Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[landsurfer]

Society, appears to be able to completely ignore the many hundreds of deaths/serious injuries caused by motorised vehicles each day and yet go completely crazy when it is caused by a cyclist, despite the fact that it is a very rare occurrence.

Possibly the "the many hundreds of deaths/serious injuries caused by motorised vehicles each day" actually has no relevance in this case ?

[Bonefishblues]

Nobody is going completely crazy, but unusual things make news. Cycling-related stuff gets debated on cycling forums too.

[tatanab]

And the rear unfortunately, track bike....

There is no requirement for a brake calliper on the rear of a fixed wheel cycle. The fixed IS the brake. There is of course a requirement for a front brake to go along with the fixed wheel if used on the public highway. See section 7(b) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983 ... 176_en.pdf
30 years ago I rode fixed almost exclusively and never had a rear brake calliper. I would maintain that riding fixed saved me in a couple of situations where I'd have been in trouble with a freewheel. It is possible to use the back wheel for steering in extremis, not planned just instinctive, and a lot quicker than reaching for brakes. Perhaps the young man here was not as experienced or skilled as he would like to believe.

I keep harping on about rear brakes and fixed because there seems to be some confusion in a few people's minds about what is fixed/single speed/coaster and what comprises a brake in terms of the construction and use document linked above. I understand of course that there will be people without experience of riding these types of machine. This in no way detracts from the disgust I feel for the courier/hipster brigade who seem to think that legal requirements for braking do not apply to them.

Note that there is a very similar case involving a rider on an un-roadworthy scooter/moped, Sorry I cannot find the link at the moment, it was in the Daily Mail online this morning.

[reohn2]

.........Society, appears to be able to completely ignore the many hundreds of deaths/serious injuries caused by motorised vehicles each day and yet go completely crazy when it is caused by a cyclist, despite the fact that it is a very rare occurrence.

I think you're right and I think the reason is that the media's attention is because it's a cycling trajedy in the capital,and the cyclist's lack of a front brake is the main focus of the case.
TBH honest there are forces at work in the UK that will try to eleminate cycling on the road altogether if they can,and will use any case/excuse to further that end.
OTOH motorists can cause utter carnage daily and not be given more than a mention in passing by most of the media.
That doesn't excuse a crime should one have cost the life of the deceased,but the case's attention by the media in comparison is out of proportion to motoring crime that kills and maims many,many more people annually,and the perpetrators walk away with no more than a fine and points on their licence.

[reohn2]

.........Justice will out !

If you believe that of the UK legal system,frankly you're deluded,it's a myth that the UK system is interested in justice,there are far too many cases to prove the contrary.

[bigjim]

kills and maims many,many more people annually,and the perpetrators walk away with no more than a fine and points on their licence.

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.

[landsurfer]

And which system would you recommend ?

[reohn2]

And which system would you recommend ?

I'm not recommending any system on this thread,if you wish to you could start a separate thread.
What I am saying is that justice is sadly lacking in the extreme in the UK,and non more so than where motoring crime is involved,there are far too many cases that show that to be the case.

[landsurfer]

kills and maims many,many more people annually,and the perpetrators walk away with no more than a fine and points on their licence.

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.

Very valid point.
Does anyone have any access to the numbers of motorists being successfully convicted of injuring and killing cyclists as opposed to being charged and being acquitted, year by year, possibly a ROSPA or Police Authority figure?
Surely the CTC would have an overview ... or more likely the Insurance Companies ...Claims Management companies would base their business around figures like that ... i think.

[reohn2]

kills and maims many,many more people annually,and the perpetrators walk away with no more than a fine and points on their licence.

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.

Very valid point.
Does anyone have any access to the numbers of motorists being successfully convicted of injuring and killing cyclists as opposed to being charged and being acquitted, year by year, possibly a ROSPA or Police Authority figure?
Surely the CTC would have an overview ... or more likely the Insurance Companies ...Claims Management companies would base their business around figures like that ... i think.

Thread with 52 pages of information to start with:- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50829

[mjr]

Anyone else finding all this guesstimation of speed, stopping distances, the accused actions, etc a bit distasteful in light of this being a case under court consideration and especially because a 44 year old woman died in this incident?

I mean come on we're arguing over factors we aren't privy to enough information. It's about a death of another human, who no doubt has family and friends. Would you want discussions over the event that killed your daughter/son/mum discussed in a public forum just for keyboard warrior's entertainment or point scoring on behalf of cyclists or for any other reason you have?

