Forum menu
[quote=twistedpencil ]Flaperon that car shouldn't have been there. You're supposed to wait until the pedestrian clears the road before entering the crossing.
Oi - you stole my punchline! That's exactly why I was asking what sort of crossing.
So yes, it is very different - in that case the driver was explicitly breaking the law:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/25/made
If the pedestrian in that video had been standing next to a zebra crossing, then I'd expect the cyclist to be slowing down and preparing to stop - if he had then collided with the pedestrian it would be 100% the fault of the cyclist, as it was 100% the fault of the driver in your case. But the pedestrian wasn't on a zebra crossing, so that changes everything (a zebra crossing effectively changes the priority on roads).
[quote=slowster ]We want car drivers to give cyclists at least 1.5m clearance when they overtake, and preferably more, to allow for errors, wobbles and the unforeseen. This is no different:
It's completely different. When drivers overtake cyclists they have lots of time to plan the manoeuvre - if they pass too close it's a deliberate decision. You lot are assessing the cyclists actions with the benefit of perfect hindsight - he had about 2s between the ped stepping off the kerb and the collision; in order to do anything effective he'd have had to be acting at least 1s before the collision which is before he'd have effectively processed the pedestrian stepping off the kerb. We're not talking about just reacting here, we're talking about decision making. I doubt very much he intended to pass that close, it's just he didn't manage to do anything else.
[quote=orangespyderman ]I disagree. Where I go in summer just about the only bit of riding includes a stretch along the seafront, in a marked cycle lane painted onto a very broad pavement.
Which is a completely different situation - you're talking about what is effectively a shared use cycle path. Of course you have to slow down on those when there are any pedestrians about, because it's pretty much inevitable that they will wander across it without looking (which is why shared use paths are shit!)
You lot are assessing the cyclists actions with the benefit of perfect hindsight - he had about 2s between the ped stepping off the kerb and the collision; in order to do anything effective he'd have had to be acting at least 1s before the collision which is before he'd have effectively processed the pedestrian stepping off the kerb. We're not talking about just reacting here, we're talking about decision making. I doubt very much he intended to pass that close, it's just he didn't manage to do anything else.
I accept that he might not have been able to slow sufficiently to prevent the collision, but it appears that his speed was constant right up to the moment of collision. Two and a bit seconds is not much, but if he had his hands on the hoods, then he should have moved to cover the brake levers and should have been able to start emergency braking before the collision, even if it would have made little difference to the outcome.
As far as I can see, he decided that he did not need to cover the brakes/slow because he assumed the pedestrian would be out of the way by the time he drew level with him.
As for hindsight, I can say with confidence that I have braked far more quickly than within 2s in an emergency. Moreover, the fact that there was a bus stop ahead at which a bus had stopped was something which he should have registered prior to even seeing the pedestrian, and prompted him to expect pedestrians who had alighted from the bus crossing the road.
[quote=slowster ]As far as I can see, he decided that he did not need to cover the brakes/slow because he assumed the pedestrian would be out of the way by the time he drew level with him.
Which isn't an unreasonable decision, particularly given the amount of time he had to process and make such a decision. I'm not entirely sure he reacted at all though, as what might have avoided the collision would have been to move further to the left, which seems the most obvious reaction.
^matey boy above is checking the woman walking to the bus stop and deciding whether he'd have her keep her glasses on or not. He doesn't notice bungy cord boy stepping into the road with his ever tightening 'lacky band.
Which isn't an unreasonable decision, particularly given the amount of time he had to process and make such a decision.
I strongly disagree. The moment he saw a pedestrian either in the road or stepping into the road should have rung alarm bells and triggered an immediate sequence of defensive precautionary responses, starting with covering brakes and slowing down, and escalating to harder braking when it was becoming clear that the pedestrian would still be only a step or two away when he drew level with him. As I have said, the bus stopping ahead of him should already have put him on the alert for pedestrians attempting to cross the road.
I'm not entirely sure he reacted at all though, as what might have avoided the collision would have been to move further to the left, which seems the most obvious reaction.
Agreed.
Not sure if this has been linked or not, but a good article:
https://roubaixcycling.cc/2017/08/24/crime-and-punishment-redux-that-fixie-case/
twistedpencil - Member
Flaperon that car shouldn't have been there. You're supposed to wait until the pedestrian clears the road before entering the crossing.
I think you will find that is not what the rule says - give way not wait till off the road.
he had about 2s between the ped stepping off the kerb and the collision; in order to do anything effective he'd have had to be acting at least 1s before the collision which is before he'd have effectively processed the pedestrian stepping off the kerb.
