Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[Gattonero]

Yes can be a problem gatto. But cannot help but tbink aloud that where you hail from all too many folk think peds have no right to even be on the zebras/strisce

Agree with you totally about the sheer wrongness of cycling in public without a front brake.

Even on the Zebra crossing, surely pedestrians have all the rights to cross there, but is it nice from them to run on the crossing when coming out a place out of sight, causing the incoming vehicles to abruptly slam on the brakes? This is dangerous even if you are driving at 10mph!
I see this happening so many times, and though they are not breaking the law, they are certainly not making roads safe, they're not.
As I said, road safety is up to all the users, you cannot demand others to obey your duties about safety, because you cannot be bothered to look the road you're crossing or simply thinking "they have to stop anyway"

[Sweep]

Mm

Not sure which country you are talking about.

As for italy and those curious black and white lines, it can be ecucational to go to google news italy and toss "strisce" into the search box. A catalogue of slaughter.

[roger]

I have this strange feeling that stopping is not the point here, but reducing the bike's speed so as to cause minimal injury to the pedestrian. I have no idea what that speed is/was.

As a side issue are our nation's police forces now taking action against riders with only one retardation device?

Finally, how does one `obtain greater detail of the court proceedings? Do we have to rely on the media to give us their essential take on the case?

Roger.

[Bez]

I have this strange feeling that stopping is not the point here, but reducing the bike's speed so as to cause minimal injury to the pedestrian. I have no idea what that speed is/was.

Reports imply 18mph prior to reaction, 10-14mph at impact, but they're not crystal clear, so treat with caution.

Finally, how does one `obtain greater detail of the court proceedings? Do we have to rely on the media to give us their essential take on the case?

Three options:
1. Send along one or more trustworthy individuals to attend court and take notes.
2. Rely on the media.
3. Obtain a transcript after the conclusion of proceedings.

Option 3 is expensive (and is only available for crown court trials), option 2 is clearly mired with issues, and option 1 relies on a little planning. It seems that quite often local cycling organisations send someone along to the trial of someone charged with killing someone on a bike, but as far as I've been able to tell no-one sent someone along to this trial, which is—among other things—unfortunate.

[CJ]

I have this strange feeling that stopping is not the point here, but reducing the bike's speed so as to cause minimal injury to the pedestrian. I have no idea what that speed is/was.

I'm sure that either would have resulted in NO serious injury and no court case. But by my calculation it is entirely possible, given an effective front brake, to completely stop a bicycle travelling at 18mph in a slightly shorter distance (6.4m or 6.3m if one 'pulls a stoppie' upon reducing speed to 2mph) than the 6.65m given as the minimum distance to collision from the point where the defendant elected instead to steer behind the person who had stepped into his path. Given that is the point at which some action was taken, I think it is reasonable to assume that reaction and thinking time have already taken place in the (reportedly much longer) run-up to this point. And even if it hadn't been such a good brake, operated with such consummate skill, I think it's beyond reasonable doubt that the impact speed should have been very much lower than the supposed 10mph.

On the other matters debated since my last visit here: there IS NO OFFENCE of jaywalking in UK or any other civilised European country AFAIK. Such repressive laws are one of the undesirable products of an utterly car-dominated society such as the USA. They are invariably accompanied by even more egregious restrictions on the freedom to use a bicycle, so be careful what you wish for! I would rather suffer the minor inconvenience of having to moderate my cycling speed in places like central London, than suffer further restrictions upon where and when I can use a bike. And besides, I daresay that the traffic calming effect of unpredictable pedestrians is one of the factors that help make busy city centres relatively safe places to cycle. If you want to play at bike racing, there are plenty of big fast roads elsewhere you can do it on!

[thirdcrank]

... Finally, how does one `obtain greater detail of the court proceedings? ...

Speaking generally, that can be a very difficult exercise, partly because obtaining information about the timetable isn't straightforward. Crown Court listings are published online and give a planned start date and are then updated daily but there may be changes at short notice.

Obviously, this case is largely heard already and as there hasn't been daily media reporting, we don't know what stage has been reached in the proceedings. (Or at least, I don't.) A pretty good way to get a detailed summary of the evidence is to attend during the judge's summing up because that will include a careful point-by-point review of all the evidence presented by both sides and an explanation in plain(ish) English of both the relevant law and how it applies to the evidence heard. This isn't short: it's timed more in hours than minutes and in a complicated case, might last more than one day. Hard to estimate in this case because we don't know if the days when there were no media reports mean the court did not sit or that there was merely no hack there. Anybody attending should appreciate that judges take summing up even more seriously than the rest of the trial and will not tolerate distractions. Obviously, they won't stand for members of the public calling out in support of one side or the other, or disturbances between opposing groups, but unless things have changed, they take a dim view even of people arriving late in the public gallery or leaving. It's nigh on 50 years since I did "white gloves" duty at Leeds Assizes and Sessions but the rule in those days was that nobody was allowed to enter the public gallery once the judge had started to sum up and if anybody left, they wouldn't be allowed back in. Things may be more relaxed nowadays, but I'd not risk missing what I wanted to hear.
==============================================================================
PS Just to show what I mean about getting information. This link is to one of the various court listing services. It shows that this case was listed on Friday in Court 11 at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) but nothing more. Monday's list isn't available till 1000am that day.

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearin ... 2017-08-18
Perhaps there are others on here with more experience than I have of court listings.

[[XAP]Bob]

Not quite sure why the obsession with when he started steering - IIRC the titanic may we'll have avoided the iceberg entirely by steering and not slowing, and may we'll have survived (although holed) had she slowed and not steered.

