Forum menu
As the rider did not attempt to stop not sure how the judge can sate that they could not stop.
The expert evidence said that he was not able to stop because there was no front brake on his bike.
My dad has a small fleet of vintage cars / trucks. By modern standards, the whole lot are unsafe and certainly more dangerous than a bicycle, even if it had 16 brakes.
But if he were to run someone over in the conditions described over the last 28 pages, I seriously doubt he'd even lose his license.
The expert evidence said that he was not able to stop because there was no front brake on his bike.
With the follow on from that being the prosecutions case being that the main reason he didn't try to stop was because his choice in riding an illegal bike without effective brakes didn't give him that option. His defence challenged that but saying he'd have done the same thing even if he had brakes, however the jury appears not to have accepted that. In her summing up the judge also appears to indicate that, based on the CCTV evidence, his riding was so dangerous that he might have still been up on charges even if he had brakes but chose not to use them (e.g. he might have been doing a deliberate close flyby to scare her even more than his shouting and swearing had already done).
imnotverygood - Member
How exactly did she address it?
Quite clearly the pedestrian did negligently step into a live lane of traffic - the outcome is sufficient evidence for that. [b]From my reading of the judge's comments that negligence was pretty much discounted[/b]. Sure that might seem like passive victim blaming, but ultimately the one person who could have done something different which would have guaranteed that the collision didn't happen was the victim.Funnily enough. Whenever a pedestrian is hit by a moving vehicle, unless the collision takes place in the pavement, it usually involves the pedestrian stepping into the path of the vehicle. Seeing as most vehicles move slower than the speed of light, there is also pretty much always a degree of negligence associated with that act. When that happens it is the responsibility of the vehicle 'driver' to take reasonable action to avoid the idiot. [b]Given the negligence of the pedestrian is pretty much a given[/b] and not accepted as a mitigation when the vehicle concerned is a car, I'm not sure why you think it is so significant in this case.
POSTED 5 HOURS AGO
*having not seen the evidence/CCTV footage...*
This is where the underlying issue that is causing the difference of opinion is located. The fact a pedestrian either a) didn't pay FULL attention before walking out in tho the road or b) was paying attention and did so anyway, has been completely discounted. People may call 'victim blaming' but she wouldn't be a victim if she had looked/listened before crossing AS ALL CHILDREN ALL TAUGHT (if indeed she didn't look/listen).
But what makes it worse is the 2nd bold, why is this a given? How can we accept that. This is basic road safety. If she was paying attention, why did she not know that she would have to stop in the middle of the road?
I do think that Charlie was partly to blame, and that his actions before he even left the house showed that [i]maybe[/i] he shouldn't have been on the road, but in a court case this unusual and media-scrutinized, and therefore being seen/heard by a lot of the general public, to basically say "if you walk out into the road without looking and get hit its not your fault" is a massively irresponsible blunder.
[quote=slowster ]I suppose an analogy would be if someone is driving a car and a pedestrian steps out in front of them in similar(ish) circumstances, i.e. with similar stopping time requirements. In that situation, it would not be acceptable for the driver to just sound their horn a couple of times while maintaining speed, in expectation that the pedestrian will get out of the way. In fact I doubt any reasonably competent driver would do anything other than immediately brake hard (and would probably not even think of taking a hand off the wheel to hit the horn as well).
From the description of what the CCTV shows, there were parked vehicles and on the other side of the road oncoming traffic which caused the victim to stop. It would seem therefore that the available roadwidth was fairly narrow, and the room for Alliston to be able to avoid her by swerving was very limited (and probably dependent on her and him doing exactly the right thing very quickly, i.e. she moves left and he swerves right or vice versa).
You appear to be making unjustified assumptions based on the judges comments - admittedly the comments do seem to be phrased in order to give such an erroneous impression. https://goo.gl/maps/YFpcdf5fftt is I where the collision happened (based upon reports Charlie had just ridden through this junction) there's a van parked in the parking/loading bay where the lorry presumably was (apart from the bays the road is double red lined). Still plenty of space to avoid a pedestrian by swerving - there's sufficient road width for vehicles.
Which is where the analogy with vehicles falls down, because in a car the only appropriate action is to brake, whilst as discussed above swerving is an appropriate action and likely to be the most appropriate action in many circumstances. Also as discussed above the chances are he couldn't have stopped even with a front brake - though clearly the dodgy police evidence suggested otherwise.