Sometimes I can imagine a car drivers forum where people commiserate with each other about how tiny cyclists are and how impossible they are to see. If you compare the width of a car with that of a bike, well yes I know the video shows that the bike to be perfectly visible but you only get a tiny split second to decide wheter to pull out yadayadayada.
In that video there are some perfectly good clues that a ped might step into the road: bus pulling away, person just behind bus standing facing the road. I know I'm awesome, but if I'm riding a bike that scenario is preparing me for something and my reaction to that isn't to keep pedalling at speed towards them. An awful lot of 'accidents' are avoidable. I can see the video: you can see the video. That one is avoidable. The reason a lot of accidents happen is that people habitually ride/drive badly and then rationalise why the fault isn't theirs.
[quote=poly ]I think you will find that is not what the rule says - give way not wait till off the road.
Well if a driver hits somebody on a crossing, they didn't give way.
[quote=imnotverygood ]Sometimes I can imagine a car drivers forum where people commiserate with each other about how tiny cyclists are and how impossible they are to see. If you compare the width of a car with that of a bike, well yes I know the video shows that the bike to be perfectly visible but you only get a tiny split second to decide wheter to pull out yadayadayada.
Well they might, but it's a rubbish analogy, because the situations are completely non comparable - bikes don't step out into the road in front of cars. Unless you can come up with a comparable situation involving a car and a bike?
The moment he saw a pedestrian either in the road or stepping into the road should have rung alarm bells and triggered an immediate sequence of defensive precautionary responses
Indeed. Any other reaction, be it a bloody minded sense of entitlement or simply not having the mental capacity to appraise the situation correctly would immediately put you in the wrong.
The actions of a reasonable dilligent person would be to 'come off the gas' so to speak as soon as the anticipated a potential hazard. There's no right to 'carry on making progress regardless' when you've spotted a potential hazard, that's just belligerent and a failure to understand.
[quote=slowster ]
I'm not entirely sure he reacted at all though, as what might have avoided the collision would have been to move further to the left, which seems the most obvious reaction.
Agreed.
Thanks for your agreement - though I'm not sure if you realised what you are agreeing to. I note I didn't suggest that he chose not to move to the left.
Thanks for your agreement - though I'm not sure if you realised what you are agreeing to. I note I didn't suggest that he chose not to move to the left.
Moving to the left would not have been mutually exclusive with initially covering the brakes and then braking: they are all appropriate actions, and if he could not brake sufficiently, then moving to the left would have compensated for that.
On a more general note, when I used to commute on a bike, I did so in ordinary clothes on a heavy touring bike with a 5/6 speed wide(ish) ratio freewheel and rather slow Michelin World Tour 32c tyres (and it was not in a very densely populated city). Consequently, although it had drop bars, my progress was relatively sedate. Many people are commuting now in full lycra etc. on very lightweight road race bikes, or on sportif bikes which are very similar, and they take full advantage of the speed at which they can ride these bikes. I cannot help feeling that in many cases when I see videos posted on Youtube etc. of incidents and near misses, that many of these cyclists are riding too fast for the road conditions in many urban areas.
A comparison is often made of the cycling infrastructure in the UK vs. the likes of Holland, and how many cyclists in Holland do not wear helmets. However, when you look at photographs of them, they are typically riding heavy upright or touring/hybrid style bikes and are wearing ordinary clothes (as opposed to lycra etc.), and their speed will reflect that. So I think to some degree cycling in places like Holland is safer not just because of of the infrastructure for - and societal attitude to - cycling, but also because of the behaviour/lower speed of their commuting cyclists in general, which greatly reduces the risk to themselves, as well as to fellow cyclists and pedestrians.
^you get the cyclists you deserve. If the infrastructure excludes all but the fast and the fearless, they are the riders you will find on the roads.
Agreed, it does seem that every ride is a training ride for many. This problem is all about riding appropriate to the conditions, not improving your OA time for each commute. If more riders saw it as a sprint intervals ride than absolute speed, maybe they would improve fitness for the weekend ride/race and be less concerned about making progress.
BTW that video is quite like the sort of things you see in motoring hazard identification tests. The rider clearly failed.
[quote=slowster ]Many people are commuting now in full lycra etc. on very lightweight road race bikes, or on sportif bikes which are very similar, and they take full advantage of the speed at which they can ride these bikes. I cannot help feeling that in many cases when I see videos posted on Youtube etc. of incidents and near misses, that many of these cyclists are riding too fast for the road conditions in many urban areas.
What proportion of the vehicle speed limit do you think the bicycle speed limit should be set?
A comparison is often made of the cycling infrastructure in the UK vs. the likes of Holland, and how many cyclists in Holland do not wear helmets. However, when you look at photographs of them, they are typically riding heavy upright or touring/hybrid style bikes and are wearing ordinary clothes (as opposed to lycra etc.), and their speed will reflect that. So I think to some degree cycling in places like Holland is safer not just because of of the infrastructure for - and societal attitude to - cycling, but also because of the behaviour/lower speed of their commuting cyclists in general, which greatly reduces the risk to themselves, as well as to fellow cyclists and pedestrians.