My first instinct, when faced with a pedestrian crossing the road, isn't to brake - I ease off, but I plot a route either shear or behind them. It shouldn't be hard for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass each other in the space normally allocated to a bus!

I'm not defending the decision to ride brakeless, but I don't think that it is clear that it would make a difference - because from what I have heard so far, there's no great suggestion that it would have been used - we know from the introduction of ABS that a better brakes vehicle will be braked later...

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not defending the decision to ride brakeless, but I don't think that it is clear that it would make a difference - because from what I have heard so far, there's no great suggestion that it would have been used - we know from the introduction of ABS that a better brakes vehicle will be braked later...

It wouldn't have made a difference if he never intended to use it had it been there - a decision that comes into play once the pedestrian has been killed, but 999/1000 as you say, a course is plotted and everyone gets where they need to be. I have a mental picture of this event of the shouts actually confusing the issue, with the lady doing the unexpected, as opposed to just carrying on and his passing behind.

What's the evidence for later car braking post ABS BTW?

[[XAP]Bob]

ABS should have reduced the rate of road deaths, but didn't.
When people know they have more powerful brakes they tend to use them later. I know I brake later on the trike than I do on virtually any other vehicle (I'll have been freewheeling for a while, but actual braking is so much sharper that I can leave it later).

Shouting may we'll have confused the issue - a pedestrian unaware of a cyclist in a lane is likely to continue, so that they can be steered behind... a pedestrian suddenly aware of an oncoming vehicle might stop, jump forward or backward, or might be d/Deaf (though the Deaf tend to be more aware of their surroundings).

[tatanab]

I know I brake later on the trike than I do on virtually any other vehicle (I'll have been freewheeling for a while, but actual braking is so much sharper that I can leave it later).

It is important to note that this is a recumbent trike not a conventional upright trike. Different beasts entirely, and particularly in braking.

[Alan O]

Not quite sure why the obsession with when he started steering

I suspect one importance of it is that it indicates the end of his reaction time and the commencement of his responsive action time, and that does seem to be essential for analyzing the whole sequence of events and the possibilities that were open to him.

If it can be convincingly argued that he had had enough time, at the point he started steering, to have at least slowed to a much safer speed had he been equipped with that legally-required front brake, he could be toast.

Whether evasive steering or hard braking would have been the best option seems to become somewhat moot when his failure to abide by the law eliminated one of those options.

[thirdcrank]

I find it hard to make a connection between reducing the efficiency of braking to the extent of not having one of the legally required brakes fitted, and having proper brakes, including modern technology.

I can see that knowing you have poor brakes might make you more careful, but it wouldn't improve braking capability.

[Bonefishblues]

ABS should have reduced the rate of road deaths, but didn't.
When people know they have more powerful brakes they tend to use them later. I know I brake later on the trike than I do on virtually any other vehicle (I'll have been freewheeling for a while, but actual braking is so much sharper that I can leave it later).

Not sure it's safe to lay that at the door purely of ABS then. By your example, better brakes = later braking, and modern brakes are better, full stop (see what I did there...).

I wish that people would understand ABS though, and their continued ability to steer under heavy braking, as opposed to spearing straight ahead, as it seems that steering to avoid an accident is not much practised.

[Gattonero]

Mm

Not sure which country you are talking about.

As for italy and those curious black and white lines, it can be ecucational to go to google news italy and toss "strisce" into the search box. A catalogue of slaughter.

What I'm talking about is that I (and all the other drivers) should not be asked to take the complete care of someone that thinks is right to cross the road while watching their phone's screen.
When I am crossing the road I always make sure the road is clear, even if I am on a designated pedestrian crossing. It just doesn't feel right to me to cross the road when a car is 15 meters away and make the driver to slam on the brakes, even if he's going at 10mph. All it takes is to wave the hand, or wait 1-2 seconds the car is gone.
Is it really THAT difficult?

[Alan O]

I have a mental picture of this event of the shouts actually confusing the issue, with the lady doing the unexpected, as opposed to just carrying on and his passing behind.

Yes, I also get a similar picture. I regularly ride on mixed-use paths, and in my experience (I'm not trying to imply equivalence with the current case, just explaining my thinking when it comes to avoiding collisions) it's extremely dangerous to issue a verbal warning while at the same time trying to steer round a pedestrian and not being in a position to brake hard. If I can evade them safely, I'll keep quiet while I do it, as adding the unpredictability of how someone will react to a shouted warning only makes things more dangerous. If I shout a warning, I'll be on my brakes at the same time, slowing to a very safe passing speed and ready to stop.

I find a similar situation with people waking dogs, and I had an example only a couple of days ago. I saw someone ahead with a dog off the lead, and I slowed down and passed him safely. As I passed he warned me about the dog ahead, I acknowledged with an "OK" and approached the dog slowly. But he then stupidly shouted at the dog to get out of the way, which almost always makes a dog bolt in a completely random direction - and the mutt launched itself directly at me. I was prepared, I stopped, and nothing bad happened.

What's the relevance of my story? Just that when I see a vulnerable individual ahead of me (even a dog) with which/whom I might collide, my absolute priority is to avoid such a collision and to prepare to stop (or slow as much as I can) before the likely point of impact. Issuing a verbal warning is absolutely not sufficient, and does not excuse me from my responsibility to make all efforts to avoid hitting them.

I do it for dogs, but this guy doesn't seem to think he needed to be able to do it for humans.