A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycle box death judge gets it right for once



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 28th 18, 01:07 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 28/09/2018 00:30, TMS320 wrote:

On 26/09/18 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2018 20:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/09/18 16:52, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2018 08:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 23:53, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 19:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 11:23, wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV
evidence in its piece.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman

"Northcott’s barrister, Harry Bentley, said the coach
driver was "desperately sorry" for Roman's death “and
at times he has considered ending his own life because
of it.""


Expressing sympathy and remorse. That's what TMS320 calls
"grovelling" (and treats it as an admission). If that view is widely
shared, it can be little wonder that insurance companies instruct
their polcyholders never to admit responsibility for collisions.

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was
reduced by this grovelling. (Compared to 18 months for
Charlie Alliston for not grovelling - and the court
seeming to accept that it was the victim that hadn't
paid attention.)

Alliston didn't express any remorse or sorrow. He even protested his
own "innocence" and thw victim's "guilt" on the internet.


I have no idea what he said on the internet (do you know his precise
words?)


You could easily have Googled it for yourself, but hey ho...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told

QUOTE:
Charlie Alliston ... was said to be going nearly 20mph when he mowed
down Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street, east London, on 12 February
last year. ... Alliston was riding a “fixie”, a fixed-gear track bicycle
with no front brake, which is not legal on the road ... He allegedly
shouted at Briggs to “get out of the way” twice before their heads
smashed together. Briggs suffered brain injuries including two skull
fractures and died a week later.

After seeing a newspaper report about the incident, Alliston posted a
comment online claiming he tried to warn her but she had “ignored” him
and “stopped dead” in his path.

He wrote: “I feel bad due to the seriousness of her injuries but I can
put my hand up and say this is not my fault.”

On an internet forum, he described how their heads collided and hers
“ricocheted” into his. He wrote: “It is a pretty serious incident so I
won’t bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault ...".

He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone. He complained:
“Everyone is quick to judge and help the so-called victim but not the
other person in the situation.
ENDQUOTE

The mobile phone fabrication was shown to be an absolute lie.

I hope this helps you.

but it is worth a reminder that the victim created the
conditions that demanded avoiding action. In normal circumstances, that
wouldn't require remorse.


I don't agree at all with that remark. But either way, Alliston showed
no remorse. He blamed the victim for his offences.

Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (that is,
once the charges and evidence have been made available
and the strength of the prosecution case thereby known)
and saving the Crown the expense of a trial is always
taken into account as a mitigating factor.

When did Alliston plead guilty?

By any chance do you put posts you read through an English
to Scouse translator, compose your replies in Scouse and
translate them back to English before posting? If you came
clean it would explain a great deal.

a) The question I raised was about grovelling, not about
admission of guilt.

The "grovelling" you referred to was as effective an
admission of guilt (in the form of a fairly extreme
expression of remorse as well as an admission that he broke
the rules on stop lines at traffic lights) as anyone could
wish for, and certainly not designed as an effective line of
defence. But did you think the driver literally prostrated
himself in court, with his arms outstretched begging for
mercy?

Why would I?

Because you used the word "grovelling" as opposed to "expressing
*remorse" (which is not "grovelling").

Grovelling does not require prostration. It is an adequate word for
the purpose.


But not for the expression of remorse.


So you prefer the word legal people use. Whatever. A road traffic
collision is caused by behaviour before the collision, so it is hard to
see how behaviour afterwards should have any bearing on the case.


It speaks to the attitude of the cyclist towards other people, of course.

Who knows... you might have had more evidence than was reported.

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty
by a jury. Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.

After he had effectively admitted the offence in his own
evidence.

I assume it was through cross-examination. If there is anything
to "admit", is not possible for a defendant to simply change
plea during the proceedings?

Some offences are obvious and the defendant knows whether he is
guilty (eg, burglary, assault, murder, cycling along a footway).
*Others (such as "causing death by careless driving" are not so
obvious or well-defined and it in the interest of a defendant to
at least allow the prosecution to prove the facts and how the law
*applies to them. This is particularly so with relatively new
offences whose meaning is not something with which all members of
the public are familiar. The inportant thing is to give truthful
evidence and not to behave in court like the accused rider of a
defective bicycle.

(And how come his legal team failed to anticipate the
prosecution line of questioning? Do they lose their fee?)

I doubt they did fail to anticipate it. They may well have
advised the NG plea and letting the Crown establish a case under
relatively new and uncharted law.

If running someone over that was visible ahead for 16 seconds isn't
a clear case of dangerous driving then the law needs more than a
bit of testing.


You obviously know the case far better than do the police, the CPS,
the trial judge and the jury.


What are you suggesting I know that nobody else knows? You can read the
press report containing the 16 second figure because it was linked on
this newsgroup.

Oh, and about your suggestion that they might have wanted to test the
law. If so, do you think they would have told the defendant what their
game was? Plead guilty and get it over with; plead not guilty and sit
through the whole trial go through cross-examination.


Testing the meaning and interpretation of new law (whether criminal or
administrative law) is par for the course. You know that.

Why don't you run round and tell them that they got it all wrong?

I'll wait here for your report of how you get on.

By way of contrast, the "young gentleman" on the brakeless
bike blamed the victim and completely exonerated himself,
praising his own skills to the skies and contrasting them
sharply with the lack of skill on the part of the woman he
killed.

Some part says he was probably right.

Are you such a part?

Yes.


Not quite the right word, I suspect, though getting there...

Although your precis is bound to be as accurate as the way
you
always reply to a poster with a question using an unrelated
collection of words.

