Search results for:

8 people!!! I bet the Sunday papers will still be full of, BUT CYCLISTS!

If the standard are reading this, you can quote me.

Seems difficult - hypocritical even - to reconcile wanting tougher sentences on drivers who kill cyclists, but hope for leniency in this case.

I'm more than happen for him to go to jail for 20year just as long as he's sharing a cell with, Harry Clarke, Gail Purcell etc, etc......

I thought there were only 2 charges, wonton and furious and mansaluter ?

ignoring one hazard because there is another, larger one makes no sense.

In world with limited resources it kind of does, If one hazard is responsible for one death a year, and the other hundreds.

Cyclists don’t cause us, as an organisation, problems, that’s because they aren’t causing our communities problems, they aren’t killing nearly 100 people on our regions roads as mechanically propelled vehicles currently do.

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/category/safer-cycling/

I'm envisioning a 12 Angry Men situation.

The downside is our cycling culture is fucked up

They do say that cities get the cyclists they deserve.

yeah this case is a taxi drivers wet dream.

Whilst they assume we're all Mr Alliston, I assume there all John Worboys.

An upgrade from what

I'm sure they said he had a cinelli, but didn't mention the model.

Well, I'm more impressed with the defence's closing statement than anything else they've said so far.

There was a charge of manslaughter against the motorist that had illegal tinted windows and opened his car door and killed a cyclist, the jury spent nearly an hour to return a not guilty verdict. I posted the link a couple of pages back.

I hope the cyclist is judge to the same standards a motorists. Perhaps this motorist.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-leicestershire-40163576

drunk at the wheel, didn't stop and guess what, suspended sentence. Somebody die, the driver was in violation of two laws but doesn't go to prison, will the judge be that leant in this case if it comes to it, unlikely.

At least he didn't punch you in the face, so that's got to be a win.

yeah but choose not to use them, whats worse.

And what happens if people crossing roads learn they can simply walk in front of AVs which will be forced to brake?

This type of stuff annoys the shit out of me. It's basically the situation we're currently in but in the motorists favour. How often are as a pedestrian forced into a jog when crossing a side street by a driver bearing down on you, indicating if your lucky.

There's a roundabout near my work on the way to my local shopping centre which is well used by pedestrians, they have to cross two of the exit of the roundabout to get to where their going without any crossing control with cars entering the roundabout at 40 mph (it's a 30 zone). The pavement has dreadful sight lines due to the number of signs for the cars, the number of close shaves I've seen because of drivers not using indicator or not giving way is scarey.

According to the standard driving theory test, a driver travelling at 20mph needs 12 metres to stop. As reported by the Irish News, the “crash investigator” claims Alliston had right of way, and only 7 metres to stop after Briggs walked into the road possibly distracted by her mobile, and having ignored use of a pedestrian crossing some 10 metres away. The “investigator” also claims that if the bike had a front brake Alliston would have been able to stop within 3 metres. This seems seems a hypothetical stretch not a practical reality when one considers the likelihood of being catapulted over the handlebars.
Alliston is accused of manslaughter yet his bicycle had the same stopping distance of the average car at the same speed. However, drivers would be usually travelling 30mph or more, so need at least 24 metres to stop. The measurably safer behaviour of Alliston is considered maximally more prosecutable and if he had chosen to drive that day and gone faster, all else equal, the case wouldn’t even have gotten to court. No charges would even have been attempted.

This sums it up nicely for me.

She stepped on to the road 3.8 before the impact according to the transcripts and taken from the cctv. witnesses suggest one urgent shout followed by the impact. I'm not sure the cyclist would be the best witness in the circumstances, it's only by blind luck that the cyclists wasn't killed.

the prosecution seam to be of the view that he should have been braking the second she looked like she might step into the road. they certainly don't appear to have given him the benefit of the average driver reaction time, 2.3 second which would have given him 1.5 seconds of braking from 18 mph, 8 meters a second. The court transcripts seam to say he started braking about 8 meters away from her and hit her at between 12 / 14 mph. In those circumstances my front brake would have put me over the bars more than likely.

I think a jury of cyclists would probably acquit. A jury of non-cyclists? I don't know.

This is my issue, they've spent more time taking about the social media comments than the have the mechanics of the collision. If the jury hate him, there more like to over look some doubts about what happened. It's feels underhand to me, it's the sort of trick I would expect of the defence, the prosecution should be above that sort of thing.

£5k suggests there coming some distance, I know it's £5k plus from one of my local stations Portsmouth and southsea, I ride a lot but wouldn't consider that kind of commute.

The idea that you can testing a stopping distance in a car park with somebody that knows their being testing and then compare that to somebody on a busy street who need to react to large numbers of moving objects all around them (many of them inches away from kill them) is moronic and it scares me that the defence don't appear to have done much to debunk it.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/inothernews/15474066.Cyclist_ploughed_into_mother_of_two_and_shouted_at_her_while_she_lay_dying_in_the_street__court_hears/

The numbers regarding this case just don’t add up to me.

Alliston was seen in the footage beginning to swerve to take evasive action as he approached the pedestrian. He was a minimum of between 6.65 to 9.65 metres away from Mrs briggs and travel at a speed of 18 mph, that’s 8 meters per second. Mrs Briggs stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before impact, but was obscured by a delivery lorry, from some reports.

The average driver reaction time is 2.3 second, so even if Alliston started the reaction process to Mrs Briggs as soon as she step into the road that's a maximum of 1.5 seconds of braking before impact not taking into account there might have been a delivery lorry obscuring his view and the fact that a ped in the gutter in itself wouldn’t have me going into full on emergency stop mod, I’d be looking to move into the lane and assess their movements, are they waiting, are they looking etc.

My old DH bike with hope six pots brakes wouldn’t have stopped me from 18mph in 1.5seconds, well not without putting me over the bars and into the ped.

I know why the prosecution keep going on about the social media comments post the collision, which are largely irrelevant in terms of his guilt or innocence, they want the jury to judge the defendant on that and overlooks the facts of the cases because they don’t add up and at the very least there is some reasonable doubt.

I’m worried from a defence prospective because they don’t appear to have landed any blows on the prosecution's crash investigators or at least they haven’t been reported.

Going back and reading opening comments from the prosecution they had a heavy focus on the comments on social media. which to an extent have no bearing on the facts of the case or his guilt / innocence it sounds like there were just there to make the jury hate the defendant before the trial had even begun and to play into the mass media negertive sterotype of cyclists.

Gamble says anything up to five seconds to do something to avoid the

child who runs into the road is fine.
The Michael Mason case:

http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandoll­imore/mason-verdict

Mrs Briggs stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash, Mr Small said.

Well, case closed, the defendant only had 3.8 second to react and stop in this case. Sounds like a front brake is moot point.

Who did they get to ride the track bike for the testing, it's hardly a fair comparison if they've put your average police cyclist on the bike and asked them to stop it.

Yeah, the I've got mad fixie skilz defence

Don't forget he need some reaction time too 2.3 seconds for your average driver.