Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

[Psamathe]

giving him a lot less time to take avoiding action

That was his second chance to take avoiding action, third if you include removing the brake.
I think he had ran out of excuses already by then. (my bold)

The bike he was on didn't have a fork drilling to fit a front brake so didn't have one in the first place & could never be a road-legal bike.
...
He claimed not to know about the legal requirement for a front brake. Maybe a good thing would be to make bike suppliers put a large notice on such frames/bikes so purchasers are in no doubt about their unsuitability for road use.

I had a suspicion age ago I read that he had purchased the bike 2nd hand. Either way, by the time such road-illegal bikes were sold 2nd hand I'd expect any such notices to have been removed.

Ian

[meic]

He did try to avoid her by shouting

I would hope that the message coming from the Judge's mouth is that shouting is not an adequate or acceptable method of avoiding a collision. Rather like blasting your horn at the pedestrians as you drive towards them.
You are actually expected to take much more evasive action than that.

[mjr]

[...Jesse Norman's Highway Code letter...] Is that clear enough?

Yes, completely clear and doing that would be counter-productive, so it should be rejected by all creditable cycling groups.

Now condemned by the Guardian as "headline-grabbing hypocrisy" https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -hypocrisy

Chris Boardman is quoted as saying “The minister’s focus bypasses all the available evidence and is only aligned with the headlines. I would urge public resources be focused on those with the propensity to do the most harm and bad behaviour, not vehicle types.”

I've still no idea what CUK's response is, if any.

[thirdcrank]

Psamathe

Getting on for 50 years ago, I was doing what we used to call "White Gloves" at Leeds Sessions ie security duty. In one sense, a total under-employment of any expensively-trained crime fighter such as YOS. In another sense, a bit of valuable in-service training. The Judge was the (in)famous James Pickles and the defendant in a child grooming case, long before paedophiles became folk devils had been writing crude invitations to a child. IIRC, the defendant had worked in some sort of care home run by one of the churches. Anyway, defence counsel had hardly started his mitigation about the defendant's work for the church when Pickles boomed "Mr XX, your client is a hypocrite and will go to prison for two years. He should consider himself lucky that that is the maximum sentence I have the power to impose. Take him down." A few weeks later I heard on the news that the sentence had been reduced on appeal. The relevance of this memory to this thread? Nothing except to show how times have changed.

BTW, some of the repeated references to points which have already been discussed had me looking back through the main Charlie Alliston thread. Memory not so good these days as it used to be and I was a bit surprised that I referred to this being "an accident waiting to happen" on 18 August, just a month before the judge quoted me. Hardly surprising then that I gave her good marks for what she said.
===================================================

I would hope that the message coming from the Judge's mouth is that shouting is not an adequate or acceptable method of avoiding a collision. Rather like blasting your horn at the pedestrians as you drive towards them.
You are actually expected to take much more evasive action than that.

And as I've posted somewhere, shouting and swearing is a bit like an approaching driver playing and repeating a couple of bars from Colonel Bogey on an air horn.

[Psamathe]

He did try to avoid her by shouting

I would hope that the message coming from the Judge's mouth is that shouting is not an adequate or acceptable method of avoiding a collision. Rather like blasting your horn at the pedestrians as you drive towards them.
You are actually expected to take much more evasive action than that.

I understood he also swerved to avoid her as well as shouting.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

He did try to avoid her by shouting

I would hope that the message coming from the Judge's mouth is that shouting is not an adequate or acceptable method of avoiding a collision. Rather like blasting your horn at the pedestrians as you drive towards them.
You are actually expected to take much more evasive action than that.

I understood he also swerved to avoid her as well as shouting.

Ian

This is where it is unclear, one "version" was that he had allowed her to continue across the road by going behind her, and she stepped back into his path

[AlaninWales]

The judge in this case made reference to him not wearing a helmet, putting a negative spin. At 18 mph I could not say this is driving furiously. He did try to avoid her by shouting. There are some weaknesses.

Why do people insist on misunderstanding this?
"Riding furiously" is not a speeding charge! Whilst riding at excessive speed for the conditions could result in a charge of riding furiously, there is no necessity for any speeding element. The charge is actually of "wanton or furious driving or racing" - note the "or". Check the meaning of "wanton" (e.g. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wanton "adj. 1) grossly negligent to the extent of being recklessly unconcerned with the safety of people or property.". Clearly the manner of cycling here was found to be commensurate with such a description.

[PDQ Mobile]

Link?
Citation please?

I Googled but found nothing

I've not found it either way in the Netherlands road rules but what's more relevant here is the UN/ECE Vienna Convention on International Road Traffic which allows bikes with a single brake to be used legally on UK roads if it's an international visitor, including a backpedal brake but not only a fixed wheel. Such bikes are safe, enshrined in a longstanding UN convention, and I feel that should be recognised in UK law.

[/quote]

Page 37 of your quoted Vienna convention document
First line (a)states a bicycle should " have two independent brakes".
I'm confused!


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... out-brakes

The ever sensible (IMHO)Chris Juden quoted from the article;
"A front brake is necessary on a bicycle," he said. "If you're trying to stop a bicycle, or any vehicle, as quickly as you can there will be hardly any weight on the back wheel.

"If you're slowing down gradually the back wheel's fine, but if you're slowing down in an emergency forget about the back brake.

"It takes a great deal of skill to brake with a fixed wheel like that but some people can do that," added Mr Juden. "A skilled rider with a front brake will stop in half the distance. You need a front brake to be safe."

[bigjim]

I would hope that the message coming from the Judge's mouth is that shouting is not an adequate or acceptable method of avoiding a collision. Rather like blasting your horn at the pedestrians as you drive towards them.
You are actually expected to take much more evasive action than that.