That is quite a leap you're making there given the level of road casualties in this country for incidents not involving motor vehicles.
^you get the cyclists you deserve. If the infrastructure excludes all but the fast and the fearless, they are the riders you will find on the roads.
Exactly this.
We've had decades of car-centric planning, coupled with the marketing that says that owning a car is the adult thing to do, the freedom of the road blah blah.
Decades of urban planning that revolve around moving big tin boxes rather than "people".
If you build proper segregated infrastructure that removes the conflict, you get a situation where cycling is a normal everyday part of moving around needing no special clothing or kit, no special bike.
If you force people to compete with traffic then the safest thing to do is become part of that traffic flow which means moving fast enough to merge with it (most of the time...). That, by definition, excludes kids, the elderly, the infirm, the heavy shopping bikes, the cargo bikes and restricts "cyclists" to being the type that are capable of mixing it at speed - road bikes, lycra and a rather cavalier attitude which is essentially young white men.
Use the proper CSHs in London and you see a far wider demographic of people - where the infrastructure is well designed there's no need to jump lights and ride as though your life depends on it, you just bimble happily along at 10mph! That then opens up cycling to the young, the old, the scared-of-traffic, the "I-don't-want-to-be-all-sweaty", the heavy upright bikes and so on.
I use the Santander Cycles hire bikes regularly when I visit London and I ride those in a completely different manner to how I ride my normal SS road bike commuter.
A small but overlooked part of this whole tragic case is that if there was proper decent infrastructure in place, she probably wouldn't have stepped straight into it and he wouldn't have been flying along like a ****.
What proportion of the vehicle speed limit do you think the bicycle speed limit should be set?
What I think is that the vehicle speed limit, which is just that - a limit,- obviously applies to all vehicles, but equally obviously every road user must travel at a speed appropriate to the conditions.
For cyclists that means if there are pedestrians on the pavement, it is likely to mean that the appropriate speed is lower if the cyclist is in secondary position than if they are in primary position.
Similarly, if the road is so narrow that a car driver has to drive within, say, 50cm of the pavement and there are pedestrians close to the edge of the pavement, then their appropriate speed will be lower than where they can maintain a clear gap of, say, 1.5m between themselves and the pavement.
That is quite a leap you're making there given the level of road casualties in this country for incidents not involving motor vehicles.
Possibly, but in general lower speed does equal safer, by virtue of reduced stopping distances, more time to react, and lower collision speeds.
The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible
Appreciate I'm a little late to the party, but when you take in what else is going on - namely the car coming towards them which the cyclist can see but is hidden from the pedestrians view by the bus - his change in direction when he sees it is entirely predictable.
Appreciate I'm a little late to the party, but when you take in what else is going on - namely the car coming towards them which the cyclist can see but is hidden from the pedestrians view by the bus - his change in direction when he sees it is entirely predictable.
Indeed - my first thought on viewing the video was that he was (stupidly) going out from behind the bus to see if it was safe to cross the road - not necessarily to actually cross the road at that time. He clearly (and again stupidly) didn't anticipate there being anyone else in the bus lane.
Twitter is still the source of several interesting articles in the aftermath of this. I think he's due to be sentenced on 18th September...
https://medium.com/ @john.road.cc/involved-in-a-crash-dont-stick-around-f12d680d82be
Twitter is still the source of several interesting articles in the aftermath of this. I think he's due to be sentenced on 18th September...https://medium.com/ @john.road.cc/involved-in-a-crash-dont-stick-around-f12d680d82be
Another one who hasn't realised (or has ignored) that "wanton and furious" doesn't have to relate to riding style or speed. A pretty shit article really.
Except that if it wasn't the riding style or speed, then the prosecution would have to prove that the injury was a direct result of the lack of brakes - the only defence for the manslaughter charge appears to be the lack of that proof. I think the article write understands the law well, as he points out the only way in which the W&F charge stands if the manslaughter charge doesn't.
I am enjoying the irony of you being the first person on here to point out this connection of the defence cases for both charges 😉
I am enjoying the irony of you being the first person on here to point out this connection of the defence cases for both charges
No real irony although it would be interesting to see why a couple of the jurors thought manslaughter didn't apply but the wanton & furious did. It might be that they thought that death was so unlikely an outcome that the manslaughter charge was harsh, rather than any breaking of the connection between the lack of brakes and the death.
I very much doubt the jury decision was on the basis of correct legal interpretation of the charges. Unlikelihood of death certainly isn't a defence for manslaughter.
