Home
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.

Our official grumpy Northerner, John has been riding bikes for over 30 years since discovering as an uncoordinated teen that a sport could be fun if it didn't require you to catch a ball or get in the way of a hulking prop forward.

Road touring was followed by mountain biking and a career racing in the mud that was as brief as it was unsuccessful.

Somewhere along the line came the discovery that he could string a few words together, followed by the even more remarkable discovery that people were mug enough to pay for this rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work. He's pretty certain he's worked for even more bike publications than Mat Brett.

The inevitable 30-something MAMIL transition saw him shift to skinny tyres and these days he lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

185 comments

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [2541 posts] 1 year 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... [2541 posts] 1 year ago
1 like
nbrus wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Nope, doesn't work as an arugment - It wasn't the cycling that bought the danger. The killer momentum came with the car. Or would you argue that Mrs Briggs wouldn't have been killed had she not been there?

Where's the smiley to denote "I'm starting to think you are actually a genuine moron." ?

Avatar
nbrus [585 posts] 1 year ago
1 like
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
nbrus wrote:
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Nope, doesn't work as an arugment - It wasn't the cycling that bought the danger. The killer momentum came with the car. Or would you argue that Mrs Briggs wouldn't have been killed had she not been there?

Where's the smiley to denote "I'm starting to think you are actually a genuine moron." ?

Love you too... 

Avatar
Rich_cb [910 posts] 1 year 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
nbrus [585 posts] 1 year 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
beezus fufoon [972 posts] 1 year 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 [910 posts] 1 year 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 [972 posts] 1 year 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
beezus fufoon [972 posts] 1 year 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 [585 posts] 1 year 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 [972 posts] 1 year 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 [585 posts] 1 year 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
nbrus [585 posts] 1 year 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
Jitensha Oni [150 posts] 1 year 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 [972 posts] 1 year 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
beezus fufoon [972 posts] 1 year 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
John Stevenson [425 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

jh27 wrote:

No, 18 mph is the recommended maximum cycling speed on a path shared by pedestrians and cyclists.  Stepping out without looking on a 'very busy road' on the other hand...

No, 18 mph is not the recommended maximum cycling speed on a shared path. Never has been. See here: http://road.cc/content/blog/153639-angry-cafe-owner-jason-wells-jon-rons...

Avatar
John Stevenson [425 posts] 1 year 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.

You should have seen version 1.

Quote:

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.

Exactly. Cycling campaigns have decades of ineffectual politeness behind them. My favourite example is Sustrans' Safe Routes To School, which has been going in one form or another since the mid-90s with exactly no effect whatsoever on the number of kids riding to school.

If you're not angry you're not paying attention.

Avatar
John Stevenson [425 posts] 1 year ago
2 likes

nbrus wrote:

Any cyclist like to bet that they won't be prosecuted under Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act for leaving the scene if they collide with a pedestrian and scarper? Despite the claim that this applies only to motor vehicles (or 'mechanically propelled vehicles') I wouldn't count on that as an argument.   Alliston was convicted of 'wanton and furious driving' but you don't 'drive' a bicycle. You'll likely be done for 'hit and run' if you leave the scene and no one will even care.

Section 170 is crystal clear in applying only to motor vehicles.

"Wanton or furious driving" has a long history of being infrequently but successfully applied to cycling.

Overturning clearly relevant precedent to, say, stop "wanton or furious driving" being used against cyclists is much harder that saying "M'lud, this offence applies only to motor vehicles, as it clearly says right here in the statute, in black and white." Except it'd never get that far.

Your reasoning would lead to cyclists being prosecuted for speeding, which the police would clearly love to do but can only get away with where there is ineptly framed legislation, such as in Richmond Park.

Avatar
nbrus [585 posts] 1 year ago
1 like

Any cyclist like to bet that they won't be prosecuted under Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act for leaving the scene if they collide with a pedestrian and scarper? Despite the claim that this applies only to motor vehicles (or 'mechanically propelled vehicles') I wouldn't count on that as an argument.   Alliston was convicted of 'wanton and furious driving' but you don't 'drive' a bicycle. Also, his legs count as a rear brake, apparently. You'll likely be done for 'hit and run' if you leave the scene regardless of the lack of a proper definition, and no one will even care.

