18 months?

Bikebikebike wrote:

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

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

rollotommasi wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

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

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

 

 

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

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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

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

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

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

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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

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

hawkinspeter wrote:

rollotommasi wrote:

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

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

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

especially about lues

rollotommasi wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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

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

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

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

 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Your narrow mindedness idiocy is beyond reproach.

Bikebikebike wrote:

rollotommasi wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

18 mph = reckless?

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

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

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

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

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

Bikebikebike wrote:

18 mph = reckless?

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

theironduck wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

18 mph = reckless?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There should be two takeaways from this case.

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

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

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...

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.