- This topic has 123 replies, 48 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
ktache.
-
CreatorTopic
-
August 14, 2017 at 9:00 pm #27507
brooksby
So how come this guy is facing manslaughter charges whereas if he’d been driving a car he’d be able to say the sun was in his eyes and just walk away… (probably).
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
Dnnnnnn
Crampy wrote:Furthermore, how would a front brake have helped?Perhaps read a bit more about the case?
“If Mr Alliston had been riding a bike with proper brakes, he would have been able to avoid the collision with Mrs Briggs, prosecutor Duncan Penny QC said.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40927791
The prosecution’s assertion may be disproven but it wouldn’t be an issue in the first place had the accused had not removed it.
sergius
Crampy wrote:sergius wrote:I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you – you have to be prepared to stop for them. Shouting at them to move doesn’t count.Maybe I missed it, but where is a pedestrian crossing mentioned?
One of the articles I read on the subject said she was on a pedestrian crossing, maybe that’s incorrect though. He had time to shout at her to move = he had time to brake though.
Canyon48
Can’t say I have an awful lot
Can’t say I have an awful lot of sympathy for him either. The law is quite clear, you need brakes front and rear (rear fixed wheel counts as a brake).
Posting online probably didn’t do him any good.
Totally agree that pedestrians are utterly clueless and ignorant when crossing roads – I’ve collided with two when cycling around Bristol… First was someone crossing a road when the red man was showing at the crossing – a car passed and they stepped out behind it (in front of me) without looking. The second, someone crossed the road (not at a crossing) whilst staring at their phone and walked straight into my path.
I stayed upright on both occasions. The first pedestrian and the phone didn’t.
Doesn’t take a lot to be at least a little aware of vehicles on roads…
Crampy
sergius wrote:I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you – you have to be prepared to stop for them. Shouting at them to move doesn’t count.Maybe I missed it, but where is a pedestrian crossing mentioned?
Rapha Nadal
No helmet or hi-viz on the
No helmet or hi-viz on the pedestrian at the time? Tut tut.
Im a bit confused; was he
Im a bit confused; was he breaking the speed limit? Why is 20mph being reported as excessive when in reality it is 10mph short of what a car would have been doing? Was there a 20mph zone here?
Furthermore, how would a front brake have helped? If this was a situation where she stepped out in front of him, then all a front brake would have done was send him OTB and right on top of her. How is that better?
If the pedestrian crossed the road whilst on a mobile phone, not paying attention at all, then in reality this is on her, isnt it? Arent you taught as a child to look both ways before crossing?
I can see the comparison to a track car being used on this thread too, but to be honest that isnt really an apples with apples comparison, is it? The rider can lock the back wheel on a fixie, creating a very effective braking mechanism. A track car usually is lightened, has softer and wider tyres and / or has a more effective braking system installed. These mean that you shorten your braking distances considerably.
It really seems that the Guardian is trying to paint this guy as a “Premium Rush” type dangerous cyclist (and to be honest the internet comments he made dosent help) and the deceased as an innocent victim.
Except from where Im sitting it looks like she stepped out right in front of him glued to her mobile.
She was at fault for not looking where she was going but he was at fault for removing his front brake (contrary to the law) and posting like an eejit afterwards.
At least thats my take.
I’m not sure I have a lot of
I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you – you have to be prepared to stop for them. Shouting at them to move doesn’t count.
Vehlin
simonmb wrote:I’m curious about bikes fitted with coaster-brakes. Do they require an additional brake to be in place too? Regardless, a tragedy without doubt. And no one in their right mind would ride fixed without at least one other brake.Pedal Cycle Construction and Use Regulations 1983. You must have two independent braking systems, one for each wheel. A coaster brake or fixed gear system would count as a brake for the back wheel, you’d still need a front one to be legal.
simonmb
I’m curious about bikes
I’m curious about bikes fitted with coaster-brakes. Do they require an additional brake to be in place too? Regardless, a tragedy without doubt. And no one in their right mind would ride fixed without at least one other brake.
Anonymous
rogermerriman wrote:
rogermerriman wrote:I suspect that the fact that it’s unusual plus the guy has a illegal (to use on the road) bike and has frankly said some unwise things.
ie has failed the attitude test!
It would have been a lot less interesting story if his mouth (or keyboard rather) had brakes and it would have gotten a lot less news coverage.
oldstrath wrote:
oldstrath wrote:But the maximum possible sentences are different, and the message sent to lay people is probably aslso different – manslaughter is generally seen as a more serious thing surely?
More serious yes, but harder to prove. There’s nothing stopping someone causing death by dangerous driving being charged with manslaughter instead but it is a harder charge to prove.
What you will also find is that while Manslaughter technically can attract a life sentence it almost never does, sentences are typically between 2 and 10 years. Max sentence for DbDD is 14 years. So there’s nothing to stop the judge giving the same sentence for both offences.
oldstrath
Vehlin wrote:
Vehlin wrote:It’s a manslaughter charge because there is no death by dangerous cycling charge that can be brought. If you killed someone in a car that was built for the track with no breaks you’d be facing a DbDD charge. The sentences are largely similar. Th e fact that he’s admitted to removing the front brake from his last bike is gonna damn him imo Edit to add: if this had been on a construction site and someone had died because of an accident involving machinery to which legally mandated safety features had been removed or not installed prior to use you’d be seeing a similar case being brought.But the maximum possible sentences are different, and the message sent to lay people is probably aslso different – manslaughter is generally seen as a more serious thing surely?
It’s a manslaughter charge
It’s a manslaughter charge because there is no death by dangerous cycling charge that can be brought. If you killed someone in a car that was built for the track with no breaks you’d be facing a DbDD charge. The sentences are largely similar.Th e fact that he’s admitted to removing the front brake from his last bike is gonna damn him imo
Edit to add: if this had been on a construction site and someone had died because of an accident involving machinery to which legally mandated safety features had been removed or not installed prior to use you’d be seeing a similar case being brought.
Internet Pawn wrote:rogermerriman wrote:I suspect that the fact that it’s unusual plus the guy has a illegal (to use on the road) bike and has frankly said some unwise things.ie has failed the attitude test!
I agree, and I find it hard to have much sympathy for him, but for anyone looking for a precedent, Helen Measures blamed her victim Denisa Perinova in court, despite the fact that she was overtaking on a blind bend and made no attempt to brake or avoid the cyclists. She wasn’t even charged with manslaughter and was acquitted by the jury of careless driving.
The Grauniad’s article paints him as so awful because he ran off and started victim blaming on the Internet, as if that had never happened before, but the first thing I thought of when I read it was the Helen Measures case, too…
Woldsman
Do be mindful that this is an
Do be mindful that this is an ongoing trial in a UK court. I would imagine that the story will soon make its way to the news section of road.cc where it will appear – as it does on the Guardian’s web site – with comments switched off.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.