Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Cyclist on illegal bike who killed a pedestrian on manslaughter charged 'blamed victim'



GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,473
Gloucester
flipover_1.jpg

Nice picture of someone apparently too stupid to operate front and rear brakes at the same time.
 














beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
No, the only thing we've established is NSC doesn't know all the facts and wildly conjecture, as usual.

from the Guardian:
Alliston said he shouted twice after spotting Briggs. Asked why he did so, the defendant replied: “To make the pedestrian aware of my presence, so they were aware if they were to then cross the road.”

He said he directed a second shout towards Briggs and slowed down as he approached her, while manoeuvring his bike to avoid her.

“After the collision, I just jumped straight back up to my feet, turned around, saw what happened and then went blank,” Alliston said.

Alliston told the court that if he had had a brake, “I wouldn’t have had enough time to pull it. It was a few split seconds prior to the impact, which caused the impact, so a brake at the time wouldn’t have made a difference.”

he shouted twice, he slowed; he had time to react yet not enough to avoid crashing. its hardly wild conjecture to suppose that's because he had insufficient braking.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,989
Goldstone
I am not so sure. I think, sadly, we have just become so accustomed to hearing about fatal accidents caused by drivers disregard for the law that we just shrug our shoulders and barely give it a moments thought.
Have you seen the NSC threads on drivers using mobiles?
I read in the Argus today about a young driver arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving after killing his passenger in a crash. I doubt there will be a thread on that or much outrage for a life needlessly lost.
It depends on the profile of the court case etc.

1) He had back brakes.
No he didn't. His back wheel was fixed to the pedals, but that's not the same thing.
2) It wasn't a 2 tonne car and there was no mobile phone.
Most cars aren't 2 tonnes either. It was still a fast moving vehicle, easily capable of killing someone. It could have been a child instead of an adult he hit.

3) It was just a kid on a bike trying to swerve past a pedestrian that hadn't looked (as I read it).
It wasn't a kid, it was an adult. He was driving a dangerous illegal bike on the road. He may well have tried to swerve, no one is saying he killed her on purpose (that would be murder rather than manslaughter), but I expect she'd have lived if his bike was road legal.

You want ifs?
Well it's not that I want them, it's just basic to determining guilt and culpability.
If she hadn't walked out into the road and walked back into him she'd be alive.
Yes, so you can argue contributory negligence.
If with extra brakes he hit her at 5 rather than 10mph would she have died? No idea, no-one has.
Firstly, it wasn't necessarily 10mph, it could have been 18. Secondly, with brakes he might have stopped altogether, he had time to call out twice. Thirdly, if he had hit her at a lot less speed, then she probably would have lived. You say 'no idea', but that's wrong. There are adverts on tv explaining that speed kills and pedestrians have a much greater chance of survival when vehicles are going slower.

It was an accident, both were to blame.
Agreed. Her punishment is death, you think his should be nothing.
The kid is going to be scarred for life, let him suffer with that.
That's hearsay. His online posts don't look like the posts of a man that is scarred for life.
 




Bra

Well-known member
Feb 21, 2009
1,366
patcham
Not sure I get this. If I am involved in an accident in my car which is not road legal I would expect to face prosecution whether the initial fault is mine or not. Why should this cyclist be any different.
 








The Fifth Column

Retired ex-cop
Nov 30, 2010
4,008
Escaped from Corruption
Because many cyclists condider themselves above the law

A lot of them do consider themselves above road traffic law. On a drive in my car into Brighton city centre on an average day I can guarantee seeing at least 2-3 cyclists or more running red lights or otherwise ignoring traffic signs etc. I can also guarantee seeing other motorists 'beating' the lights as they change and committing other traffic offences but given the proportion of cyclists to motor vehicles is tiny it does seem that a large proportion of cyclists feel that the road traffic act does not apply to them.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patreon
Oct 8, 2003
49,337
Faversham
from the Guardian:


he shouted twice, he slowed; he had time to react yet not enough to avoid crashing. its hardly wild conjecture to suppose that's because he had insufficient braking.

Or that the pedestrian was on the phone and walked into him (like pople do to me when I am walking in London - three in a minute one morning). Not saying this is what happned because the case has not been heard yet. No sure why there is a need for so much hot air on this thread, just because the accused has been emoting on twitter. None of us know the facts, and many of the deductions seem to be based on whether folk are cyclists or hate cyclists. :shrug:
 






beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
Or that the pedestrian was on the phone and walked into him

that may well be the case, however his own testimony is that he had time to shout at her twice, yet not enough time to slow or stop. he's in court because of his actions and suspected negligence, not those of the victim.
 


midnight_rendezvous

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2012
3,737
The Black Country
it does seem that a large proportion of cyclists feel that the road traffic act does not apply to them.

Well that's just not true. Like motorists, it is the miniroty of cyclists who play fast and loose with the rules of the road. Sweeping generalisations such as this only succeed in turning debates into an 'us vs. them' mindset, which doesn't help anyone.
 




Aug 23, 2011
1,864
No he didn't. His back wheel was fixed to the pedals, but that's not the same thing.

So he had no brakes at all? His argument that he was ignorant of the fact he needed a front brake surely goes out the window if he had no brakes? That is surely common sense to have some way to stop.

(as an aside i'm pretty sure i knew from about 6 years old that you needed both front and back brakes to cycle on the road)
 




Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
73,371
West west west Sussex
So he had no brakes at all? His argument that he was ignorant of the fact he needed a front brake surely goes out the window if he had no brakes? That is surely common sense to have some way to stop.

(as an aside i'm pretty sure i knew from about 6 years old that you needed both front and back brakes to cycle on the road)

Not in the conventional handlebar sense, no.

To slow down he would have had to modify his pedaling
To emergency stop he would have needed to 'pedal backwards'.

But as said a few times, the rear wheel is no use for stopping, as all locking that would do is slow you down, assuming the rider could control the skid.
 


Aug 23, 2011
1,864
Apparently crash investigator Edward Small said she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash. (calculated from CCTV)

3.8 seconds at 18mph is ~30 metres. Why did he crash into her?
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here