Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[Giles Pargiter]

Sorry. Just wanted to follow this thread, I find it interesting but having nothing to say on it.

[mikeonabike]

According to BBC news, the cyclist gave evidence today. He said that the pedestrian had got half way across so he aimed to pass behind her, then at the last moment she stepped back into his path. By this time he had slowed to about 10mph, but couldn't have stopped even if he had had a front brake.

Does the CCTV support his story?

[landsurfer]

Having followed this story on the Guardian and Telegraph on-line platforms i am horrified by this young mans arrogance and total victim blaming approach to his own defence .... we don't like victim blamers on this site .. do we ? ...

[ossie]

According to BBC news, the cyclist gave evidence today. He said that the pedestrian had got half way across so he aimed to pass behind her, then at the last moment she stepped back into his path. By this time he had slowed to about 10mph, but couldn't have stopped even if he had had a front brake.

Does the CCTV support his story?

Surely subjudice ..you seriously expect the general populace to comment on CCTV in a manslaughter case when the trial is ongoing ?

[mikeonabike]

It's all in open court. Any jury members who browse this forum would be well-advised not to click on this thread

[The utility cyclist]

The application of the rules/laws/situation to this case seem to differ massively to motorvehicle v pedestrian/person on a bike/motorist incidents, same old natch.

If I'm driving, or cycling, or even running/walking at speed I will adjust my course to take into account the hazards on the road. If I encounter a dithering smombie I will adjust my course/speed such that I do not, and could not, hit them. The only exception to that would likely be if the smombie suddenly dived infront of me as I was passing, even then I tend to give them a fairly wide berth so it would have to be a proper flying leap. On the bike there is even more self incentive for me to do this as I am not a fan of road rash.

As much as I can only speculate without seeing the CCTV it is hard to have much sympathy with this guy currently. Riding without a front brake is, for a start, just plain reckless. Even though I would consider the MTB test to be invalid (and really any half competent defence should have been on that), the reality is that in the dry, a road bike will stop near enough as quickly, the limiting factor in such conditions is going over the handle bars, not front tyre traction. Also given reports said the 'target' stopping distance was estimated from the point at which he started evasive manoeuvres then the thinking distance is not really an issue.

Personally I'd agree that standards to which road users are held are different and typically lenient on motor vehicle drivers. I would rather we held them to (much) higher standards, not just drop the bar to the lowest common denominator. If this had been a car and cyclist we'd all be pretty annoyed and it would likely end up in the 'lenient sentencing' thread.

Do you/anyone drive at 15mph in a 30mph zone when there are people at the side of the road/possibly waiting to cross, if not why not?
if someone walks in front of you some way in front (let's say 30m for instance) do you slam on the brakes to come to an immediate stop, if not, why not? The inference from the facts as stated is that one is expected to slam on the brakes to come to a complete stop every time that happens or the possibility of it happening, this just isn't how things happen, drivers and cyclists rarely if ever do this. To make out that the stopping/braking time to come to a complete stop from xx speed for this case is simply well out of the norm compared to similar/same situations.

The defendant slowed, this is a fact, that he did not come to an immediate stop is not out of the ordinary/ out of line with any other road user, that the deceased failed to cross in the generally expected manner means the defendant had to use more thinking time (on top of his initial thinking time to slow and shout the first warning) to again calling a warning to them (much like a horn). this was again apparently ignored by the deceased who still failed to cross in an expected manner to the point the defendant wasn't sure what they were doing and tried to steer around them. How can one seemingly still be in the middle of the carriagway that is only a few metres wide after almost 4 seconds unless one has walked out, stopped, moved back and forth or simply thought the road was an okay place to stand in the middle of?

There is only so much one can do when presented with a totally unepected scenario, the front brake being there or not is irrelevant to what happened, one cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that firstly there would be no collision (the thinking time and secondary thinking time alone would make up most of the timescale from whence the defendant stepped off the footway/path) and secondly that even if the collision was at 1mph the outcome would not be demonstrably have being any different. people whom fall from a standing position die from head injuries.

The travesty is that this has gone to court at all when comparing to other cases that have in fact far more carelessness/recklessness on the part of the killer utilising huge masses at much higher speeds that have being written off as 'accidents' by the police et al (Michael Mason case for one where he was victim blamed by the scummy Met police, helen measures who blamed her victim for another and so on).

There is a sickeningly and frankly human rights breaching hate crime witch-hunt/bias against people on bikes and this case just shows how the rules and laws of the land are applied differently depending on which out group you belong to. it's no different to racial minorities being stitched up on the basis of colour of skin/ethnic background.
people on bikes ARE being targetted, this is glaringly obvious, the bias against people on bikes in incidents is rife either as victims or as alleged perpatrators.

[Bonefishblues]

It's all in open court. Any jury members who browse this forum would be well-advised not to click on this thread

Jurers are specifically instructed to avoid the internet and further not to attempt to research any aspect of a case of its context.

