not sure eschewing decency (as some are interpreting the artice as) is the way to go, but some sort of diversion away from just shrugging and trying not to get killed is badly needed.

Could things be better than they currently are?

Yes, they could be a lot better.

Could things be worse?

Yes, they could be a whole lot worse.

There are a huge number of voters who would love to see cyclists banned from the roads altogether.

Posting inflammatory bullshit like the article above is far more likely to make things worse than better.

You may not think much progress has been made but the relative risk of cycling has plummeted in recent decades.

There is still a long way to go but there is light at the end of the tunnel, driverless technology and driver assistance technology should lead to a huge fall in collisions, injuries and fatalities.

Within that context the political will to prosecute negligent driving should improve.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:

...inflammatory bullshit...

I for one think it's a good idea to know where you stand as regards the law - if you don't like it then maybe write to your MP or start a petition.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
3 likes
beezus fufoon wrote:

I for one think it's a good idea to know where you stand as regards the law - if you don't like it then maybe write to your MP or start a petition.

If you're happy for a relative of yours to be left to die at the side of the road then that's fine.

I personally think anyone encouraging that sort of behaviour is a complete arsehole.

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:
beezus fufoon wrote:

I for one think it's a good idea to know where you stand as regards the law - if you don't like it then maybe write to your MP or start a petition.

If you're happy for a relative of yours to be left to die at the side of the road then that's fine. I personally think anyone encouraging that sort of behaviour is a complete arsehole.

It's an article, illustrating a point. This is how shit and one-sided the justice system is.

ps: I disagree with your "Posting inflammatory bullshit like the article above is far more likely to make things worse than better". Even if that point is correct, we're losing badly enough already. It's a hopeless mismatch. We're England, heading out in the quarters 3-0 to Germany. Let's just carry on the way we are and try not to lose 10-0, eh? Not for me.

I don't share your optimisim about driverless cars either - I hope they're the future but they'll take ages to get here.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

It's an article, illustrating a point. This is how shit and one-sided the justice system is.

ps: I disagree with your "Posting inflammatory bullshit like the article above is far more likely to make things worse than better". Even if that point is correct, we're losing badly enough already. It's a hopeless mismatch. We're England, heading out in the quarters 3-0 to Germany. Let's just carry on the way we are and try not to lose 10-0, eh? Not for me.

I don't share your optimisim about driverless cars either - I hope they're the future but they'll take ages to get here.

Just take a look at Australian cycling laws, could that happen in the UK?

Definitely.

All it takes is for the populist press to start campaigning. Articles like this would be gold dust to an anti cycling campaign.

In fact I'd be surprised if the Daily Mail don't actually pick up on it.

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
2 likes

Rich_cb wrote:
davel wrote:

It's an article, illustrating a point. This is how shit and one-sided the justice system is.

ps: I disagree with your "Posting inflammatory bullshit like the article above is far more likely to make things worse than better". Even if that point is correct, we're losing badly enough already. It's a hopeless mismatch. We're England, heading out in the quarters 3-0 to Germany. Let's just carry on the way we are and try not to lose 10-0, eh? Not for me.

I don't share your optimisim about driverless cars either - I hope they're the future but they'll take ages to get here.

Just take a look at Australian cycling laws, could that happen in the UK? Definitely. All it takes is for the populist press to start campaigning. Articles like this would be gold dust to an anti cycling campaign. In fact I'd be surprised if the Daily Mail don't actually pick up on it.

I'm trying hard to imagine 'campaigning' that doesn't resemble where we are already. We are there, in my view, and a liability law isn't going to drop out of the sky, not with us on this trajectory.

But we are not, and won't become, Australia (for the same reason I can't envisage one of our MPs wearing a protest burkha in parliament).

 

Avatar
nbrus replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:
davel wrote:

It's an article, illustrating a point. This is how shit and one-sided the justice system is.

ps: I disagree with your "Posting inflammatory bullshit like the article above is far more likely to make things worse than better". Even if that point is correct, we're losing badly enough already. It's a hopeless mismatch. We're England, heading out in the quarters 3-0 to Germany. Let's just carry on the way we are and try not to lose 10-0, eh? Not for me.

I don't share your optimisim about driverless cars either - I hope they're the future but they'll take ages to get here.

Just take a look at Australian cycling laws, could that happen in the UK? Definitely. All it takes is for the populist press to start campaigning. Articles like this would be gold dust to an anti cycling campaign. In fact I'd be surprised if the Daily Mail don't actually pick up on it.

