Forum menu
The case has raised questions about safety and responsibility on the road.
🙄 - presumably the hundreds of peds and cyclist killed by motorists every year doesn't raise such questions (because evil cyclists)?
I'm looking forwards to the lack of helmet being used as mitigation.
Should also get 5 years hard labour for being a remorseless douche.
the Guardian breaking news - "Charlie..convicted of causing bodily harm after mowing down" the woman. Mowing down seems a bit harsh.
We'll he did didn't he, and has been convicted of just that. The poor woman died and his actions immediately afterwards when she was lying on the ground mortally injured, and subsequently on social media mark him as a complete tool.
So not harsh at all !!
Was she killed through a clash of heads, bonce versus bonce, or from hitting her head on the ground? If it's the former then his lack of a helmet would have been a critical factor, so maybe the judge might mention it.aracer - MemberThe case has raised questions about safety and responsibility on the road.
- presumably the hundreds of peds and cyclist killed by motorists every year doesn't raise such questions (because evil cyclists)?
I'm looking forwards to the lack of helmet being used as mitigation.
So she steps into the flow of traffic, 30 yards from a pedestrian crossing, whilst preoccupied with her mobile phone and comes unstuck in the worst possible way. I see enough of these phone obsessed nitwits driving on the motorway to have any sympathy.
[quote=Garry_Lager ]Was she killed through a clash of heads, bonce versus bonce, or from hitting her head on the ground? If it's the former then his lack of a helmet would have been a critical factor, so maybe the judge might mention it.
I'm referring to her lack of helmet - that would have helped her either way (given the impacts they're designed to protect you from, there seems a very high chance she'd still be alive).
That Cycling Silk Blog link above is good and majors on the double standard applied to cyclists compared to drivers and the poor quality of defence the young man had. Maybe the defence brief has his eye on the appeal? (Tongue in cheek comment).
Either the jury has decided to to the equivalent of downgrading the offence from "death by dangerous" to "death by careless" (with the "wanton" charge being in their minds the equivalent of the latter) or perhaps they felt that the death was a fluke outcome and therefore based on the result of the likelyhood of injury rather than death.
It'll be interesting to see what the sentence is. Normally I'd expect a non custodial sentence (and in fact still do) but he's done himself no favours.
I understand the Briggs family being upset but what this has demonstrated is that the cycling laws are there (although perhaps not always enforced) already. Ok sorting out "death by dangerous cycling" and "death by careless cycling" laws might be cleared but it's unlikely they'd be used more than once or twice a year anyway. Existing laws (either dangerous cycling or careless cycling) could even be used to crackdown on brakeless fixie riders without their being any need for an injury accident to have taken place. The Briggs family are also (perhaps understandably) ignoring the fact that the primary cause of the poor ladies death was choosing to cross the road when it wasn't safe to do so - so perhaps would be better campaigning for jaywalking laws.
[quote=epicsteve ]Ok sorting out "death by dangerous cycling" and "death by careless cycling" laws might be cleared but it's unlikely they'd be used more than once or twice a year anyway.
Once or twice a year? You need to check on the frequency of pedestrian deaths following collision with cyclists!
That Cycling Silk Blog link above is good and majors on the double standard applied to cyclists compared to drivers and the poor quality of defence the young man had. Maybe the defence brief has his eye on the appeal? (Tongue in cheek comment).
The article is pretty biased IMHO - his only point seems to be "cyclist good, driver bad" and that cyclists shouldn't be prosecuted as they are normally victims.
Once or twice a year? You need to check on the frequency of pedestrian deaths following collision with cyclists!
I think the average is 0.5 per year but has been up to 3 in some recent years.
An interesting comment by Cycling UK regarding review of laws regarding the actions of road users - clearly tightening the law on cyclists is far from the highest priority (he says to the choir).
https://twitter.com/WeAreCyclingUK/status/900369914627796992
[quote=epicsteve ]The article is pretty biased IMHO - his only point seems to be "cyclist good, driver bad" and that cyclists shouldn't be prosecuted as they are normally victims.
You should re-read it - I'm not sure you understand the point he is making about double standards. Which quite clearly is something happening here.
Good response from C UK.
You should re-read it - I'm not sure you understand the point he is making about double standards. Which quite clearly is something happening here.