It may be irresponsible, but there is no legal requirement for a pedestrian to look before crossing the road. There is a legal requirement for a cyclist to ride safely and comply with the law with respect to the bike's equipment.
Speaking as someone who was a motorbike courier in London for 3 years, you don't need to tel me how irresponsible pedestrians can be. However , that does not absolve matey boy from riding like a knob and killing someone. Especially in the eyes of the law.
With the follow on from that being the prosecutions case being that the main reason he didn't try to stop was because his choice in riding an illegal bike without effective brakes didn't give him that option. His defence challenged that but saying he'd have done the same thing even if he had brakes, however the jury appears not to have accepted that. In her summing up the judge also appears to indicate that, based on the CCTV evidence, his riding was so dangerous that he might have still been up on charges even if he had brakes but chose not to use them (e.g. he might have been doing a deliberate close flyby to scare her even more than his shouting and swearing had already done).
"Might" being the key word. A bike with effective brakes and a rider choosing to swerve rather than stop wouldn't fall into the category of "wanton and furious" so a heck of a lot of weight would have to be placed on other aspects in order to secure a conviction.
I completely agree, that wasn't quite the point I was making though.
There may be no legal requirement for it but surely its COMMON SENSE?
I wouldn't dream of crossing a road without checking its clear. I do happen to like being alive and uninjured.
The point being, it hasn't been even discussed as a cause (whether or not i think it should effect the sentence), and it reinforces the 'don't need to take consequences of my actions' mentality that A LOT of people have. Just look at the number of drivers who speed/use mobile/drive too close/break too late/drink and drive...... but those bloody cyclists/pedestrians shouldn't be on the road.
Actually aracer, if there was a lorry parked where he van is & traffic coming the other way than I can entirely see why he was convicted. Space to avoid someone in an extreme emergency perhaps. Space to safely pass someone at double figure speed, when there is an option to stop. No way.
[quote=grumpysculler ]It is clear that the onus was on him, there was time to avoid the collision, but he didn't really try and he left her with nowhere safe to go. His allegation that she was using a phone and not looking was retracted (presumably to try and avoid perjury). The judge acknowledged that she could have done things differently. But it was his actions that most directly caused the collision.
Hmm - I'm not sure it was Charlie who left her with nowhere safe to go - she is the one who walked into the road with traffic in the opposite lane which meant she would be forced to stop in the middle of the road in a lane with approaching traffic. The dangerous situation was almost entirely created by the victim - reading the description by the judge it seems to be an extremely stupid time/place to cross the road. As for direct cause of the collision, clearly that is debatable, but as I wrote before the only alternative decision/action which would definitively have avoided the collision was that made by the victim. I'm not sure you can claim he didn't try to avoid the collision either - that would be a nonsensical thing to do on a bicycle where there's a good chance you're going to come off worse, he appears to have tried to avoid it by riding around her.
I note from the sentencing guidelines for causing death by driving:
Where the actions of the victim or a third party contributed to the commission of an offence, this should be acknowledged and taken into account as a mitigating factor.
^^This
[quote=imnotverygood ]It may be irresponsible, but there is no legal requirement for a pedestrian to look before crossing the road. There is a legal requirement for a cyclist to ride safely and comply with the law with respect to the bike's equipment.
There is still a fundamental principle not to be negligent. Clearly in this case the victim wasn't following HC guidance - similar behaviour from the operator of a vehicle is sufficient for a conviction in the absence of any specific law breaking.
Allison was convicted largely because he thought it was all the pedestrian's fault and he was entitled to keep going. Despite his conviction and nearly 1000 posts, some people don't seem to have got he message.
EDIT: If a pedestrian steps out in front of you- for whatever reason- and the collision is avoidable, if you fail to avoid the collision, you will get done.
Again, not arguing with the outcome of the trial as such, as I believe he didn't do enough to avoid the collision.
What I do not agree with is the fact that the pedestrian must have been, to some extent, negligent on her part for crossing where/when she did. I do not want to make any less of the tragedy of her death but this was largely ignored, and sends out the wrong message.
If, in the closing statement, the judge had said she was partly at fault and pedestrians need to ALSO take more care of their surroundings, but it was still within Charlies power to stop or lessen the collision i wouldn't have a problem.
