Another pathetic outcome from death caused by a driver

MariaMartinez wrote:

fine of £500, are you joking. I got exactly the same fine for driving 34 in a 30. I am not kidding. exactly the same.

You must be kidding considering the standard speeding fine for that range over the limit is £100 and 3 points or one of those 'educational' courses.

Sure you didn't do 64 in a 30?

This from the horse's mouth

Getting a Fixed Penalty Notice

If you get an FPN you can choose to plead guilty or not guilty.

If you plead guilty

You’ll have to pay a £100 fine and have 3 points added to your licence, unless you’re given the option to attend a speed awareness course.

Shades wrote:

This made me think about my change in behaviour at zebra crossings.  For years I used to cross and assume that cars had seen me (when traffic was light).  After some 'close calls' I've started waiting until cars slow, or stop, before I cross.  People just don't pay attention and then look at you accusingly when they've had to stop in a hurry.

I use the same approach as I do on the bike - make eye contact and maintain it. Positive body language goes a long way. We've got two zebra crossings in the town and people run them all the time. Got yelled at by a Porsche 911 driver for making her stop recently, apparantly I should have waited for her to clear the crossing before stepping off the kerb

kil0ran wrote:

Shades wrote:

This made me think about my change in behaviour at zebra crossings.  For years I used to cross and assume that cars had seen me (when traffic was light).  After some 'close calls' I've started waiting until cars slow, or stop, before I cross.  People just don't pay attention and then look at you accusingly when they've had to stop in a hurry.

I use the same approach as I do on the bike - make eye contact and maintain it. Positive body language goes a long way. We've got two zebra crossings in the town and people run them all the time. Got yelled at by a Porsche 911 driver for making her stop recently, apparantly I should have waited for her to clear the crossing before stepping off the kerb

The problem with Zebra crossings is that there seems to be confusion about the rules.

The Highway Code states:

Rule 195 wrote:

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

• look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
• you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
• allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads
• do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching
• be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing.

A zebra crossing with a central island is two separate crossings (see ‘Crossings’).

So, cars only HAVE to stop if you actually step out onto the crossing, otherwise it's optional. It seems wrong, but as a pedestrian the onus is for you to step out in front of moving vehicles. However, if they hit you, then it would be their mistake.

hawkinspeter wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Shades wrote:

This made me think about my change in behaviour at zebra crossings.  For years I used to cross and assume that cars had seen me (when traffic was light).  After some 'close calls' I've started waiting until cars slow, or stop, before I cross.  People just don't pay attention and then look at you accusingly when they've had to stop in a hurry.

I use the same approach as I do on the bike - make eye contact and maintain it. Positive body language goes a long way. We've got two zebra crossings in the town and people run them all the time. Got yelled at by a Porsche 911 driver for making her stop recently, apparantly I should have waited for her to clear the crossing before stepping off the kerb

The problem with Zebra crossings is that there seems to be confusion about the rules.

The Highway Code states:

Rule 195 wrote:

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

• look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
• you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
• allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads
• do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching
• be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing.

A zebra crossing with a central island is two separate crossings (see ‘Crossings’).

So, cars only HAVE to stop if you actually step out onto the crossing, otherwise it's optional. It seems wrong, but as a pedestrian the onus is for you to step out in front of moving vehicles. However, if they hit you, then it would be their mistake.

Poor road design is behind a bunch of conflict in my town - we have a zebra on a bend where the pavement narrows on one side of the road. Parking regs aren't enforced so invariably there are parked cars (not actually on the zig zag markings) that you need to overtake without knowing what's coming. So drivers accelerate because they see oncoming vehicles and then fail to process that there's a zebra coming up which they then have to brake for. One fatality and a couple of serious injuries as a result in the last ten years...

https://goo.gl/maps/E1fVx432sSm

hawkinspeter wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Shades wrote:

This made me think about my change in behaviour at zebra crossings.  For years I used to cross and assume that cars had seen me (when traffic was light).  After some 'close calls' I've started waiting until cars slow, or stop, before I cross.  People just don't pay attention and then look at you accusingly when they've had to stop in a hurry.

