I reckon that he'll get 12 months. Out in 6 for 'Good behaviour'.
I was wrong then. He'll be out in 9 months.
Rides illegal machine - kills pedestrian & blames her........
- Thread starter oldtom
- Start date
I was wrong then. He'll be out in 9 months.
I hear both sides of the argument. In reality, whether we like it or not this is an example being made to let other cyclists know that cycling dangerously is unacceptable. He was cycling in a dangerous manner, being very irresponsible and a significant threat to others. Not to mention, the fact he showed no sign of remorse.
He's not a good advert for cyclists, so I'm not defending him.
He's not a good advert for cyclists, so I'm not defending him.
Justice is not served by defending those we like or have an affinity for. Travelling at 20 or 18 mph whichever on a public road is not a dangerous speed. The only activity in which he was wilful was in not having a working front brake. Had he had one and still hit the unfortunate woman would there have been any sanction. She was clearly in the wrong place.
Normal justice is to punish the crime not the chance consequence.
He was wilful in choosing to ride too close pedestrian at speed. The only safe speed close to a pedestrian is near to walking pace.
That's why he faced the wanton and reckless charge, not a charge of the bike being inadequately equipped to comply with the law.
.
I wish the motorists outside my house - where there is no pavement - knew that. A few months ago I nearly got totalled by a woman doing 40+, in a Range Rover, with a phone glued to her ear. Don't think she even saw me walking up the white line edge.
It seems that everyone is in a self important rush these days.
In that case his barrister was appallingly bad at his brief. Were any other traffic on the same road exceeding that speed. Did the speed limit on that section specufy a lower than 20 mph limit for traffic or even bikes? However previously you stated that it was brought up in court that failure to have a front brake was germane. .. that was the wanton part.
As I said, he showed no remorse which would have added to his sentence. Total idiot, and I'm being kind to ride without brakes.
Not so, the penalty for riding without a front brake is a fine. The penalty for wanton and furious riding endangering life is up to two years imprisonment. He was sentenced for the latter.
.
Of course he had remorse, what he failed to show was empathy. And he did have a brake singular ... ineffectual certainly but recognisable as a brake .
I can agree with you that his behaviour was idiotic, particularly his pr skills.
A lot of those upstarts are full of sh*t and self importance.
I note today that the government will be conducting a review into all aspects of cycling and the law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41337440
I`m slightly fearful of the ramifications it may have when this committee consider ebikes,
i can see them all now, sat round the table mumbling "aren`t these things dangerous, after all they have a `motor`?"
You certainly don`t want to end up with registration etc..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41337440
I`m slightly fearful of the ramifications it may have when this committee consider ebikes,
i can see them all now, sat round the table mumbling "aren`t these things dangerous, after all they have a `motor`?"
You certainly don`t want to end up with registration etc..
"of course he has remorse", really (deep regret and guilt). Not from what I saw or what had been reported, so I think your making assumptions and being argumentative for the sake of it
. Anyway, there's a bigger picture here and I think the laws needs to be improved. I'm fed up seeing cyclists where I live riding at night without lights, high viz clothing, riding on pavements, and no helmets. The list really does go on. They give other cyclists a really bad name, and for one am fed up of them.
Getting off my soap box, and no I won't be replying to this thread Danidi, as I can't be bothered.
We've covered this before, a fixie is not recognised as having a brake in law, the law defing a fixie with the required one front brake as the one case of a bicycle with one brake being legal.
.
"of course he has remorse", really (deep regret and guilt). Not from what I saw or what had been reported, so I think your making assumptions and being argumentative for the sake of it
Anyway, there's a bigger picture here and I think the laws needs to be improved. I'm fed up seeing cyclists where I live riding at night without lights, high viz clothing, riding on pavements, and no helmets. The list really does go on. They give other cyclists a really bad name, and for one am fed up of them.
Getting off my soap box, and no I won't be replying to this thread Danidi, as I can't be bothered.
whether you choose to respond is your prerogative. But there are still a number of points in your posting which deserve refuting.
1. As you rightly say my assertion that he had remorse is an assumption just as is yours that he hadn't. Neither of us can see inside his soul. It would not be a stretch to imagine that he deeply regrets What has happened and his current predicament. What is certain is that he failed to publicly display the type of empathy now being required by public opinion.
2 . The actions of riding without lights during lighting up hours is an offense, the action of cycling on a pavement is an offense the actions of not wearing a hi viz jacket is not an offense , perhaps imprudent and the same might be said for a helmet. To conflate these mixtures of offense and "best practice " none of which he was guilty of is irrelevent .
