On 26/08/2017 19:37, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:33:47 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/08/2017 15:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Simon Jester wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:09:09 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
This is the response of Cycling UK

http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-relea...-alliston-case

"Riding a fixed wheel bicycle on busy roads without a front brake
is illegal, stupid, and endangers other road users especially
pedestrians. Charlie Alliston's actions had tragic consequences for
Kim Briggs' family, and it was entirely right that this led to his
prosecution."

And if the cyclist had died the first question asked would be 'Was he
wearing a helmet?' A low energy impact like this is just the sort of
thing cycle helmets can protect against so why doesn't Mad Angela
campaign for mandatory pedestrian helmets?


Because the would make her "Sensible Angie" and that's never going to
happen.


It is quite feasible that the woman would have survived the impact if
the cyclist HAD been wearing a helmet, so why was the cyclist NOT
wearing a helmet.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Did you not read the reports of the case?

The killer cyclist said under oath that his head had collided with the
victim's head. That could have been the fatal blow. There are recorded
isntances of drivers being killed when their head is struck by the head
of a rear seat passenger.