[quote=imnotverygood ]Despite his conviction and nearly 1000 posts, some people don't seem to have got he message.
I presume the message we're supposed to get is that because he was convicted the collision was entirely his fault and avoidable? That despite some of the evidence on which the conviction was based being extremely dodgy. BTW somewhere in those 1000 posts there is a lot of quite useful debate on various issues, most of it isn't directly arguing whether or not Charlie was being a dick. Most of the debate now is not about the conviction - that happened a while ago and we were mostly fairly comfortable with the outcome - but with the sentencing.
Can I just check though what the point of your post is other than an attempt to shut down debate from people you disagree with?
I remember my driving instructor saying to me "assume when driving in town centres that people will step out or do other idiotic things. be vigilant and control as many variables as you can".
Just because someone [I]shouldn't[/I] step out without looking, doesn't mean they won't - and if you're riding in a city, you should be expecting it, matching speed to stopping distance (or at least reduction of speed distance) and be ready for freak occurrences. Removing the brakes from your bike reduces the ability to deal with these kind of things, so reducing the number of controllable variables.
If a pedestrian steps out in front of you- for whatever reason- and the collision is avoidable, if you fail to avoid the collision, you will get done.
Maybe if you are a cyclist. I wouldnt put money on it if they get hit by a car.
Bit on sun in the eyes or just a casual claim they didnt see them and will be home and dry. In some ways I think his offence, aside from being a cyclist, was actually make some effort to avoid the collision but not managing it.
Bit on sun in the eyes or just a casual claim they didnt see them and will be home and dry.
Yep, seems to be the case here. Mounted pavement and ran over a 4 year old. No wrongdoing at all! WTF. Isn't it illegal to drive on the pavement??
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
aracer - MemberHmm - I'm not sure it was Charlie who left her with nowhere safe to go - she is the one who walked into the road with traffic in the opposite lane which meant she would be forced to stop in the middle of the road in a lane with approaching traffic. The dangerous situation was almost entirely created by the victim - reading the description by the judge it seems to be an extremely stupid time/place to cross the road. As for direct cause of the collision, clearly that is debatable, but as I wrote before the only alternative decision/action which would definitively have avoided the collision was that made by the victim. I'm not sure you can claim he didn't try to avoid the collision either - that would be a nonsensical thing to do on a bicycle where there's a good chance you're going to come off worse, he appears to have tried to avoid it by riding around her.
Or stopping, you seem to be unable to accept he could have done that, or that he had any obligation to attempt to do so.
Can I just check though what the point of your post is other than an attempt to shut down debate from people you disagree with?
What I am trying to put a stop to is you resorting, more and more desperately as the thread goes on, to victim blaming.
I don't normally have any issues with your posts in general, but you are getting more and more distasteful on this one.
The problem is also that you have had limited access to the evidence and you have essentially tried to portray an unavoidable collision. Or at least one where Allison made a reasonable decision to try and avoid the victim. The trouble is, the jury and the judge don't buy the interpretation you are seeking to put on the evidence, and they have seen all the evidence. Whereas you ignore those bits that don't fit in with the hypothesis you have constructed. At no point does Alliston say he couldn't stop, what he does say is that he was 'entitled to go on' (whilst hurling abuse.) Does this not even slightly suggest to you that this was someone who was aggressively expecting the pedestrian to get out of his way? You have gone from a slightly questioning attitude to the trial to a full on advocate for the defence & I'm willing to bet you wouldn't be doing that if a car was involved.
The trouble is, the jury and the judge don't buy the interpretation you are seeking to put on the evidence
The trouble is judges and juries have a rather dubious history when it comes to incidents involving cyclists (or pedestrians being hit by cars)
Does this not even slightly suggest to you that this was someone who was aggressively expecting the pedestrian to get out of his way?
Or that he was going to go round them. There are statements that he tried to evade her before she stepped back into his way.
Stupid cycling from him. Sure since you should never underestimate the unpredictability of a pedestrian. However if accurate she made two mistakes which guaranteed the collision.
If a pedestrian steps out in front of you- for whatever reason- and the collision is [b]proven to be[/b] avoidable [b]beyond reasonable doubt[/b], if you fail to avoid the collision, you will get done.
FTFY.
It is hard for me to clearly understand why he was acquitted of manslaughter and found guilty of wanton and furious driving. It seems the jury thought manslaughter looks a bit harsh, what's the fall-back? Given he's obviously a dick and needs to be punished in some way.
