Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-new ... run-511534

"A Torquay woman who was knocked down and left bleeding with broken bones by a hit-and-run cyclist on Torquay sea front today backed calls for a change in the law. Ingrid De Leyva told DevonLive: "I was bleeding so much that my dogs were licking it up. The cyclist just rode away."
Ingrid, who is 69, wants to see cyclists regulated as more and more riders take to pavements and 'shared footways' around Torbay.

She believes there should be:
•Compulsory tests for cyclists in line with the driving test
•Bells or horns fitted to all bikes at all times
•Cyclists to pay tax towards the installation and upkeep of bike lanes
•Cyclists to have insurance in the event of accidents
•Bikes to display number plates so the owners can be identified"

[bertgrower]

Today notting Hil
Cycle user riding gear bike no brakes use his foot to slow down

Near paddington

Cycle user single gear no back brake.

There is lot of this happerning in central london

[mjr]

Hi,
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-new ... run-511534

More irresponsible incitement from the local press. They should be challenging the mad claims, not giving a platform for such hateful views. For example, it sounds like the cyclists who knocked that woman down were already ignoring the laws that we already have, so why does she think they would abide by a load of new obnoxious ones? Most of the people punished by such new petty laws would be law-abiding cyclists - the scofflaws would continue ignoring them while there's no enforcement, but if you pass such nasty laws and then increased enforcement, officers would have their hands full with cyclists who were previously legal and still not catch many of the reckless ones! A far better solution would be to keep the current laws and increase enforcement of them.

[reohn2]

Last night's local news:- http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... l-13689771

Says it all really

[ChrisButch]

Hi,
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-new ... run-511534

More irresponsible incitement from the local press. They should be challenging the mad claims, not giving a platform for such hateful views. For example, it sounds like the cyclists who knocked that woman down were already ignoring the laws that we already have, so why does she think they would abide by a load of new obnoxious ones? Most of the people punished by such new petty laws would be law-abiding cyclists - the scofflaws would continue ignoring them while there's no enforcement, but if you pass such nasty laws and then increased enforcement, officers would have their hands full with cyclists who were previously legal and still not catch many of the reckless ones! A far better solution would be to keep the current laws and increase enforcement of them.

It appears from the comments after the Devon Live article that the victim is locally well known as an anti-cycling obsessive who regularly stands in front of cyclists on the promenade and shouts abuse. Thus not exactly surprising that this incident happened.

[CJ]

Juries are always being asked to decide what is reasonable, what should have been anticipated, and what should be considered reckless.

In a non-cycling country like ours, I am afraid that the average jurist probably considers any suggestion that they might themselves ride a bicycle upon a road, amongst traffic, as unreasonable and hence view anyone who indulges in that activity as reckless in some degree. And given the vanishingly small number of people who are 'reckless' enough to ride their bikes on high-speed A-roads, it seems to be the case that the presence of a cyclist on that kind of road is not something the average jurist considers should be anticipated by a reasonably careful driver. All of this would explain how drivers routinely get away scot free, with carelessly killing cyclists on main roads.

[CJ]

The correct approach is to have absolute standards of driving. Being within 1m laterally of a cyclist is not acceptable behaviour, and should be penalised in it's own right - but it should also be a 'statutory dangerous driving' in the same way that other crimes have statutory equivalents.

Correct approach, but not enough. As evidenced by this road-sign I photographed a few weeks ago in Northern Spain, other European countries expect at least 1.5m clearance.

We should demand nothing less.

[reohn2]

Juries are always being asked to decide what is reasonable, what should have been anticipated, and what should be considered reckless.

In a non-cycling country like ours, I am afraid that the average jurist probably considers any suggestion that they might themselves ride a bicycle upon a road, amongst traffic, as unreasonable and hence view anyone who indulges in that activity as reckless in some degree. And given the vanishingly small number of people who are 'reckless' enough to ride their bikes on high-speed A-roads, it seems to be the case that the presence of a cyclist on that kind of road is not something the average jurist considers should be anticipated by a reasonably careful driver. All of this would explain how drivers routinely get away scot free, with carelessly killing cyclists on main roads.

+1
In the UK it's become unreasonable to ride a bike on the road without inviting intimidation of somekind or other,after all the roads are too dangeous arent they?
Nor is it seen as reasonable to expect motorists to avoid knocking off such idiots

[The utility cyclist]

I don't mind 1 metre if they are going not much faster and hold their line and it's a car/small van, however that's not often the case

[CJ]

I think the biggest issue for many of the public was the charge:

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

The fact that the prosecution was under a 150 year old law (and one that predates current cycle design by 20 years) as there was nothing more appropriate gives an impression that there are no current laws to govern this case. The consequent call by the relatives and others for a review and a appropriate legislation is a common sense one from that perspective

It may sound quaintly antiquated but nevertheless seems to cover all relevant eventualities. All it needs IMHO is a more onerous top limit (14 rather than 2 years) and some sentencing guidelines in order to be fully equivalent to causing death by dangerous driving, which by the way is very seldom used, since causing death by careless driving (max penalty 4 years but typically much less) is easier to prove. So in all likelihood, had Charlie Alliston been driving a car (rather than a bike) with brakes he knew to be insufficient to stop in the distance most cars/bikes are able to stop, and found guilty of the latter charge, I don't think he'd've received a longer sentence. Do you?

[BakfietsUK]

I think a lot of people who might be Jurors may let their situation effect their outlook, especially in a driving case. I can imagine them saying, "that person in the dock could have been me", "but for the grace of God", etc. If this is the case in any way, I could see Jurors being reluctant to convict, as "the next time around it could be me in the dock". When driving is as ubiquitous as it seems to be in this country and other forms of getting around are given a lesser priority it seems likely that Jurors might be afraid to convict. Naturally I do not know this for sure, but just consider the implications for proper justice. One might say that this could have been borne out in practice, with the amount of drivers getting off very serious charges.

[CJ]

It is the public perception left by this case that there was only possible to prosecute under a law that predates the safety bicycle itself.

Does the law against murder pre-date the invention of firearms?

[bigjim]

I wonder what the situation would have been if the cyclist had been riding an older heavier design of bike with less efficient brakes, maybe even chrome rims? His stopping distance could have been much longer. Would that have been taken into account? Much like maybe somebody in a classic car faced with somebody stepping out in front of them.

[AdamS]

It is the public perception left by this case that there was only possible to prosecute under a law that predates the safety bicycle itself.

Does the law against murder pre-date the invention of firearms?

The public generally approve of prosecuting pavement cyclists despite the 1835 law used to prosecute pre-dating the invention of bicycles.
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is used to prosecute a range of well known serious offences (threats to kill, conspiracy to murder, abh, gbh, etc.). It is odd that a carriage driving offence should be the biggest pririoty for updating.

[[XAP]Bob]

The correct approach is to have absolute standards of driving. Being within 1m laterally of a cyclist is not acceptable behaviour, and should be penalised in it's own right - but it should also be a 'statutory dangerous driving' in the same way that other crimes have statutory equivalents.

Correct approach, but not enough. As evidenced by this road-sign I photographed a few weeks ago in Northern Spain, other European countries expect at least 1.5m clearance.

We should demand nothing less.

I didn't say 2m shouldn't be an offence...
You're right - but something should be done to actually define our standards of driving. We have seen the result - and a race to the worst possible standard is not a good result...