I'm trying hard to imagine 'campaigning' that doesn't resemble where we are already. We are there, in my view, and a liability law isn't going to drop out of the sky, not with us on this trajectory.

But we are not, and won't become, Australia (for the same reason I can't envisage one of our MPs wearing a protest burkha in parliament).

 

At least we don't have to have insurance, numberplates and a license.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
3 likes
nbrus wrote:

At least we don't have to have insurance, numberplates and a license.

Nor do quite a few motorists.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
3 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
davel wrote:

It's an article, illustrating a point. This is how shit and one-sided the justice system is.

ps: I disagree with your "Posting inflammatory bullshit like the article above is far more likely to make things worse than better". Even if that point is correct, we're losing badly enough already. It's a hopeless mismatch. We're England, heading out in the quarters 3-0 to Germany. Let's just carry on the way we are and try not to lose 10-0, eh? Not for me.

I don't share your optimisim about driverless cars either - I hope they're the future but they'll take ages to get here.

Just take a look at Australian cycling laws, could that happen in the UK?

Definitely.

All it takes is for the populist press to start campaigning. Articles like this would be gold dust to an anti cycling campaign.

In fact I'd be surprised if the Daily Mail don't actually pick up on it.

On balance, I don't think the article was a good idea. It sounds as if it comes straight from a place of anger, and for 'editorial' (as opposed to BTL venting) I'd far rather see measured restrained, post-sleeping-on-it, comments.

But I really have to roll my eyes at the reasoning that says 'constantly tip-toe around the topic because one bad article might upset them and make all the difference when otherwise we are sure to win'. The anti-cycling campaign doesn't need any real material, they can just make it up in endless quantities. Giving them 'gold dust' is going to make negligible difference when they have tonnes of fake stuff that do just as well.

I mean how well did the "when they go low, we go high" approach work out for the Democrats against Trump?

Conservatism in general is a force of immense power, composed of pure stupidity. Nothing can stand in the way of stupid people in sufficient numbers.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
4 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

On balance, I don't think the article was a good idea. It sounds as if it comes straight from a place of anger, and for 'editorial' (as opposed to BTL venting) I'd far rather see measured restrained, post-sleeping-on-it, comments.

But I really have to roll my eyes at the reasoning that says 'constantly tip-toe around the topic because one bad article might upset them and make all the difference when otherwise we are sure to win'. The anti-cycling campaign doesn't need any real material, they can just make it up in endless quantities. Giving them 'gold dust' is going to make negligible difference when they have tonnes of fake stuff that do just as well.

I mean how well did the "when they go low, we go high" approach work out for the Democrats against Trump?

Conservatism in general is a force of immense power, composed of pure stupidity. Nothing can stand in the way of stupid people in sufficient numbers.

I don't think you can call opposition to hit and run advice 'tiptoeing around'?

A young mother has been killed by a cyclist and a prominent cycling website responds with advice to leave any pedestrian you hit for dead.

That's absolutely disgusting. No excuses.

FWIW I do think we'll win, in fact I think it's inevitable. Within 20 years I expect car driving to have all but disappeared while cycling will continue.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
4 likes

Rich_cb wrote:

A young mother has been killed by a cyclist and a prominent cycling website responds with advice to leave any pedestrian you hit for dead.

no, a middle aged woman died from hitting her head on the ground because she was too lazy to walk to extra 10 metres to the crossing and wait for the lights

because of this a teenager on a bike has become a national scapegoat and might end up doing time

 

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
5 likes
beezus fufoon wrote:

no, a middle aged woman died from hitting her head on the ground because she was unable to walk to extra 10 metres to the crossing and wait for the lights

because of this a teenager on a bike has become a national scapegoat and might end up doing time

 

Yawn.