I do share your concern about non lighting up. Yesterday I observed on what is the premier street in Dublin.. outside the Customs House , not particularly well street lighted, a collection of bicycles and rickshaws . Over a 20 minute period. I noticed only 1 private bike with working lights and 1 rickshaw with lights. That was excepting those public free hire bikes which have integral dynamo and cannot be switched off.. the rickshaws are a tourist attraction not yet a sign of a third world city.
I'm assuming that it will be cycling in general that will be covered. If they start by differentiating, they would have to cover all manner of bikes.
My guess is that it will be all about the serviceability of the bikes with bells and lights being compulsory. Helmets and hi-vis clothing advised everywhere, but perhaps compulsory in built up areas. Towns and cities. We'll know when they let us know I suppose. I do hope that someone with some common sense is involved on that committee.
As for ebikes being dangerous. I've been promoting them as being the exact opposite to unsafe. Not many have bothered putting up an argument against the statement below;-
A very important point for consideration is that ebikes in general actually bring about many safety advantages due to their differing riding style when compared to regular bikes. That riding style is achieved through the motor support and weight.
Often strong, fast, regular bike riding brings about an inevitable fatigue that decreases spatial awareness of the riders surroundings. After a time, lots of 'head down' or 'up off the seat' riding effort eventually brings about a tunnel vision effect. This is particularly the case when continually attempting to gain speed just before an oncoming uphill gradient. Or, when carrying your hard earned speed acquired through a blind bend.
With ebikes, gaining or losing speed is no longer an issue. Rider reaction is improved through not experiencing as much physical fatigue, or overly strenuous riding to gain that speed, or to achieve uphill range speed. No speed or gradient penalties are gained through stop, start braking and acceleration on an ebike. They change the need to rush to get ahead, and on a heavy ebike the brakes need to be good at all times. There's no getting away with that.
Fitness isn't an issue on an ebike. So reading the road further ahead becomes possible and, after a while, second nature. There's no comparable wobble effect brought about by slow uphill struggles, and therefore spatial awareness is enhanced. There's also no longer a need to take the most linear, easiest path of least resistance. You can take the harder path without risk.
All these positive ebiking attributes generally make ebiking a much safer experience all round.
And, if all else fails, there's always the walk mode.
A committee set up to look into cycling after one freak accident (and another old lady killed recently too I believe?) is not a good sign. Committees feel responsible and MUST come up with something to prove their worth and usually come up with ideas of unproven worth, or worse, ideas which have already been proven to be worthless. And a committee to look into ways of preventing cars from killing pedestrians? "We will leave that to the industry"... Well there is one idea that works - infrastructure! Separate cars bikes and pedestrians. Second free idea, fine pedestrians. On the spot fines for being where they shouldn't be, like on cycle paths.
High vis is required in France outside town limits after nightfall. Unfortunately when I am seated on the trike the reflective stripes on approved high vis vests are invisible, both sides... I have taken to wearing a helmet because I do not know how or in which direction I will be thrown off if I ever roll the thing in a corner.
High vis is required in France outside town limits after nightfall. Unfortunately when I am seated on the trike the reflective stripes on approved high vis vests are invisible, both sides... I have taken to wearing a helmet because I do not know how or in which direction I will be thrown off if I ever roll the thing in a corner.
He had no brake as required in law. He may have been able to gradually slow down by resisting the momentum of the bike through the pedals, but the law does not recognise that as being a brake.
As the rider of a fixed wheel bike, he will have known how limited he was in his ability to slow down and that it would have been impossible for him to perform anything like an emergency stop. In possession of this knowledge, he chose to ride in close proximity to pedestrians and at a speed where serious or fatal injury could occur to others in the event of a collision. To any sane person, his actions were dangerous and he displayed total disregard for the safety of others around him. These factors alone should attract a harsh penalty in law, not the chance happening of circumstances conspiring to cause a death.
Yup, that's true of politicians generally, they must be seen to be doing something in case we realise that they're actually useless/dangerous. I reference the Northern Ireland thread.
According to todays papers, the first thing looked at will be a new law specifically for bikes (oh carp!), guess we can expect this to follow he/she who is shouting loudest - as usual. The second phase will be looking at improving safety for motorists' pedestrians and cyclists. In other words, once all the hoo har has died down we can carry on with what we've been doing for years - NOTHING.
Here's a suggestion. Get rid of shared use pavements ! As a kid, if I rode on the pavement, I knew you were breaking the law. That is no longer clear as various local administrations, desperate to show they are 'doing something', label various pavements as shared use, instead of actually spending some of our money on segregated infrastructure. Last time I saw this was on a residental main road in Anglesea where the road was obviously considered to be too busy to be safe for cyclists, so we'll put 'em on the pavement - great idea. That's the kind of fudge a commitee comes up with.