The reason I think it's a piss poor article is that it ignores the point that the prosecution in this case was entirely reasonable, and that's a completely separate issue from the common perception that killing someone with a car gets you a slap on the wrist and nothing else (which we already know isn't entirely true from the sentencing info posted earlier in the thread).
An interesting comment by Cycling UK regarding review of laws regarding the actions of road users - clearly tightening the law on cyclists is far from the highest priority (he says to the choir).https://twitter.com/WeAreCyclingUK/status/900369914627796992
The only think that this case proves in terms of missing laws is that maybe a jaywalking one could be useful. It pretty much proves that there are adequate (if archaic) rules in place for cycling especially given the infrequency of them being needed.
I wonder if we might see police in Shoreditch cracking down on brakeless fixie riders under the existing legislation though.
Good verdict I think. Guilty of being a bellend. I think he's lucky to have been acquitted of manslaughter, that could have gone either way based on reports of the trial and discussion here.
His sentence will probably be harsher than it could have been because of his knobbish attitude. Serves him right.
I wonder if we might see police in Shoreditch cracking down on brakeless fixie riders under the existing legislation though.
Which wouldn't be altogether a bad thing!
His sentence will probably be harsher than it could have been because of his knobbish attitude. Serves him right.
I feel that I should disagree with you there, but I really don't.
I wonder if we might see police in Shoreditch cracking down on brakeless fixie riders under the existing legislation though.
should crack down on them in Glasgow and ****s without lights.
I've been paying more attention on my way in and out of work in London (St. Paul's/Blackfriars area) this week and haven't actually seen any brakeless fixies at all so far. I'm sure there were more around my old office (near London Bridge) and do see quite a few fashion victims when I'm in places like Camden or Shoreditch of a weekend.
Most of the fixies had normal brake levers but I did see one or two with those ones that fit right inboard on the bars and those don't look a great idea.
I understand the Briggs family being upset but what this has demonstrated is that the cycling laws are there (although perhaps not always enforced) already. Ok sorting out "death by dangerous cycling" and "death by careless cycling" laws might be cleared but it's unlikely they'd be used more than once or twice a year anyway. Existing laws (either dangerous cycling or careless cycling) could even be used to crackdown on brakeless fixie riders without their being any need for an injury accident to have taken place. The Briggs family are also (perhaps understandably) ignoring the fact that the primary cause of the poor ladies death was choosing to cross the road when it wasn't safe to do so - so perhaps would be better campaigning for jaywalking laws.
This. It's not like the driving offences have been tightened up despite families campaigning…
Would this have been covered by presumed liability, incidentally?
Presumed liability is all about civil cases isn't it?
[quote=epicsteve ]The reason I think it's a piss poor article is that it ignores the point that the prosecution in this case was entirely reasonable, and that's a completely separate issue from the common perception that killing someone with a car gets you a slap on the wrist and nothing else (which we already know isn't entirely true from the sentencing info posted earlier in the thread).
I'm not sure it does ignore that - it suggests that a driver wouldn't have been charged the same in similar circumstances, which is simply pointing out the double standards. As I pointed out at the time, what the sentencing info you posted doesn't show is that killing a pedestrian (or a cyclist) with a car doesn't get you a slap on the wrist - not only because it doesn't go into that level of detail, but also because those figures don't show charge downgrading - it appears to be uncommon for such a case to result in a charge of DBDD.
The police have been targeting cyclists without brakes and riding on pavements for years in London, Shoreditch/Old St and Spitalfields being major targets.. all part of the clampdown on Drivers using the Cycling Only Boxes at traffic lights.. they also target inconsiderate riding etc..
Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?
[quote=scc999 ]
His sentence will probably be harsher than it could have been because of his knobbish attitude. Serves him right.
I feel that I should disagree with you there, but I really don't.
His knobbish attitude will affect his sentence - the judge pretty much pointed that out today. Ultimately it probably also affected the verdict, even if it shouldn't have I doubt the normal jury member can simply ignore that. It's also a major contributor to him getting less sympathy from me (amongst others on here) than I might normally give to somebody riding a bike.
No, it's the motorists that get let off lightly.