Years ago a family member was driving a car when an elderly woman crossed the road, she was nearing the centre line and for some reason froze when seeing the car, then stepped back towards the kerb, he hit her and she died of her injuries. There was no conviction, nor driving offence of any kind. I think that there could be sufficient grounds for doubt that a similar thing could be argued in this case.
When a pedestrian stepped in front of me, after hitting her, I was pretty angry too, but thankfully we were both OK. The bike was less OK, but it is only a bike.
BTW At the inquest into my friend and clubmate who died after hitting a pothole, the coroner was very understanding of the position cyclists and other vulnerable road users find themselves in. Presumably there was an inquest in the case? (which does not attribute blame)
Can't have our cake and eat it. The outcome would be even less equivocal if presumed liability was adopted. Something that we seem to actively want. Until it applies to someone in the cycling tribe... That smacks of hypocrisy.
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/bez-selling-a-dream-at-the-cost-of-reality/ ][/url]
Yep, seems to be the case here. Mounted pavement and ran over a 4 year old. No wrongdoing at all! WTF. Isn't it illegal to drive on the pavement??
My wife mentioned this to me earlier. I can't even find the words to describe my anger at it being possible to KILL SOMEONE and not be found at fault.
aracer - Member
epicsteve » So while that police video is rather unscientific it's not really an issue.
"rather"?I'm still assuming the reason it wasn't challenged was either because Charlie's lawyer was inexperienced and incompetent or because it was thought that it wouldn't play well with the jury when they were trying to go for a different angle. If the video we've seen is the real testing, or similar to the real testing then the methodology is extremely dodgy and it certainly didn't prove that Charlie could have stopped in the space available (on the basis of the theory and your testing there's certainly reasonable cause for doubt that he could have stopped).
POSTED 1 DAY AGO # REPORT-POST
Is it just me that finds people referring to strangers by their first name a bit vomit-inducing?
Is it an attempt to 'humanise' the subject? Or false mateyness? Or just an affectation?
Genuine question, because it does piss me off, so I'd like to understand.
Alliston is quite difficult to spell
[quote=HoratioHufnagel ]Yep, seems to be the case here. Mounted pavement and ran over a 4 year old. No wrongdoing at all! WTF. Isn't it illegal to drive on the pavement??
> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
br />
I mentioned that case somewhere in the preceding 1000 posts (from which we apparently haven't got the message), having picked it up from an article by Bez. Bez has more interesting comments on that in his most recent blog - along with various other interesting stuff on issues arising from this case:
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-law-must-be-fixed-mustnt-it/
The point (which I think I also made earlier) is that in that case all the required evidence appears to be in place and beyond reasonable doubt for an unlawful act manslaughter conviction. The points which must be proven being:
1) the defendant deliberately committed an unlawful act
2) the unlawful act directly caused the death
3) all sober and reasonable people would realise that the unlawful act would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm
I tend to agree with Bez that there would have been a very high chance of a conviction if those were the points which needed to be proved - it's hard to see any possible doubt over any of those points. I note that the jury in the Charlie Alliston case found that at least one of those points wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, which I'll come back to...
However in their wisdom the CPS fell back on the standard "death by driving" charges, which have the unfortunate "competent and careful driver" clause, with the jury judging that against their own standard of driving. A jury composed of members who probably all park on the pavement themselves. Bez helpfully references the Court of Appeal judgement which not only allows juries to let drivers off in this way, but specifically instructs them to do so:
"It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves."
Apologies to Bez for precising so much of your blog, but it's so relevant to the discussion here. The other point he makes is that if Mr Briggs' campaign to introduce dangerous cycling charges to parallel the dangerous driving ones succeeds, jury selection procedures will have to be changed so that jury members in such cases are cyclists. Otherwise it would be impossible for the jury members to make an accurate judgement of the standard of an ordinary prudent cyclist by reference to their own standards.
IMHO that case is an excellent example of how the use of "death by driving" charges rather than manslaughter when deaths occur on the roads has gone horribly wrong. It's the sort of example which should be used when the government reviews charging and conviction of cases involving deaths on the roads, as they have promised to do...
[quote=dannyh ]Is it just me that finds people referring to strangers by their first name a bit vomit-inducing?