I use the same approach as I do on the bike - make eye contact and maintain it. Positive body language goes a long way. We've got two zebra crossings in the town and people run them all the time. Got yelled at by a Porsche 911 driver for making her stop recently, apparantly I should have waited for her to clear the crossing before stepping off the kerb

The problem with Zebra crossings is that there seems to be confusion about the rules.

The Highway Code states:

Rule 195 wrote:

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

• look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
• you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
• allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads
• do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching
• be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing.

A zebra crossing with a central island is two separate crossings (see ‘Crossings’).

So, cars only HAVE to stop if you actually step out onto the crossing, otherwise it's optional. It seems wrong, but as a pedestrian the onus is for you to step out in front of moving vehicles. However, if they hit you, then it would be their mistake.

Do you remember the days when motorists would wait until a pedestrian was all the way across and off the crossing, too, before they carried on with their Ever So Important Journey?

(And the Trigger Happy TV sketch with the bloke dressed as a snail crossing a zebra crossing...? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-v7w5CL6EU )

brooksby wrote:

Do you remember the days when motorists would wait until a pedestrian was all the way across and off the crossing, too, before they carried on with their Ever So Important Journey?

(And the Trigger Happy TV sketch with the bloke dressed as a snail crossing a zebra crossing...? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-v7w5CL6EU )

Ah yes, the days when Dom Joly was funny.

To be fair, a lot of drivers are very patient and considerate around crossings - probably a lot more patient than I am on my bike (I will often go behind a pedestrian when they have mostly crossed). It's the problematic 5% that aren't paying attention or are too self-absorbed to stop.

kil0ran wrote:

Shades wrote:

This made me think about my change in behaviour at zebra crossings.  For years I used to cross and assume that cars had seen me (when traffic was light).  After some 'close calls' I've started waiting until cars slow, or stop, before I cross.  People just don't pay attention and then look at you accusingly when they've had to stop in a hurry.

I use the same approach as I do on the bike - make eye contact and maintain it. Positive body language goes a long way. We've got two zebra crossings in the town and people run them all the time. Got yelled at by a Porsche 911 driver for making her stop recently, apparantly I should have waited for her to clear the crossing before stepping off the kerb

This.  Also, look at vehicles approaching behind the one that's stopped for you, make sure they are also slowing...

vonhelmet wrote:

Is it better to see something and fail to act - or be unable to act - or to not see something in the first place because you can't see or weren't looking?  That's the nub of what you're asking.  Neither is really acceptable, whether you're driving a car or riding a bike.

From numerous cases it seems to be that not seeing is far better as far as the courts are concerned (in a motorised vehicle anyway). 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Yeah, but this is all splitting hairs... one was a pressured situation potentially exacerbated by a non-functional front brake (read missing), the other was pure lack of attention... potentially exacerbated by non-functional front light. 

Which you feel is more serious is up to you I guess.

Personally speaking, I believe ignoring / not seeing / reacting to (or any combination of those) someone who is lying in full view for 10 seconds prior to impact is demonstrative of a lower standard of driving than someone not avoiding someone stepping out infront of them. 

Say what you will about attitudes or chosen avoidance tactics, Alliston didn't simply ignore the presence of his victim. 

 

Our sentences, nay, laws, need a hefty dose of objectivity. Judges can't help themselves with their biases. 

Which I feel is more serious is dictated by physics. Daft bint in 1000kg of metal at 28mph vs silly twat on a bike at 10-14mph.

Take Charlie boy's other brake off, skull tattoo his entire face, inject him with Pol Pot's 'attitude' and have him screaming obscenities that I haven't even heard of - as a ped I'd still rather face him 10 times out of 10.

davel wrote:

Take Charlie boy's other brake off, skull tattoo his entire face, inject him with Pol Pot's 'attitude' and have him screaming obscenities that I haven't even heard of - as a ped I'd still rather face him 10 times out of 10.