I think there's a feeling that justice isn't blindly accepting whatever incredible claims the prosecution's experts make or are reported as making. Some of the stuff on the mainstream news websites is disgraceful. Little on here comes close.

If my wife or mother were run over, I'd not have any problem with online comments considering the accuracy of the evidence. I'd not be so fond of attempts to blame the victim, though!

[drossall]

30 years ago I rode fixed almost exclusively and never had a rear brake calliper. I would maintain that riding fixed saved me in a couple of situations where I'd have been in trouble with a freewheel.

I can sympathise with this. I've ridden fixed with and without a rear caliper brake (but with a front one, obviously). The problem with having a rear caliper is that you then have two brakes on the rear, which is easily locked up as it is. I gave myself quite a fright on one occasion.

I once watched part of the MoT test on our car. One thing that made me curious was that the test expected less powerful braking on the rear. The mechanic explained that this was for stability (in a car, remember), because of the way that (in any vehicle) weight is "thrown onto the front wheel(s)" in braking.

Although I do have a rear caliper at present (and a V brake at that), I conclude that a fixed-wheel machine with a rear caliper brake would fail the MoT test, were such a test to be necessary.

[thirdcrank]

One very obvious difference to me between car and cycle brakes is that the latter are normally independently operated so you could cause yourself problems with over-enthusiastic braking at front or back.

[gaz]

Does anyone have any access to the numbers of motorists being successfully convicted of injuring and killing cyclists as opposed to being charged and being acquitted, year by year, possibly a ROSPA or Police Authority figure?

Cycling UK Prosecutors and Courts briefing.

The number of people who are killed in road crashes far exceeds the number of drivers who are convicted for causing death by driving. In 2015, there were 1,568 road deaths in England and Wales, but only 122 people convicted of ‘causing death by dangerous driving’, and 176 of ‘causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving'.
Between 1990 and 2015, counting principal offences alone, the number of people taken to court in England and Wales for causing death or serious injury by driving, or of dangerous or careless driving fell by c72%, with a c77% drop in convictions. It is unlikely that a drop on this scale reflects better driving standards. Even though the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) declined by c62% over this same period, this is still significantly less than the decline in the number of people proceeded against or found guilty of bad driving offences.

Some 2016 figures from RoadPeace.

[Tangled Metal]

Anyone else finding all this guesstimation of speed, stopping distances, the accused actions, etc a bit distasteful in light of this being a case under court consideration and especially because a 44 year old woman died in this incident?

I mean come on we're arguing over factors we aren't privy to enough information. It's about a death of another human, who no doubt has family and friends. Would you want discussions over the event that killed your daughter/son/mum discussed in a public forum just for keyboard warrior's entertainment or point scoring on behalf of cyclists or for any other reason you have?

I think there's a feeling that justice isn't blindly accepting whatever incredible claims the prosecution's experts make or are reported as making. Some of the stuff on the mainstream news websites is disgraceful. Little on here comes close.

If my wife or mother were run over, I'd not have any problem with online comments considering the accuracy of the evidence. I'd not be so fond of attempts to blame the victim, though!

Well I think I would have issues with the general feeling of cyclists closing ranks. By this I mean there is a lot of posts expressing doubt that lack of front brake would have an effect without having evidence only spurious opinions, links supporting their view and assumptions.

The facts of this case are being placed in front if a jury. A jury of peers. Yes peers because you can bet there will be motorists and cyclists on the jury. This jury sees all the evidence not just the evidence that's being presented by the media like the rest of us. They see all the arguments from prosecution and defence. Experts from both sides, witnesses, etc. We'll not see our hear.about it all.

So in light of this we have no idea of what is the truth. Let's face it this is all speculation. The only thing that matters is happening in the court. I just think that sometimes forum speculation on events resulting in a loss of life while a trial relating to it is.happening isn't right for many reasons. Personally I think it's time to leave this topic and revisit after there's a verdict.

I don't know if the family and friends of the deceased read this forum. I don't know if reading this causes them issues. What I do know is I personally find it leaves me a bad taste to read people making their own judgements on such little in the way of facts/evidence. The way some jump to his defence so really, others go the other way. Among all this there's the odd bit of calm from the likes of thirdcrank giving information relevant to the process and charges.

I just put the idea out there that we should give this matter a break until after the court process reaches a conclusion or at least until there's a verdict. I also wish media would drop the story until then.