Suspended sentence for impatient driver who knew he'd caused cyclist's crash but said it was 'karma'

lolol wrote:

Having admitted it under oath etc, surely he is wide open to being pursued in the civil courts, make the shitarse pay!

Naturally, but his third party insurers will be footing the bill for that, one way or another.

Arjimlad wrote:

lolol wrote:

Having admitted it under oath etc, surely he is wide open to being pursued in the civil courts, make the shitarse pay!

 

Naturally, but his third party insurers will be footing the bill for that, one way or another.

His insurers could use the fact that the car wasn't MOT'ed as a get out though

usedtobefaster wrote:

Arjimlad wrote:

lolol wrote:

Having admitted it under oath etc, surely he is wide open to being pursued in the civil courts, make the shitarse pay!

Naturally, but his third party insurers will be footing the bill for that, one way or another.

His insurers could use the fact that the car wasn't MOT'ed as a get out though

I don't think that would prevent a third-party claim against the insurers, though they could try to recoup their costs from the idiot driver. If a lack of MOT invalidates the insurance, then surely the driver should be prosecuted for driving without insurance.

Arjimlad wrote:

lolol wrote:

Having admitted it under oath etc, surely he is wide open to being pursued in the civil courts, make the shitarse pay!

 

Naturally, but his third party insurers will be footing the bill for that, one way or another.

I'd suggest the lack of MOT will void the insurance policy... the chap was driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

If not, the admission that it was a deliberate act may also give the insurers a get out of pay-out free card. 

Any civil case will be going for the chaps personal account, which means that it would;

a) be less likely to be successful

b) any compensation awarded will be less

c) any compensation awarded will be paid back in sums of money so small that they are likely to make no positive difference to the victim

d) that the payment schedule would be skewed in favour of the guilty party so it does not impair the quality of their life.

However, I would absolutely encourage the victim to get stuck in, points need to be made / won here. 

alansmurphy wrote:

'Impatient driver' who caused 'an incident'

Compared to Charlie the 'callous thug' who 'ploughed into'...

Compare and contrast the sentencing, too...  Alliston got eighteen months and no 'suspended' malarkey.

brooksby wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

'Impatient driver' who caused 'an incident'

Compared to Charlie the 'callous thug' who 'ploughed into'...

Compare and contrast the sentencing, too...  Alliston got eighteen months and no 'suspended' malarkey.

Alliston also blamed his victim, who died, so that's not _entirely_ down to drivers being systematically treated more leniently than the far smaller number of cyclists causing death or serious injury.

armb wrote:

brooksby wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

'Impatient driver' who caused 'an incident'

Compared to Charlie the 'callous thug' who 'ploughed into'...

Compare and contrast the sentencing, too...  Alliston got eighteen months and no 'suspended' malarkey.

Alliston also blamed his victim, who died, so that's not _entirely_ down to drivers being systematically treated more leniently than the far smaller number of cyclists causing death or serious injury.

But on the other, other hand, Alliston was at least trying to not hit his victim (unlike this Mr Keemer) 

brooksby wrote:

But on the other, other hand, Alliston was at least trying to not hit his victim (unlike this Mr Keemer) 

 

He wasn't deliberately trying to hit her, but 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."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-all...

(On the other hand also says "an apparent lack of remorse shown by Alliston was a “coping strategy” derived from the loss of his father", so maybe it's not as simple as him just being a bit of a dick, which this driver does appear to be.)

armb wrote:

brooksby wrote:

But on the other, other hand, Alliston was at least trying to not hit his victim (unlike this Mr Keemer) 

 

He wasn't deliberately trying to hit her, but 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."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-all...

(On the other hand also says "an apparent lack of remorse shown by Alliston was a “coping strategy” derived from the loss of his father", so maybe it's not as simple as him just being a bit of a dick, which this driver does appear to be.)

And the judge was patently lying. She ignored the fact that Alliston braked from circa 18mph to as low as 10mph which was stated even by the prosecution, the judge ignored that he swerved away from the deceased who stepped back into Alliston's path as he was trying to avoid her, hence why he thought it was her fault. The shouts, well how are they any different to the use of a horn, which are advised to be used in exactly this situation, to warn others of your presence?

he slowed to barely jogging speed, he steered away, he gave two wrnings and still she managed to move back into him, he did not steer into her, this is pretty clear!

