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.

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. 

wellsprop wrote:

The stupid thing is I make sure I’m in primary position and cover my hands with my brakes at all times, both these collisions happened as I was following motor traffic.

The fact that you were in primary position and covering your brakes (presumably not your hands), possibly contributes to the fact that you are here to tell the tale and not under some vehicle that was trying to over take you (which far to many motorists will do, if you aren’t in primary, even when you are travelling at the same speed as the vehicle in front).  That said, and I’m not accusing you, it is possible that if you were in primary position and closely following the vehicle in front, said vehicle may have obscured you from the view of any pedestrians looking to cross the road (assuming they looked).

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.

wellsprop wrote:

It’s just when you compare it to incidents like the bin lorry driver who knowingly drove with medical conditions – the CPS didn’t even prosecute.

I have some sympathy with the argument that he should have been prosecuted.  But, from my reading of that case, the Procurator Fiscal Service (i.e. the Scottish version of the CPS) didn’t choose to treat that driver leniently.  They concluded that dangerous driving laws as they stand didn’t allow them to prosecute in a way that would secure conviction, because they couldn’t show criminal intent from reckless actions when the crash occurred as he was unconscious then.  

In other words, I think your example is good at showing why dangerous road use laws should be revisited (if the PFS wasn’t able to build a prosecution on the fact that he should have known that his health condition could lead to him driving dangerously).

But it doesn’t show a driver being treated more leniently than a cyclist.

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.

18 mph = reckless?

Wellsprop.

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.