Avatar
nbrus [585 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
John Stevenson wrote:

Section 170 is crystal clear in applying only to motor vehicles.

"Wanton or furious driving" has a long history of being infrequently but successfully applied to cycling.

Overturning clearly relevant precedent to, say, stop "wanton or furious driving" being used against cyclists is much harder that saying "M'lud, this offence applies only to motor vehicles, as it clearly says right here in the statute, in black and white." Except it'd never get that far.

Your reasoning would lead to cyclists being prosecuted for speeding, which the police would clearly love to do but can only get away with where there is ineptly framed legislation, such as in Richmond Park.

Maybe they will set a precedent if there is no other applicable law available?

If cyclists are to be done for speeding (unlikely), then it would have to be mandatory to fit a speedometer to all bicycles. You would also need number plates so the speed cameras could get you.

Avatar
Rich_cb [910 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
John Stevenson wrote:

Exactly. Cycling campaigns have decades of ineffectual politeness behind them. My favourite example is Sustrans' Safe Routes To School, which has been going in one form or another since the mid-90s with exactly no effect whatsoever on the number of kids riding to school.

If you're not angry you're not paying attention.

Articles like yours will never make things better, they can only make things worse.

All you've done is pander to the aggressive, inconsiderate cyclist stereotype that the tabloids constantly reference.

You've got a platform, you could use it to do some good, at the moment you're just doing the Daily Mail's work for them.

Avatar
nbrus [585 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
John Stevenson wrote:

Exactly. Cycling campaigns have decades of ineffectual politeness behind them. My favourite example is Sustrans' Safe Routes To School, which has been going in one form or another since the mid-90s with exactly no effect whatsoever on the number of kids riding to school.

If you're not angry you're not paying attention.

Articles like yours will never make things better, they can only make things worse. All you've done is pander to the aggressive, inconsiderate cyclist stereotype that the tabloids constantly reference. You've got a platform, you could use it to do some good, at the moment you're just doing the Daily Mail's work for them.

http://www.ereleases.com/pr-fuel/biggest-pr-myth-of-all/

Quote:

Long before I even got into the PR game, I’d always heard people say “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” The theory is that as long as people are talking about you, it’s a good thing. Even if they’re saying awful things about you or your company, the publicity is supposed to still be good because your name is on the top of people’s minds, keeping you relevant.

...

I could go on and on with examples of how bad publicity has hurt brands of all sizes, but I think you’re starting to get the point. The truth is there is such a thing as bad publicity. And while all of the brands I mentioned can and likely will eventually recover, the bad publicity they’ve received has done some serious damage for at least the short term and maybe longer.

Avatar
brooksby [4436 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
nbrus wrote:
John Stevenson wrote:

Section 170 is crystal clear in applying only to motor vehicles.

"Wanton or furious driving" has a long history of being infrequently but successfully applied to cycling.

Overturning clearly relevant precedent to, say, stop "wanton or furious driving" being used against cyclists is much harder that saying "M'lud, this offence applies only to motor vehicles, as it clearly says right here in the statute, in black and white." Except it'd never get that far.

Your reasoning would lead to cyclists being prosecuted for speeding, which the police would clearly love to do but can only get away with where there is ineptly framed legislation, such as in Richmond Park.

Maybe they will set a precedent if there is no other applicable law available?

If cyclists are to be done for speeding (unlikely), then it would have to be mandatory to fit a speedometer to all bicycles. You would also need number plates so the speed cameras could get you.

Some commentators on this site, long since banned, said that would be no defence (the same as other current commentators have said about Mr Alliston's claim of ignorance regarding the requirements to have a front brake): that if there is an applicable speed limit then it's up to you (the cyclist) to make sure you don't break it regardless of whether speedometers were made mandatory.