The only thing that comment is good for is cutting and pasting into any of your future complaints about victim blaming.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
3 likes

Rich_cb wrote:
beezus fufoon wrote:

no, a middle aged woman died from hitting her head on the ground because she was unable to walk to extra 10 metres to the crossing and wait for the lights

because of this a teenager on a bike has become a national scapegoat and might end up doing time

 

Yawn. The only thing that comment is good for is cutting and pasting into any of your future complaints about victim blaming.

you'll have a long wait then

Avatar
nbrus replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
0 likes

beezus fufoon wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

A young mother has been killed by a cyclist and a prominent cycling website responds with advice to leave any pedestrian you hit for dead.

no, a middle aged woman died from hitting her head on the ground because she was unable to walk to extra 10 metres to the crossing and wait for the lights

because of this a teenager on a bike has become a national scapegoat and might end up doing time

 

Wasn't this teenager riding without due care and attention, regardless of whether or not any accident took place? Was ho trying to set a new strava record perhaps? I think we're all going to disagree on this, but the courts will decide.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
1 like

nbrus wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

A young mother has been killed by a cyclist and a prominent cycling website responds with advice to leave any pedestrian you hit for dead.

no, a middle aged woman died from hitting her head on the ground because she was unable to walk to extra 10 metres to the crossing and wait for the lights

because of this a teenager on a bike has become a national scapegoat and might end up doing time

 

Wasn't this teenager riding without due care and attention, regardless of whether or not any accident took place? Was ho trying to set a new strava record perhaps? I think we're all going to disagree on this, but the courts will decide.

yes, as you said on a different thread - a small fine and some community service would be appropriate

Avatar
nbrus replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
2 likes

beezus fufoon wrote:

yes, as you said on a different thread - a small fine and some community service would be appropriate

I don't think anyone is suggesting anything more. I also don't think Alliston is a bad person, but he does appear to lack empathy. If he gets time, then it might be due to his complete lack of remorse.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
3 likes

nbrus wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

yes, as you said on a different thread - a small fine and some community service would be appropriate

I don't think anyone is suggesting anything more. I also don't think Alliston is a bad person, but he does appear to lack empathy.

maybe no one posting on this site, but the wider perception seems a lot more reactionary - even if the judge is independently minded enough to remain unswayed, the comments John has reported in the above article and the comments from cyclists noticing increased hosility suggest there will be problematic consequences purely because of the media's need to sensationalise and to create these moral panics.

Avatar
nbrus replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
1 like

beezus fufoon wrote:

maybe no one posting on this site, but the wider perception seems a lot more reactionary - even if the judge is independently minded enough to remain unswayed, the comments John has reported in the above article and the comments from cyclists noticing increased hosility suggest there will be problematic consequences purely because of the media's need to sensationalise and to create these moral panics.

The media is where we get all our information from ... everyone here has used the media as a basis for their own opinions. If anything I hope we get improvements to cycling infrastructure because of this ... keeping cyclists away from vehicles and pedestrians. Yes, I'm a bit optimistic. 

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
1 like

nbrus wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

maybe no one posting on this site, but the wider perception seems a lot more reactionary - even if the judge is independently minded enough to remain unswayed, the comments John has reported in the above article and the comments from cyclists noticing increased hosility suggest there will be problematic consequences purely because of the media's need to sensationalise and to create these moral panics.

The media is where we get all our information from ... everyone here has used the media as a basis for their own opinions. If anything I hope we get improvements to cycling infrastructure because of this ... keeping cyclists away from vehicles and pedestrians. Yes, I'm a bit optimistic. 

actually I think many people here get their opinions from their own directly lived experience of cycling on uk roads

Avatar
Jitensha Oni replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
2 likes

beezus fufoon wrote:

nbrus wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

yes, as you said on a different thread - a small fine and some community service would be appropriate

I don't think anyone is suggesting anything more. I also don't think Alliston is a bad person, but he does appear to lack empathy.

maybe no one posting on this site, but the wider perception seems a lot more reactionary - even if the judge is independently minded enough to remain unswayed, the comments John has reported in the above article and the comments from cyclists noticing increased hosility suggest there will be problematic consequences purely because of the media's need to sensationalise and to create these moral panics.

 

and John's article will help dispel that wider perception... ...how? Shall I refer my borderline anti-cycling colleagues to it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to Jitensha Oni | 7 years ago
1 like

Jitensha Oni wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

nbrus wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

yes, as you said on a different thread - a small fine and some community service would be appropriate

I don't think anyone is suggesting anything more. I also don't think Alliston is a bad person, but he does appear to lack empathy.

maybe no one posting on this site, but the wider perception seems a lot more reactionary - even if the judge is independently minded enough to remain unswayed, the comments John has reported in the above article and the comments from cyclists noticing increased hosility suggest there will be problematic consequences purely because of the media's need to sensationalise and to create these moral panics.

 

and John's article will help dispel that wider perception... ...how? Shall I refer my borderline anti-cycling colleagues to it?