Is it an attempt to 'humanise' the subject? Or false mateyness? Or just an affectation?
Genuine question, because it does piss me off, so I'd like to understand.
It's just easier TBH. Check out my comments on the F1 thread where I tend to refer to Max, Kimi and Vettel, as their other names are problematic and I'd have to think about how to spell them. I regret that you are offended by me referring to him as Charlie.
[quote=duckman ]Or stopping, you seem to be unable to accept he could have done that, or that he had any obligation to attempt to do so.
Good - I've clearly not been that hard to understand. No, based upon the testing done by epicsteve and the theory of how fast you can stop a bicycle, even with a front brake it would have been very marginal to stop in the distance available. It would have relied on doing a perfect stop in a panic situation. I'm completely discounting the evidence supplied by the police on stopping distances here, having seen an example of their methodology (and given that their quoted distances appear to break the laws of physics). He had an obligation to attempt to avoid the collision - swerving to avoid her on a bit of road which was plenty wide enough for him to pass her is sufficient for that, and quite possibly the best choice given how marginal the chances of avoiding the collision by braking are.
swerving to avoid her on a bit of road which was plenty wide enough for him to pass her is sufficient for that, and quite possibly the best choice given how marginal the chances of avoiding the collision by braking are.
If he'd braked he would've been going more slowly at the point of impact and Mrs Brigg may not have died. Of course not having a front brake denied him this opportunity. Swerve away.
So, what effect if any will the introduction of a death by dangerous driving law have on trail access (on forestry land and bridleways) and cheeky trails (say on forestry land - eg wharncouver)?
Matthew Briggs is channelling his grief commendably into changing the law to introduce offences of “dangerous cycling” and “death by careless cycling”. It is critical that, if he is successful, it is seen that these crimes will apply to cyclists riding on pavements as well as on roads. I fear that the next fatality may occur when a cyclist hits a pedestrian who does what pedestrians do: walk on pavements.
What kind of a position will we be in if we hit someone or their dog on say unsanctioned forestry trails.
You really are starting to spin this whole case aracer. Even by your normal default position, your attempts to justify his bike and riding are pretty odious based on the facts we have,not the speculation you introduce.
So just to sum up your version of events; he tried to avoid her,she got in the way and he hit and killed her.He did the correct thing by trying to avoid her and his inability to brake is irrelevant. Is that how you see it from the evidence that was presented?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41337440
In principal, I've no objections. But as the cycling body quotes say, it needs to be part of a wider review of transport, motor vehicles wreck and kill far more lives every year including cyclists and pedestrians.
The potential for death is far greater when driving a 1-2 ton vehicle (which has a metal shell plus seat belts offering the driver and passengers reasonable protection), very often faster than speed limits which for many only seem to apply on the approach to speed cameras, compared to the combined mass of ~65-120Kg cyclist and their bike (where the only protection they usually have is a foam helmet).
Of course not having a front brake denied him this opportunity
No it didn't. You can stop on a fixed gear bike with no brakes, he chose not to.
The very unfortunate part of this whole thing is that someone died. If the pedestrian had not died and had just been knocked over and got up and went on their way (or even reported it) would someone be prosecuted for furious and wanton riding and spending time in prison?
I regret that you are offended by me referring to him as Charlie.
I don't think that is very sincere.
I would suggest "I am a bit annoyed that someone has called me out on trying to use a classic spin-trick to win people over".
"Call Me Dave" ring any bells?
would someone be prosecuted for furious and wanton riding and spending time in prison?
I suppose it's a bit like a car crash in that sense, I'd there's no 3rd party damage or injury the police generally aren't interested.
actually that is not my experience, as soon as someone is clearly at fault they do seem interested. Obviously different police forces have different priorities. Had nobody died they might have pursued for wanton and furious Cycling - if there was even a minor injury (and possibly even without if anyone had complained). The critical part seems to be the two shouts with the swearing. Of course without serious harm it would have been difficult to justify the expense of gathering the other evidence (videos, tweets, forum posts, brake testing).
I suppose it's a bit like a car crash in that sense, I'd there's no 3rd party damage or injury the police generally aren't interested.
They could of course have prosecuted him and other fixie no brake riders for the construction and use offence at any time. I wonder if since then they have issued a single ticket for having no front brake in London - if they want to make the street safer that would surely be a far better deterrent than thinking up new laws and you'd only need a couple of purges on a few random dates to get the message out that if won't be tolerated. By ignoring the issue you for so long you could say the met are partly to blame!