Or put your new version of Charlie in a car, with no brakes, defective tyres, perhaps no insurance, speeding, having a beer... He'd have done less time!

Verycroix wrote:

So, Charlie Alliston,  riding a fixed wheel bike at 18 mph with no front brake, swerved to avoid a pedestrian who walks back into his path and is killed, jailed for 18 months. Anna Edwards, driving at 28 mph with a faulty front light and on a hands free, fails to see pedestrian lying in road, doesn't swerve and drives over and kills him, fails to stop, fined £500 and 8 points on her licence.  Why don't cyclists use the bag of rubbish defence, or fell from the sky, or as above, the Helen Measures my life is of greater value excuse?

I do agree that cyclists are heavily penalised and motorists seem to be given a pass, but Charlie Alliston's sentence was more to do with his attitude than his lack of a front brake so is not a great example to use.

Her Honour Judge Wendy Joseph QC wrote:

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

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-h...

hawkinspeter wrote:

Verycroix wrote:

So, Charlie Alliston,  riding a fixed wheel bike at 18 mph with no front brake, swerved to avoid a pedestrian who walks back into his path and is killed, jailed for 18 months. Anna Edwards, driving at 28 mph with a faulty front light and on a hands free, fails to see pedestrian lying in road, doesn't swerve and drives over and kills him, fails to stop, fined £500 and 8 points on her licence.  Why don't cyclists use the bag of rubbish defence, or fell from the sky, or as above, the Helen Measures my life is of greater value excuse?

I do agree that cyclists are heavily penalised and motorists seem to be given a pass, but Charlie Alliston's sentence was more to do with his attitude than his lack of a front brake so is not a great example to use.

Her Honour Judge Wendy Joseph QC wrote:

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

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-h...

I thought Alliston *had* tried to avoid her, and had shouted to alert her to his presence (presumably equivalent to a motorist blaring their horn), before she stepped back into his way?

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Verycroix wrote:

So, Charlie Alliston,  riding a fixed wheel bike at 18 mph with no front brake, swerved to avoid a pedestrian who walks back into his path and is killed, jailed for 18 months. Anna Edwards, driving at 28 mph with a faulty front light and on a hands free, fails to see pedestrian lying in road, doesn't swerve and drives over and kills him, fails to stop, fined £500 and 8 points on her licence.  Why don't cyclists use the bag of rubbish defence, or fell from the sky, or as above, the Helen Measures my life is of greater value excuse?

I do agree that cyclists are heavily penalised and motorists seem to be given a pass, but Charlie Alliston's sentence was more to do with his attitude than his lack of a front brake so is not a great example to use.

Her Honour Judge Wendy Joseph QC wrote:

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

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-h...

I thought Alliston *had* tried to avoid her, and had shouted to alert her to his presence (presumably equivalent to a motorist blaring their horn), before she stepped back into his way?

Here's some more from the Judge's remarks:

Quote:

It was clear to you that she was in danger. It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into her. This must have been obvious to you, and you did indeed swerve and slow to between 10-14 mph as you went through the yellow-box at the junction of Old St and
Charlotte Road. You shouted at her twice to (in your own words) ‘get out of the fucking way’. She reached almost the centre of the road but could not go further because of on-coming traffic. On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way.

don simon wrote:

Quote:

drove over Mr Croxon as he lay in the road - then carried on driving.

Quote:

Edwards briefly returned to the scene - then drove past slowly before slinking away.

What sort of person does that?

A psychopath?

• Lack of guilt/remorse
• Lack of empathy
• Lack of deep emotional attachments
• Narcissism
• Superficial charm
• Dishonesty
• Manipulativeness
• Reckless risk-taking

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

Quote:

drove over Mr Croxon as he lay in the road - then carried on driving.

Quote:

Edwards briefly returned to the scene - then drove past slowly before slinking away.

What sort of person does that?

A psychopath?

• Lack of guilt/remorse
• Lack of empathy
• Lack of deep emotional attachments
• Narcissism
• Superficial charm
• Dishonesty
• Manipulativeness
• Reckless risk-taking

Why yes! Some would say that she's pretty.