[landsurfer]

The utility cyclist;

Your passion on this matter is obvious and to be welcomed.

She did not go out to die that day.
He did not go out to kill her.
But she died, and he did not.
He is innocent of murder.
But he still killed her.
He could have fitted brakes to his bike.
That would have given him greater control of his bikes path in a crowed urban environment.
He made the decision not to.
But that did not kill her.
He could have propelled his mass at a different velocity.
He chose the velocity of his passage.

But he killed her.

How very sad for all ...

[Bonefishblues]

Do you/anyone drive at 15mph in a 30mph zone when there are people at the side of the road/possibly waiting to cross, if not why not?
if someone walks in front of you some way in front (let's say 30m for instance) do you slam on the brakes to come to an immediate stop, if not, why not? The inference from the facts as stated is that one is expected to slam on the brakes to come to a complete stop every time that happens or the possibility of it happening, this just isn't how things happen, drivers and cyclists rarely if ever do this. To make out that the stopping/braking time to come to a complete stop from xx speed for this case is simply well out of the norm compared to similar/same situations.

The defendant slowed, this is a fact, that he did not come to an immediate stop is not out of the ordinary/ out of line with any other road user, that the deceased failed to cross in the generally expected manner means the defendant had to use more thinking time (on top of his initial thinking time to slow and shout the first warning) to again calling a warning to them (much like a horn). this was again apparently ignored by the deceased who still failed to cross in an expected manner to the point the defendant wasn't sure what they were doing and tried to steer around them. How can one seemingly still be in the middle of the carriagway that is only a few metres wide after almost 4 seconds unless one has walked out, stopped, moved back and forth or simply thought the road was an okay place to stand in the middle of?

There is only so much one can do when presented with a totally unepected scenario, the front brake being there or not is irrelevant to what happened, one cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that firstly there would be no collision (the thinking time and secondary thinking time alone would make up most of the timescale from whence the defendant stepped off the footway/path) and secondly that even if the collision was at 1mph the outcome would not be demonstrably have being any different. people whom fall from a standing position die from head injuries.

The travesty is that this has gone to court at all when comparing to other cases that have in fact far more carelessness/recklessness on the part of the killer utilising huge masses at much higher speeds that have being written off as 'accidents' by the police et al (Michael Mason case for one where he was victim blamed by the scummy Met police, helen measures who blamed her victim for another and so on).

There is a sickeningly and frankly human rights breaching hate crime witch-hunt/bias against people on bikes and this case just shows how the rules and laws of the land are applied differently depending on which out group you belong to. it's no different to racial minorities being stitched up on the basis of colour of skin/ethnic background.
people on bikes ARE being targetted, this is glaringly obvious, the bias against people on bikes in incidents is rife either as victims or as alleged perpatrators.

So the young man who was knowingly riding a bicycle that was illegal and who had the misfortune to meet someone who didn't do what she was expected to and as a result ran into her and caused her death should have been treated how?

Because other cases aren't treated with the degree of seriousness you consider they should be, then neither should this be?

Hate crime. Seriously?

[landsurfer]

Hate crime. Seriously?

+1
Absolutely not a "Hate crime" ... the seekers of "Victimhood" are gathering .....

[reohn2]

I think things are beginning to get a bit hysterical on both sides of the fence.

[landsurfer]

I think things are beginning to get a bit hysterical on both sides of the fence.

Now come on .. lets not blame Women for this ...

But otherwise i have to agree with you ....

[Bez]

Gail Purcell killed a cyclist in London and her defence was she did not see him. She walked away.
The driver of the Bath Tipper with defective brakes which killed four people walked away.

The first was a very different case.

The Bath lorry driver was on trial regarding his standard of driving, not for a charge relating to the roadworthiness of the vehicle. He was presumably found not to have driven in a manner which was below the expected standard, and it was presumably shown that the brakes were the cause of the loss of control. The two people responsible for the condition of the brakes were both convicted of manslaughter.

[reohn2]

I think things are beginning to get a bit hysterical on both sides of the fence.

Now come on .. lets not blame Women for this .....

I wasn't blaming anyone just observing the way the thread's developed.
There's no winners in this,least of all the deceased's family,two children without a mother and her partner/husband left alone to try and explain and bring them up.
A young man's life ruined,maybe he believes it's not his fault,and I make no judgement either way,but the enormity of it will haunt him,if not now then later.

IMO people seldom realise the possible consequences of their actions and lack of attention,which can cut both ways
A tragedy,so many each day and more often than not just to save a little time or money.....

[landsurfer]

There's no winners in this,least of all the deceased's family,two children without a mother and her partner/husband left alone to try and explain and bring them up.
A young man's life ruined,maybe he believes it's not his fault,and I make no judgement either way,but the enormity of it will haunt him,if not now then later.

IMO people seldom realise the possible consequences of their actions and lack of attention,which can cut both ways
A tragedy,so many each day and more often than not just to save a little time or money.....

+1
Well said Sir.