I wonder if since then they have issued a single ticket for having no front brake in London - [b]if they want to make the street safer that would surely be a far better deterrent[/b] than thinking up new laws
Would it? Is this the first death of a pedestrian involving a 'brakeless' fixie? If so, how much police time should be spent preventing a once per 20 years* event? Especially as the jury seem to have accepted that the manner of riding rather than the lack of brake was responsible for the collision.
"If they want to make the street safer" then they need to go after people breaking the law while driving. Yes, there are idiots riding bikes, but the danger on the roads is caused almost entirely by people in motor vehicles. If they want to do a PR stunt, then fine, clamp down on brakeless bikes, I don't really have a problem with that because riding a bike like that on the road is stupid, it's just very, very unlikely to prevent any deaths.
Interestingly, since West Mids Police started their close pass initiative, there has been a 20% fall in all KSIs on the region's roads. They're not handing out hi-viz or telling riders not to get run over, they're catching the people who bring the danger to the road and then trying to remove that danger, and it seems to be working.
*Being very generous, if it's actually once since the invention of the 'safety bicycle'!
hey could of course have prosecuted him and other fixie no brake riders for the construction and use offence at any time. I wonder if since then they have issued a single ticket for having no front brake in London
I've been paying more attention to the bikes I see in London since the trial started and so far have only seen one brakeless fixie, and that one wasn't being ridden at the time. I was even in Shoreditch this weekend and didn't even see a brakeless fixie then. Based on that the police might have to waste a lot of time checking without charging many folks.
A couple of weeks back I saw what I thought was police doing some kind of safety checks on bikes (on Fleet Street) but wasn't close enough to be sure that was what they were doing.
Interestingly, since West Mids Police started their close pass initiative, there has been a 20% fall in all KSIs on the region's roads. They're not handing out hi-viz or telling riders not to get run over, they're catching the people who bring the danger to the road and then trying to remove that danger, and it seems to be working
This. All road users, but focusing on the biggest dangers and impacts, not singling out a few in response to press and politicians reactionary demands.
This. All road users, but focusing on the biggest dangers and impacts, not singling out a few in response to press and politicians reactionary demands.
?
Cycles represent a big danger and impact to peds on shared use paths as has been demonstrated. There are a lot of illegal bikes around and poor riders and so given their ability to kill people, having a mechanism which allows clear prosecution is absolutely in line with focussing on dangers and impacts.
Hard cases make bad law
[quote=duckman ]You really are starting to spin this whole case aracer.
I'm guessing you've not read the previous 1000 posts on this thread? I've been remarkably consistent in my comments, and we've also discussed extensively the normal reactions and correct actions for a cyclist in this position.
Even by your normal default position, your attempts to justify his bike and riding are pretty odious based on the facts we have,not the speculation you introduce.
Which facts do you think contradict my interpretation, and what is odious about it? I note that I don't want to defend him, I think he was a bit of a dick before during and after, but neither am I convinced that justice has been done, particularly given the fact that the evidence presented on braking distances was a load of bollocks. I also note that the jury found him not guilty of manslaughter, which some of you seem to be forgetting - it might be worth reading the previous discussion on what his manslaughter defence was based on.
You should probably also read Bez's blog post I linked above - because the issue I have with this case (and discussion in the wider media) is the double standards being applied. Of particular note is the judge's comment: "shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way" - as I mentioned earlier, the use of the plural appears to be the judges interpretation. Several on here are also suggesting the shouting (and particularly the swearing) are a particularly negative thing which led to his conviction - the question is, would such a negative spin be put on the use of a horn by a driver when a pedestrian walks into the road in front of them? There also seems to be the idea that his speed was reckless despite it being slower than that of cars who would be overtaking him "you chose to ride at a speed and on a bike when you could not stop" - yet the stopping distance (even the one found by the police in their dodgy testing) was still less than the HC stopping distance for a car at 30mph.
BTW I've also re-read the judges comments and filled in what I was missing before - it's quite clear that he did swerve to avoid her, she was in the middle of the road and he was attempting to ride to the left of her and that she then stepped back into his path. Yet the judge appears to have been very careful to avoid explicitly stating that she stepped in front of him - I'm not sure I'm the one spinning.