I understood he also swerved to avoid her as well as shouting.

Ian

This is where it is unclear, one "version" was that he had allowed her to continue across the road by going behind her, and she stepped back into his path

The Judge in her comments acknowledged that he tried to go around her. Though if I remember correctly, she described it as he tried to "force a path between her and the parked lorry". How trying to move behind her to avoid hitting her becomes "Forcing a path" is beyond me. Maybe if I was a Dail Mail journalist.....?

[Psamathe]

The judge in this case made reference to him not wearing a helmet, putting a negative spin. At 18 mph I could not say this is driving furiously. He did try to avoid her by shouting. There are some weaknesses.

Why do people insist on misunderstanding this?
"Riding furiously" is not a speeding charge! Whilst riding at excessive speed for the conditions could result in a charge of riding furiously, there is no necessity for any speeding element. The charge is actually of "wanton or furious driving or racing" - note the "or". Check the meaning of "wanton" (e.g. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wanton "adj. 1) grossly negligent to the extent of being recklessly unconcerned with the safety of people or property.". Clearly the manner of cycling here was found to be commensurate with such a description.

I have difficulty understanding what is so wrong with a law over "wanton or furious driving or racing". Just as for driving, doing 60 mph in a 60 mph speed limit in thick fog would quite rightly mean you could be charged with dangerous driving. The name might be a bit cryptic but it would seem a reasonable law to cover a wide range of possible unreasonable behaviour.

Ian

[Psamathe]

I understood he also swerved to avoid her as well as shouting.

Ian

This is where it is unclear, one "version" was that he had allowed her to continue across the road by going behind her, and she stepped back into his path

The Judge in her comments acknowledged that he tried to go around her. Though if I remember correctly, she described it as he tried to "force a path between her and the parked lorry". How trying to move behind her to avoid hitting her becomes "Forcing a path" is beyond me. Maybe if I was a Dail Mail journalist.....?

It is comments from the Judge like these that make me a bit uneasy about the case. I'm not arguing he is innocent and I have no idea about the severity of the sentence, but aspects of the Judges comments suggest to me that aspects may be being exaggerated to make the sentence appear more appropriate.

Ian

[Steady rider]

I think the judge has put a lot of emphasis on what she expected of the cyclist and little on what may have been expected of the pedestrian. From the judges statement the woman had nearly half crossed the road, with oncoming traffic preventing her from proceeding, why did she try to proceed with traffic and a cyclist coming?

In point 8, the judge blames the cyclist for the accident. it appears to me this is unsound because the reason for the accident was the women crossing the road when unsafe to do so. The cyclist was at fault regarding his bicycle and perhaps in a number of ways that may have contributed to increasing the severity of the impact or also in the likelihood of accident occurring. A good proportion of blame should be allocated to the woman.

[meic]

I think the judge has put a lot of emphasis on what she expected of the cyclist and little on what may have been expected of the pedestrian.

Because he was the one in the dock, infront of her, having been found guilty and awaiting her to sentence him.

[thirdcrank]

One point that is being missed here is that the judge will have made two important speeches, in addition to any trial management comments along the way. The first, which will have been by far the longer of the two will have been the summing up and, unfortunately, we haven't a transcript. However, the judge will have reminded the jury of all the evidence they had heard from both sides and tried to link that to the relevant law, which she will have also explained. If the judge had summed up unfairly or had incorrectly explained some aspect of the law, that would be the grounds for an appeal against conviction. (Another being if the defence believed that the judge had wrongly allowed any prosecution evidence to be heard or had wrongly excluded defence evidence.)

The second, for which we have the official transcript, is the sentencing comments, made after the jury had delivered its verdicts. (I've emphasised that because it's a point I've made before but one which may be hard to grasp.) We don't know on what basis the jury came to its verdict but the system assumes it was on the evidence they had heard and accepted ie the prosecution case. (That's why the judge was also careful to explain what he was not being sentenced for: ie the offence of which he had been acquitted.) These days, again as I've already posted, as well as giving the convicted defendant the traditional telling off, the judge has to explain their "working out" as well as the sentence itself. Otherwise, that would be grounds for an appeal against sentence.

It will be interesting to hear in due course if there is any appeal and its outcome.

(meic has made the same point much more succinctly )

[mjr]

I've not found it either way in the Netherlands road rules but what's more relevant here is the UN/ECE Vienna Convention on International Road Traffic which allows bikes with a single brake to be used legally on UK roads if it's an international visitor, including a backpedal brake but not only a fixed wheel. Such bikes are safe, enshrined in a longstanding UN convention, and I feel that should be recognised in UK law.

Page 37 of your quoted Vienna convention document
First line (a)states a bicycle should " have two independent brakes".
I'm confused!

I think you're reading the bit for mopeds.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/aug/25/cycling-without-brakes

The ever sensible (IMHO)Chris Juden quoted from the article;
"A front brake is necessary on a bicycle," he said. "If you're trying to stop a bicycle, or any vehicle, as quickly as you can there will be hardly any weight on the back wheel.

"If you're slowing down gradually the back wheel's fine, but if you're slowing down in an emergency forget about the back brake.

"It takes a great deal of skill to brake with a fixed wheel like that but some people can do that," added Mr Juden. "A skilled rider with a front brake will stop in half the distance. You need a front brake to be safe."

Such is the orthodoxy in this country. Not even CTC was willing to defend what's normal in many countries and international treaties and yet again fell into the trap of allowing people to believe that cycling safety is significantly a matter of self-responsibility. It doesn't matter how sharp your brakes are if a bad motorist hits you, which is far more common than a cyclist riding into something or someone else. Is weak braking often a factor in collisions in countries that allow single brakes?