Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[redelitev6]

Still think he deserves a period in jail, but more importantly shows how dangerous it is checking your phone constantly , being aware of your surroundings & the actions of others is more important than for example a FB comment.

I saw a young woman hit by a bus a while ago , she was on her phone and assumed the lights had changed at the crossing , she wandered across the road blissfully unaware of the bus coming down the outside lane ,it hit her with such force her head broke the windscreen and she was punted a way down the road , all through not paying attention .

[Bigron]

It used to be called "Jay-walking" and was an offence - is it still, or does Plod ignore it along with the misdemeanours of cyclists? 

Ron.

[Kevin Wood]

Still think he deserves a period in jail, but more importantly shows how dangerous it is checking your phone constantly , being aware of your surroundings & the actions of others is more important than for example a FB comment.

Agreed. After all, you've only got to watch the news to realise the world is not totally without people who will swipe your phone and make off on a stolen moped, or mount a pavement and mow down as many pedestrians as they can. 

However, the fact that he had the time to shout two warnings suggests that, had he been riding a roadworthy bike with brakes, he could probably have stopped or at least slowed down to a speed that wouldn't have caused a fatal collision.

[STEMO]

So we are, more or less, agreed. He committed a criminal offence, but that offence was not manslaughter. Yes? No?

[Bigron]

I would STILL say manslaughter, as he deliberately, knowingly and without consideration for the safety of others venture forth onto public roads on an illegal, unsafe and potentually (and factually, in this case) lethal machine.
Such a sentence would serve "pour encourager les autres".

Ron.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

So we are, more or less, agreed. He committed a criminal offence, but that offence was not manslaughter. Yes? No?

Don't know.

.......but the kid comes across as a little shit.

[STEMO]

I would STILL say manslaughter, as he deliberately, knowingly and without consideration for the safety of others venture forth onto public roads on an illegal, unsafe and potentually (and factually, in this case) lethal machine.
Such a sentence would serve "pour encourager les autres".

Ron.

Yes, Ron, but a lot of people set out with unroadworthy cars. If they cause a fatality, it's 'death by dangerous driving', not manslaughter.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

My immediate reaction to this story was that he was an arrogant little bastid...that hasn't changed. But, looking at the news item on BBC last night, pertaining to the actual incident, she did walk out into the road against the lights, looking at her phone. He shouted at her twice and tried to avoid her, which he would have done successfully had she not stepped back.
So he was well out of order with his speed and the type of bike he was riding, but she was totally oblivious to her surroundings due to her lack of attention. Manslaughter would have been a bit harsh.
[/quote

Apparently he admitted under cross examination that this was a lie. He had been posting it on forums as fact, but cracked under pressure when Rumpole got his teeth into him.
If she was the only person crossing the road against the lights, it shouldn't have been hard to avoid her. Aim for the direction he is walking from and not the direction she is walking in should usually do it.

[Kevin Wood]

Yes, Ron, but a lot of people set out with unroadworthy cars. If they cause a fatality, it's 'death by dangerous driving', not manslaughter.

By neglect, perhaps, although there's a limit to how bad it can get between MOTs these days. Few people set out having deliberately removed the brakes from their cars, however.

[Bigron]

That was exactly my point, Kevin - deliberate, premeditated and irresponsible.
Causing death in such an uncaring way merits a suspended sentence - by the neck!

Ron.

[Bigron]

Um, maybe I got that wrong? As it was such a deliberate act with predictable consequences, it could be considered murder?

Ron.

[Kevin Wood]

Um, maybe I got that wrong? As it was such a deliberate act with predictable consequences, it could be considered murder?

Ron.

Steady on! There was hardly the premeditated intent to kill.

He's been awarded some time to think about what he's done and his attitude in general. Let's hope he uses it wisely.

[Gaffers]

He was cleared of manslaughter today. Now, what was that you were saying about him being dealt with more harshly, Matt?

But...

Jurors at the Old Bailey trial took 12 hours to find Mr Alliston not guilty of manslaughter but convicted him of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving, which means he could be jailed for up to two years.