In any other walk of life, particularly if Alliston had been in a motorvehicle or pedestrian the deceased would have been at the very least partially at fault. We also have the false evidence put forward by the MET re the brakes totally ignoring reaction/thinking time, used a totally different bike with disc brakes and knew when to brake, there's a huge, huge difference.

Alliston was done up like a kipper and the charges should have been construction and use, just like the driver who killed four cyclists nr Rhyll, were the bent police lied about the speed, lied about the fact he wasn't using excessive speed, lied about the fact it wasn't dangerous to be doing nealry 60mph on a bend on ice.

As for remorse, that skank Helen Measures blamed her victim whom she killed and got off completely scot-free.

Either apply the law the same or don't, you can't pick and choose depending on which mode of transport you use and because there is an 'image' of a group/person, facts of the case are it. That Alliston apparently didn't show remorse was even a lie, he said he was sorry she had died but he believed he was not at fault, another brake on the front wouldn't have made any/enough of a difference and he was extremely unlucky that the other person died from such a low speed impact. 

We are pond scum and the law/facts don't really matter, the system can make it whatever they want to be, IMHO the system (or rather those within it) acts unlawfully in most cases involving people on bikes at both ends of the stick. There's clear discrimination/bias and not applying the law the same for all, basically they pervert the course of justice on the one hand and then attack those (on bikes) simply because of the general feeling towards people riding bikes, it's fucking outrageous!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

armb wrote:

brooksby wrote:

But on the other, other hand, Alliston was at least trying to not hit his victim (unlike this Mr Keemer) 

 

He wasn't deliberately trying to hit her, but 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."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-all...

(On the other hand also says "an apparent lack of remorse shown by Alliston was a “coping strategy” derived from the loss of his father", so maybe it's not as simple as him just being a bit of a dick, which this driver does appear to be.)

And the judge was patently lying. She ignored the fact that Alliston braked from circa 18mph to as low as 10mph which was stated even by the prosecution, the judge ignored that he swerved away from the deceased who stepped back into Alliston's path as he was trying to avoid her, hence why he thought it was her fault. The shouts, well how are they any different to the use of a horn, which are advised to be used in exactly this situation, to warn others of your presence?

he slowed to barely jogging speed, he steered away, he gave two wrnings and still she managed to move back into him, he did not steer into her, this is pretty clear!

In any other walk of life, particularly if Alliston had been in a motorvehicle or pedestrian the deceased would have been at the very least partially at fault. We also have the false evidence put forward by the MET re the brakes totally ignoring reaction/thinking time, used a totally different bike with disc brakes and knew when to brake, there's a huge, huge difference.

Alliston was done up like a kipper and the charges should have been construction and use, just like the driver who killed four cyclists nr Rhyll, were the bent police lied about the speed, lied about the fact he wasn't using excessive speed, lied about the fact it wasn't dangerous to be doing nealry 60mph on a bend on ice.

As for remorse, that skank Helen Measures blamed her victim whom she killed and got off completely scot-free.

Either apply the law the same or don't, you can't pick and choose depending on which mode of transport you use and because there is an 'image' of a group/person, facts of the case are it. That Alliston apparently didn't show remorse was even a lie, he said he was sorry she had died but he believed he was not at fault, another brake on the front wouldn't have made any/enough of a difference and he was extremely unlucky that the other person died from such a low speed impact. 

We are pond scum and the law/facts don't really matter, the system can make it whatever they want to be, IMHO the system (or rather those within it) acts unlawfully in most cases involving people on bikes at both ends of the stick. There's clear discrimination/bias and not applying the law the same for all, basically they pervert the course of justice on the one hand and then attack those (on bikes) simply because of the general feeling towards people riding bikes, it's fucking outrageous!

I normally hate long screeds and don't read them, but every word here is worth reading.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

And the judge was patently lying. ....<snip to avoid long repeat>

.......it's fucking outrageous!

I'm actually agreeing 100% with BTBS !

armb wrote:

brooksby wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

'Impatient driver' who caused 'an incident'

Compared to Charlie the 'callous thug' who 'ploughed into'...

Compare and contrast the sentencing, too...  Alliston got eighteen months and no 'suspended' malarkey.

Alliston also blamed his victim, who died, so that's not _entirely_ down to drivers being systematically treated more leniently than the far smaller number of cyclists causing death or serious injury.

You could argue that he had a point... the woman walked in to the road without looking. Also, I believe he only initially publically blamed the woman until he was made aware of the fact she had died.