Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[LollyKat]

... as I so often do on these police and court procedure threads, I tried to add something from my knowledge and experience, tempered with being a cyclist myself ...

An approach much appreciated by me and, I hope, others here.

+1

+1

[reohn2]

Apart from the loss of life and a young man facing custody, it would be a foolish cyclist who didn't see this crash and the aftermath as a shipwreck episode for cycling. It needs a damage limitation approach, rather than a combination of blaming pedestrians and trying to use it as an example of how drivers get away with, well, murder, even though that is palpably so. Accepting that lawbreaking is wrong isn't piling into the attack. As I posted above, it's the only way to deal with the question.

Agreed,cycling in this country is aleady out on a limb for the most part,and an attitude of cyclists being whiter than white won't serve cycling in joe public's jaundiced view at this time.

A young mother has lost her life and her family will suffer for the rest of their lives,it's worth remembering that before anything.

I know that I've contributed a lot to this thread and at some length

And at risk of embarassing you,I for one welcome your balanced approach and considered opinions on such threads.

[thirdcrank]

Two quick points :-

MJR
The first one about communication. Had you linked to the CUK press release with your original comment, I for one, would have known what you were talking about and my post would have been shorter by at least the following sentence

A lot in one sentence there and I'm not sure which things you are getting at.

More generally, to other members, as I said above, I'm nor canvassing support, so please let's not derail an important thread over something so trivial. I should have bitten my tongue.

[mjr]

Two quick points :-

MJR
The first one about communication. Had you linked to the CUK press release with your original comment, I for one, would have known what you were talking about and my post would have been shorter by at least the following sentence

I have no copy paste from the kindle and the multi quote doesn't work to quote posts from so far back. I apologise for the ambiguity.

I'm not sure what you're calling derailment (the response from culs and others seems pretty central to me) but I'll leave that post here.

[Vorpal]

IMO, whatever we think, or don't about the young man involved in this case, he did something wrong, and was prosecuted for it. I see no need to come out in support of him or his actions, and I feel sympathy for the victim and her family. On balance, I don't think that outcome is unreasonable.

That does not mean, however, that I think it is unreasonable to criticise either the media attention this has gotten, nor the disparity with prosecuting motorists.

Where is the media attention on the hundreds of pedestrians killed each year by motor vehicles? Where is the anger and outrage? Why the hell do we let this carnage on our roads continue?

That is what this needs to be about. Not this specific case. Not this young man who complicated his situation by demonstrating his poor attitiude after the fact. Not about whether fixies should have front brakes. And most definitely not about what the pedestrian did, because pedestrians do unpredictable things all the time and don't deserve to die for it, anymore than cyclists do.

Where is the outrage about the thousands of deaths on the roads every year? If this many people were killed by anything other than our shrine of modern society, they would be up in arms about why the government isn't doing anything.

[horizon]

+1 (though I take thirdcrank's point)

[gaz]

CUK's statement said Alliston's ridng was stupid and illegal, so it's selective quoting rather than misquoting but it's entirely predictable and it was a mistake to lead the news releases and several interviews with such statements because that's all that's getting repeated and thrown in the face of many other cycling interviewees. As you correctly say IMO, this needed damage limitation... but CUK gave it further condemnation instead.

I can understand your viewpoint.

There was no question initially to deal with. CUK mounted a completely unprovoked attack on Alliston at the outset of its press release. I feel it should have said in the first sentence or two that Alliston's riding seems to have been illegal but this is a very rare occurrence and not typical of UK cycling.

Cycling UK make their statements to a media that is geared up to operate on a damned if you do, damned if you don't basis.

I understand that Cycling UK is being described in today's Times as a "well resourced lobbying organisation", "adept at cherry picking facts". At least they're not able to add that Cycling UK failed to condemn Alliston.

[mjr]

"Well resourced" huh? Based on what fraction of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders budget? Or even what fraction of HSBCUKBC's? Murdoch's Times is truly a post-truth newspaper if that's what it's saying.

CUK could have condemned it without overdoing it and come out no worse in the times IMO. The response of Stop The Killing has been so much better, yet again.

[rob_wales]

I now live in rural West Wales, where the cycling is somewhat more calm. But back in the 90's I worked in Old Street in the BT building. For those of you who don't know that area I can assure you it is an area where ALL road users need to use extreme caution and consideration. But that clearly doesn't happen very often. I sometimes cycled to and from work in NE London, and I always felt I was risking my life. Equally, most days I had to cross Old Street as a pedestrian, which was a very risky venture unless you used the crossing near the roundabout, or the other one about 300m west of the roundabout. I don't know exactly where this tragic accident happened in Old Street but I think all road users and pedestrians need to show the utmost care and consideration. Most accidents are caused by 'human error' rather than unavoidable malfunctioning machinery. The Highway Code is pretty clear on pedestrian responsibility for crossing a road. And I the law is reported to be equally clear on the fitting of suitable brakes to specialist bikes.

BTW: I just rejoined the CTC (who changed the name!) after 30 years because I have been so troubled by this case. I'll confess my primary concern was third-party insurance, but it's good to back anyway!

[SilverBadge]

It may have been the finest of lines but a jury of twelve members of the public determined the detail and decided (unanimously?) upon which side of that finest of lines the defendant's conduct lay.

http://road.cc/content/news/227982-lond ... strian-kim

"The jury began its deliberations on Monday afternoon, and were today [ Wednesday ] directed by Judge Wendy Joseph QC that a majority verdict would be acceptable.

She said: "The time has now come when I can accept a verdict which is not the verdict of you all. I can accept a verdict on which all 12 are agreed, on which 11 are agreed or 10 of you are agreed, but nothing less will do."

Dunno whether the final score is officially disclosed anywhere?

[bigjim]

Take away all the rhetoric about the shouting and language. Social media posts. Lack of a front brake. Cyclist character.
The bare facts-

The cyclist was riding appropriately on the road within the speed limit.
A lady stepped into his path.
He shouted a warning, slowed down and attempted to swerve around her.
Unfortunately, she stepped back into his revised path and their heads accidently collided.

No crime or criminal intent here. IMO.

[gaz]

Take away all the rhetoric about the shouting and language. Social media posts. Lack of a front brake. Cyclist character.

Those things are also facts. When considering what has happened why should some facts be taken away and not others?

[reohn2]

Take away all the rhetoric about the shouting and language. Social media posts. Lack of a front brake. Cyclist character.

Those things are also facts. When considering what has happened why should some facts be taken away and not others?

But are they relevant facts?

[MartinC]

...................
The cyclist was riding appropriately on the road within the speed limit.
A lady stepped into his path.
He shouted a warning, slowed down and attempted to swerve around her.
Unfortunately, she stepped back into his revised path and their heads accidently collided....................

This is, as far as I can tell from the reports, a reasonable summary of hat happened. To me, whether the cyclist was committing an offence or not and his moral responsibility hinges on the detail of how appropriate the extent of his slowing and attempts at avoidance were and what he could reasonably expect of the pedestrian. I've seen the verdict but not any elucidation of these points.

[SilverBadge]

A young mother has lost her life and her family will suffer for the rest of their lives,it's worth remembering that before anything.

Two road users both exhibited substandard behaviour and a collision resulted.
It was an extremely unlikely probability that such a collision would result in a fatality.
It was equally plausible that the fatality would be the cyclist.