Between 1-2 pedestrians on average are sadly killed by cyclists in incidents every year.  Unless the fault was entirely with the pedestrian then you have a very high chance of getting a custodial sentence (well over 50% chance, often closer to 80% in the event of conviction)

Over 100 cyclists get killed by motorists every year, 2/3 of which are the fault of the motorist yet the custodial rate is well below 10%.  Most get a fine, points and community service, those that get custodials often get suspended sentences.  (you can collate your own research but that is what I have seen from the figures I have been able to find)

So yes my point stands.  But be very careful in how my words are used here.  This chap is a firkin idiot, he rode a non-roadworthy bike, in a reckless manner, made a mistake and killed somebody.  He deserves to go to jail, in fact I would welcome a more harsh punishment.  Yes she may have walked out in to traffic while looking at her phone but the cyclist admitted that he had time to shout a warning twice and swerve.  Even on a fixie if you had that much time you also have the time to effectively 'lock' the drive-train and bring the bike to a skidding halt.  Whether there was enough distance to stop I do not know but it would have reduced his speed and maybe this lady would still be alive today.  *

My gripe is that motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians either through accidental or deliberate reckless acts seem too fall in to the cracks between the charges for Death by reckless/dangerous driving.  Any equivalent for cyclists is well out of date.  He was charged with manslaughter because of this rather than any equivalent charge available to the CPS for motorists.  The sentencing guidelines are very different for them all.

I have no problem with cyclists being held up to high standards of behaviour on the road, look through my previous posts on the subject; I even called for it in a letter to Parlement along with a raft of ideas.  I would ask that motorists are also held to those standards and when caught are punished the same.  After all, motorists are 60 times more likely to KSI a pedestrian than a cyclist and in the event of a pedestrian being run over the chances of death when hit by a bicycle are much lower.  Which is of course logical given the size difference of the vehicles involved.

I would love for the RTA to be reviewed along with the legal definitions and the sentencing guidelines, it might just bring some parity to the situation.  Right now the long and short of it all is this; if I perform an illegal act while cycling and someone ends up KSI, I am rightly going to jail.  If I do the same while driving a car and kill a cyclist, I get a slap on the wrist.  I may even get to claim hardship and keep my license.



*I also think the requirement for just a front brake is also ridiculous, if he slammed on the front brake in panic at 20mph he would have gone head first over the bars and stood a chance of being killed himself.  All road bikes should have front and rear brakes, I would even go as far as saying that all new bikes should have disc brakes.  I am an advocate and they have saved my life many a time when a motorist has decided that a 125kg FLATB with fluo hi-hiz and dual steady/flashing lights front and rear is not visible.  Even in the wet I can go from 25mph to 0 in a couple of meters, with rim brakes I would have hit the side of 2 vehicles last year.

[Gaffers]

Yes, Ron, but a lot of people set out with unroadworthy cars. If they cause a fatality, it's 'death by dangerous driving', not manslaughter.

By neglect, perhaps, although there's a limit to how bad it can get between MOTs these days. Few people set out having deliberately removed the brakes from their cars, however.

I think it would be more accurate to say that he deliberately did not fit brakes to the bike, rather than deliberately removing.  Track bikes as standard do not come with them and they have to be retrofitted.

[Mr Gav]

  Right now the long and short of it all is this; if I perform an illegal act while cycling and someone ends up KSI, I am rightly going to jail.  If I do the same while driving a car and kill a cyclist, I get a slap on the wrist.  I may even get to claim hardship and keep my license.

I think it is hard to compare the instances as you don`t know the trend for the accidents.

Are the cyclists ignoring crossings and such and hitting pedestrians? If this is the general cause of the accident then no wonder it`s over 50% chance for a custodial sentence.

I wouldn`t think that many cyclists are killed by motorists ignoring crossings, more likely to be through a lack of concentration or not leaving enough room while overtaking.

It would need a lot of information to be collected from a large percentage of the accidents before you can form the opinion that cyclists are getting a raw deal from the courts.