I'm not sure it does ignore that - it suggests that a driver wouldn't have been charged the same in similar circumstances, which is simply pointing out the double standards
That ignores the fact that "death by dangerous" is itself a form of manslaughter and there has been a recent case where the vehicle owners have successfully been prosecuted for manslaughter when they allowed a driver to take a lorry out with defective brakes.
If a motorcyclist took a speedway bike (those also don't have brakes and aren't meant for road use) on the road and hit and killed a pedestrian when it was proved they could have stopped in time if they'd had brakes - then I'd definitely expect them to be prosecuted for at least "death by dangerous" (a form of manslaughter).
No, it's the motorists that get let off lightly.
Did you actually read the article I linked?
[quote=ransos > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge
Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?
Just to point out that Martin Porter is The Cycling Silk, so we're kind of already discussing that (I'm not sure what the differences are between that article and his blog post we've already mentioned> https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html
)
Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?
My thoughts are, on skimming it, that it seems a very poorly informed article and is making assumptions about "wanton and furious" etc. and manslaughter that are incorrect.
If the "death by dangerous/death by careless" legislation covered bicycles I'm sure that's what would have been used, as it would be if a motorised vehicle had been involved.
Just to point out that Martin Porter is The Cycling Silk, so we're kind of already discussing that (I'm not sure what the differences are between that article and his blog post we've already mentioned
He argues that the cyclist had no chance of stopping within the distance he had available, even if he had had a front brake. Given that his speed did no seem unreasonable, I'm struggling to see the offence beyond construction and use regulations.
My thoughts are, on skimming it, that it seems a very poorly informed article and is making assumptions about "wanton and furious" etc. and manslaughter that are incorrect.
It was written by a lawyer, apparently.
His knobbish attitude will affect his sentence - the judge pretty much pointed that out today. Ultimately it probably also affected the verdict, even if it shouldn't have I doubt the normal jury member can simply ignore that. It's also a major contributor to him getting less sympathy from me (amongst others on here) than I might normally give to somebody riding a bike.
Hopefully they've ignored his attitude, both during and after the incident, in finding him guilty or not guilty but it'll definitely be a factor in sentencing. He's lucky I'm not the judge because his facial piercings alone would get him some serious jailtime!
It was written by a lawyer, apparently.
One with a very clear agenda who appears to be spinning things for his chosen audience.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with Mr Porter in that article and blog - I'm inclined to agree with Steve's take that the only reason such charges were laid is because he couldn't be charged with the normal motoring offences (not that I entirely agree with Steve here 😉 - for a start DBCD which seems to be the normal charge for a driver in similar circumstances isn't really equivalent to manslaughter), so it's a bit disingenuous. Though of course we've discussed that earlier in this thread. I almost wonder if Mr Porter has been reading this thread (what is his username on here?), given how much of that article we've already discussed!
One with a very clear agenda who appears to be spinning things for his chosen audience.
You know this how?
I'm not sure I entirely agree with Mr Porter in that article and blog - I'm inclined to agree with Steve's take that the only reason such charges were laid is because he couldn't be charged with the normal motoring offences
Let's leave that aside for a moment. The bit that interested me was his argument that it was impossible for the cyclist to stop within the distance he had available. Does that stack up in your view?
[quote=epicsteve ]Hopefully they've ignored his attitude, both during and after the incident, in finding him guilty or not guilty
You are more optimistic than me in that respect!
Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?
Not very persuasive IMO, and he uses far too many words.
Rather than getting into whataboutery related to cars, it might be more useful to consider what would have happened if the fixie **** had ended up with the fatal brain injury.
Would she have been charged with manslaughter and convicted of wanton and furious pedestrianing?
You know this how?
Based on his postings, that article and him labelling himself "the cycling silk".
His agenda being the accurate one that cyclists get appalling treatment from the legal system.
Based on his postings, that article and him labelling himself "the cycling silk".
Is that the best you can do?
[quote=ransos ]Let's leave that aside for a moment. The bit that interested me was his argument that it was impossible for the cyclist to stop within the distance he had available. Does that stack up in your view?
As I just mentioned, we discussed that earlier on this thread - in fact his comments look suspiciously like they're paraphrased from one of my posts 😉
Though there is confusion over the available stopping distance I reckon he's accurate in his assessment of that.