Avatar
John Stevenson [425 posts] 1 year ago
3 likes

Quote:

Maybe they will set a precedent if there is no other applicable law available?

You can't set a precedent when a law explicitly does not apply to a situation. Otherwise you could be prosecuted for anything at all, at any time.

Quote:

If cyclists are to be done for speeding (unlikely), then it would have to be mandatory to fit a speedometer to all bicycles. You would also need number plates so the speed cameras could get you.

Nope. Speed limits apply to all motor vehicles whether or not they have speedometers. There's no requirement to, for example, fit a speedo to vintage vehicles that don't have one, but speed limits still apply.

Avatar
alansmurphy [2189 posts] 1 year 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 [585 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

http://www.motordefenceteam.co.uk/offence-guide/faulty-speedo.htm

Quote:

Guide to Offences Related to Speedometers
The Offence

It is an offence to drive a vehicle that does not have a fully functional speedometer which shows both mph and kmph readings.  It is also an offence for certain classes of vehicles, such as HGV's not to have a speed limiter installed.

Do I need an NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) for speedometer related offences?

No, there is no requirement for an NIP for speedometer related offences.

Punishment

Fine to £2,500 for goods vehicles and £1,000 for other vehicles.

Defences

These range from showing that the vehicle in question is not required to have a speedometer/speed limiter, to showing that reasonable steps have been taken to remedy the fault with the equipment.  If facing a charge in relation to a speedo or speed limiter, contact the road traffic experts at Motor Defence Team to receive expert advice with respect to your situation.

I'm not sure if I am reading that guide correctly, so maybe the defences section applies to the offences?

 

Avatar
John Stevenson [425 posts] 1 year ago
2 likes

nbrus wrote:

It is an offence to drive a vehicle that does not have a fully functional speedometer which shows both mph and kmph readings.  It is also an offence for certain classes of vehicles, such as HGV's not to have a speed limiter installed.

 

I find it's always best to consult the actual legislation.

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

Speedometers

35.—(1) Save as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), every motor vehicle shall be fitted with a speedometer which, if the vehicle is first used on or after 1st April 1984, shall be capable of indicating speed in both miles per hour and kilometres per hour, either simultaneously or, by the operation of a switch, separately.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to—

(g) a vehicle first used before 1st October 1937

I cant find any such exemption in the Road Traffic Act allowing such vehicles to exceed the speed limit so I conclude that having a speedometer is not a necessary condition for a speeding prosecution.

Avatar
nbrus [585 posts] 1 year 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
beezus fufoon [972 posts] 1 year ago
5 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

...pander to the aggressive, inconsiderate cyclist stereotype that the tabloids constantly reference.

I have some confusion here with your perception of the situation...

Firstly, you seem quite dismissive of the tabloid's stereotyped view, and yet at the same time you seem to actually care about it as if you believe they can be influenced to change their minds instead of simply assigning them the status of persona non grata.

Then, in regard to this stereotype, it strikes me as a bit of a smokescreen - the truth of the situation is that very few cyclists leave the house with the intent to be aggressive and inconsiderate, and yet can easily become so in situations where they themselves are faced with aggression and lack of consideration from those far better protected, so it's a case of scratching someone's paintwork versus shattering someone's ankle...

What is really behind the enmity coming from car drivers seems to be a mixture of jealousy and issues with status - namely the idea that they have paid upwards of £20,000 plus insurance, tax, hidden "war on motorist" costs, sold on the idea of the freedom of the open road - set to dramatic or romantic music and improbable promises of security, fun, admiration, etc - only to find the reality is that they are stuck sitting in traffic breathing in the fumes of everyone else in cars just like theirs...

and then these plebs cycle past them without a care in the world - they didn't have to shell out all that money and don't have to sit in traffic, and to add insult to injury, they even get their own protected lane paid for by "the hard working taxpayer" which now means drivers can no longer intimidate them to wipe that smug grin from their grimy faces - no wonder they are frustrated, it's oh so unfair!

Pages