I'm a bit skeptical that's how propaganda works - you can't really undo a prejudice that is based upon emotional manipulation with a reasoned argument 

John seems to have decided to draw a line in the sand, arbitrary though they may be, I understand why he's done that.

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
1 like
Quote:

Wasn't this teenager riding without due care and attention, regardless of whether or not any accident took place? Was ho trying to set a new strava record perhaps? I think we're all going to disagree on this, but the courts will decide

Where have you pulled this latest pile of horseshit from, your troll pit is full of shite. Is every collision due to the cyclists lack of care and attention if a bird hits a car windscreen has the driver shown a lack of care and attention.

A new Strava record? Fudge off you fudging carrot! Even if he was and remained below the speed limit what's the problem? If it had been a car that hit her she probably would have been charged with wanton and furious twittering.

Avatar
nbrus replied to alansmurphy | 7 years ago
0 likes

alansmurphy wrote:

Where have you pulled this latest pile of horseshit from, your troll pit is full of shite. Is every collision due to the cyclists lack of care and attention if a bird hits a car windscreen has the driver shown a lack of care and attention.

Yes, if he crashed into a pet shop.

alansmurphy wrote:

A new Strava record? Fudge off you fudging carrot! Even if he was and remained below the speed limit what's the problem? If it had been a car that hit her she probably would have been charged with wanton and furious twittering.

Are you about ready to cum?

Avatar
Ush replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
4 likes
beezus fufoon wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

A young mother has been killed by a cyclist and a prominent cycling website responds with advice to leave any pedestrian you hit for dead.

no, a middle aged woman died from hitting her head on the ground because she was too lazy to walk to extra 10 metres to the crossing and wait for the lights

because of this a teenager on a bike has become a national scapegoat and might end up doing time

 

I want to know why she was not wearing a helmet? Seriously. They are cheap and widely available and designed exactly for such circumstances.

Avatar
nbrus replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
0 likes

Rich_cb wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

On balance, I don't think the article was a good idea. It sounds as if it comes straight from a place of anger, and for 'editorial' (as opposed to BTL venting) I'd far rather see measured restrained, post-sleeping-on-it, comments. But I really have to roll my eyes at the reasoning that says 'constantly tip-toe around the topic because one bad article might upset them and make all the difference when otherwise we are sure to win'. The anti-cycling campaign doesn't need any real material, they can just make it up in endless quantities. Giving them 'gold dust' is going to make negligible difference when they have tonnes of fake stuff that do just as well. I mean how well did the "when they go low, we go high" approach work out for the Democrats against Trump? Conservatism in general is a force of immense power, composed of pure stupidity. Nothing can stand in the way of stupid people in sufficient numbers.

I don't think you can call opposition to hit and run advice 'tiptoeing around'? A young mother has been killed by a cyclist and a prominent cycling website responds with advice to leave any pedestrian you hit for dead. That's absolutely disgusting. No excuses. FWIW I do think we'll win, in fact I think it's inevitable. Within 20 years I expect car driving to have all but disappeared while cycling will continue.

I agree, the bicycle is unstoppable ... particularly fixies ... but joking aside the rise of e-bikes will make cycling popular among those less fit. I think roadcraft skills should be taught at school so that everyone knows how to ride safely (and behave properly) including those that become motorists. Better cycling infrastructure will take decades to appear but it is already happening. Self-driving cars and a move towards renting cars on demand will free up space on our streets and roads and clean up our air. It will take decades, but it will defintely happen. angry

Avatar
Ush replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
3 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

On balance, I don't think the article was a good idea. It sounds as if it comes straight from a place of anger, and for 'editorial' (as opposed to BTL venting) I'd far rather see measured restrained, post-sleeping-on-it, comments.

I think it's actually not just one of the best pieces on this tragedy, but one of the best things that road.cc has published (apart from many of their technical reviews).

Agree with you on the pointlessness of trying to be a compromiser in the face of aggression though. Some fights actually have to be fought.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:
beezus fufoon wrote:

I for one think it's a good idea to know where you stand as regards the law - if you don't like it then maybe write to your MP or start a petition.

If you're happy for a relative of yours to be left to die at the side of the road then that's fine. I personally think anyone encouraging that sort of behaviour is a complete arsehole.

bit presumptuous - I have no relatives!

Avatar
NicholasM | 7 years ago
3 likes

This article advocates profoundly unwise and antisocial behaviour. You really should think about removing it before it gets taken up elsewhere.

Pages

Latest Comments