That is quite a leap you're making there given the level of road casualties in this country for incidents not involving motor vehicles.
About the same as the number killed by bee and wasp stings IIRC
Given the archaic language in the wanton and furious charge, and the fact that that law is very rarely used, I would expect that the legal meaning of those terms and that law were discussed in court and explained to the jury. I would also have expected the prosecution to have made it clear during the course of its examination of witnesses and evidence, in what respects it was asserting that the evidence given was evidence of the wanton and furious charge and/or the manslaughter charge.
Without the transcript of the trial, we do not know what evidence was cited as proof of the wanton and furious charge, nor of which aspect of that particular law, i.e. wanton and furious vs. other wilful misconduct vs. wilful neglect.
I suspect that the fact that Charlie Alliston twice shouted out 'Get the f@@@ out of my way' or similar may have been a very significant factor in the wanton and furious conviction, i.e. the fact he said it twice:
a) itself suggests he had enough time to react to prevent the collision, or possibly reduce the liklihood/severity of injury by reducing the collision speed, and
b) the actual words might be seen to suggest that he expected the woman to get out his way, and that he did not swerve or brake as quickly as he possibly could have done because of that expectation.
I kind of agree with the last poster, which is what I came to say. If he had time to yell get out of the way twice, then he could/should have stopped. We all have a duty of car to other road users, being in the wrong place on the road does not remove your rights.
I wish he had got more time, it wasn't a cycling issue it was a moral issue that eh thought he had the right to run someone over just because she "shouldn't" be in the road.
18 months inside.
That is very harsh indeed and completely out of line with other people who kill on the roads
I can't help but feel that he has been held to a higher standard than would be expected of a motorist.
This is a sad story where no one wins, and we have to remember that a family no longer has a mum, but is there a danger it could set a precedent for future accidents with cyclists whose bikes are not 100% legal, including, for example, no pedal reflectors, front/rear reflectors etc., perhaps even a bell? (I have a feeling it's not a legal requirement to have a bell fitted, but I'm not sure about reflectors)
I think we have to consider that the court has heard the story first hand and the nuance of how deserving this chap is of the sentence awarded is one they can judge far better than us. It does seem an unusually tough sentence, but I'd imagine the judge hasn't made that decision lightly.
Judge previously said
"I have not seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all at any stage."
I expect that has had a lot to do with the harshness of the sentence.
Perhaps one of the key things here is that there was objective outside evidence and witnesses - so his defense could be challenged. Whereas in most cases when cyclists are killed there is not so the motorists defense cannot be challenged.
I think we have to consider that the court has heard the story first hand and the nuance of how deserving this chap is of the sentence awarded is one they can judge far better than us. It does seem an unusually tough sentence, but I'd imagine the judge hasn't made that decision lightly.
I'm sure the judge passed sentence within guidelines for the crime etc, but do we really think that a judge and jury, faced with a motorist in a similar situation, would've acted in the same way? Unfortunately, poor driver behaviour is normalised within our society, which is reflected in the slaps on the wrist handed out to transgressors.
That is very harsh indeed and completely out of line with other people who kill on the roads
Hardly.
If someone had altered their car to track standards, removed driving aids etc. then killed someone, the sentence would have been similar...
Unfortunately, poor driver behaviour is normalised within our society, which is reflected in the slaps on the wrist handed out to transgressors.
That just isn't true though is it.
Look at any of the prison sentences dealt recently for death by dangerous driving, associated with the use of a mobile phone.
There's even talk of extending them to life sentences in future.
I suspect the severity of the sentence means that he is likely to appeal. I wonder if he will also appeal the verdict as well as the sentence, since from the limited reporting it does seem that there may have been flaws in the prosecution case. Obviously we have not heard all the evidence, but if the police expert witness evidence and video regarding stopping distances were or could have been significant factors in the jury's verdict, then that might well be part of the grounds for an appeal.
This does seem very harsh given similar sentences for motorists.
Same sentence as this from a few days ago for instance...
[img] http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/webimage/1.8134520.1504544485!/image/image.jp g" target="_blank">
Driving HGV above speed limit (56 in 50, then 55 in 40) and used a mobile phone, which he attempted to cover up by deleting calls, lost control of truck on a bend where it crushed a car killing it's driver.
18 months.
could have had 2 years for it. Lets just remember he killed someone while riding in a stupid manor on an illegal bike.
The average sentence for causing death by careless driving is 14 months, and the averaged custodial sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 57 months. So in the context of those, without a guilty plea or remorse, the sentence here doesn't look like it's harsh. It's at the upper end of the available sentencing for the offence he was found guilty of (which is 2 years) so again not unreasonable given it's at the upper end of seriousness for that.