There's the difference, even if you don't want, and will
refuse, to see and acknowledge it (which I confidently
predict).

I thought the courts were supposed to punish actions not
opinions.

The judge ran perilously close to judging the driver's opinions i
the reported remarks. It was his carelessness (or otherwise)
within the meaning of the law which was at issue.

You're not agreeing with me. Let's hope the judge in Charlie
Alliston's case was more concerned about technical (as in science)
matters than you obsess about his personality.


The central focus in the Alliston trial was the innocent victim. That
and his deliberately dangerous behaviour (despite his assuarances to
the court that it wasn't dangerous at all to cycle without brakes).


Greasing up and slipping into reporting mode doesn't change your long
stated obsession about his personality.


I am not interested in the personality of criminals. As long as they
stay on the right side of the law, they can pretend to be as damaged
mentally as they like.

Ads
  #32  
Old September 28th 18, 01:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

JNugent wrote:

After seeing a newspaper report about the incident, Alliston posted a
comment online claiming he tried to warn her but she had “ignored” him
and “stopped dead” in his path.


An experience to which all cyclists are accustomed.

Y.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))
  #33  
Old September 28th 18, 01:32 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 9:15:03 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 7:11:00 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by a jury.
Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.


Let's put that straight now, shall we?

QUOTE:

The coach driver who killed London cyclist Karla Roman when he turned left across her path has been jailed for 15 months for causing her death by careless driving, reports the London Evening Standard (link is external).

The court heard that Barry Northcott, who ***denied the charges*** (EMPHASIS MINE), only learnt that he had run her over when a passenger told him what had happened.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman


In other news, a bloke who should know better and is a role model to many youngsters wriggles out of driving at nearly SIXTY mph in a 40mph zone.

Even "Mr Asshole", the lawyer to the celebrity lawbreakers said that the law was wrong.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...convicted.html
  #34  
Old September 28th 18, 08:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,345
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 28/09/18 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 00:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/18 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2018 20:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/09/18 16:52, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2018 08:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 23:53, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 19:10, TMS320 wrote:



Alliston didn't express any remorse or sorrow. He even protested his
own "innocence" and thw victim's "guilt" on the internet.


I have no idea what he said on the internet (do you know his precise
words?)


You could easily have Googled it for yourself, but hey ho...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told


QUOTE:
Charlie Alliston ... was said to be going nearly 20mph when he mowed
down Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street, east London, on 12 February
last year. ... Alliston was riding a “fixie”, a fixed-gear track bicycle
with no front brake, which is not legal on the road ... He allegedly
shouted at Briggs to “get out of the way” twice before their heads
smashed together. Briggs suffered brain injuries including two skull
fractures and died a week later.

After seeing a newspaper report about the incident, Alliston posted a
comment online claiming he tried to warn her but she had “ignored” him
and “stopped dead” in his path.

He wrote: “I feel bad due to the seriousness of her injuries but I can
put my hand up and say this is not my fault.”

On an internet forum, he described how their heads collided and hers
“ricocheted” into his. He wrote: “It is a pretty serious incident so I
won’t bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault ...".

He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone. He complained:
“Everyone is quick to judge and help the so-called victim but not the
other person in the situation.
ENDQUOTE

The mobile phone fabrication was shown to be an absolute lie.


It depends on whether he pursued this, knowing it was false or whether
it was just a best assessment made in 3.8 seconds until shown the evidence.

Apart from that, the only problem is saying a victim "deserves" it. But
then, it is not an uncommon for motorists to say this.

I hope this helps you.


In other words your earlier post was the result of the usual Nugent
mangling.


but it is worth a reminder that the victim created the conditions that
demanded avoiding action. In normal circumstances, that wouldn't
require remorse.


I don't agree at all with that remark. But either way, Alliston showed
no remorse. He blamed the victim for his offences.


I very much doubt he blamed her for making him use a bike without a
front brake.


Grovelling does not require prostration. It is an adequate word for
the purpose.

But not for the expression of remorse.


So you prefer the word legal people use. Whatever. A road traffic
collision is caused by behaviour before the collision, so it is hard
to see how behaviour afterwards should have any bearing on the case.


It speaks to the attitude of the cyclist towards other people, of course.


Yes, it helps to fuel your prejudice.


Oh, and about your suggestion that they might have wanted to test the
law. If so, do you think they would have told the defendant what their
game was? Plead guilty and get it over with; plead not guilty and sit
through the whole trial go through cross-examination.


Testing the meaning and interpretation of new law (whether criminal or
administrative law) is par for the course. You know that.


I asked for your opinion on whether the defendant would have gone
through it voluntarily.


I thought the courts were supposed to punish actions not
opinions.

The judge ran perilously close to judging the driver's opinions i
the reported remarks. It was his carelessness (or otherwise)
within the meaning of the law which was at issue.

You're not agreeing with me. Let's hope the judge in Charlie
Alliston's case was more concerned about technical (as in science)
matters than you obsess about his personality.

The central focus in the Alliston trial was the innocent victim. That
and his deliberately dangerous behaviour (despite his assuarances to
the court that it wasn't dangerous at all to cycle without brakes).


Greasing up and slipping into reporting mode doesn't change your long
stated obsession about his personality.


I am not interested in the personality of criminals. As long as they
stay on the right side of the law, they can pretend to be as damaged
mentally as they like.


Would you like to have some of your previous posts dredged up?
  #35  
Old September 28th 18, 09:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 28/09/2018 20:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/18 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 00:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/18 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2018 20:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/09/18 16:52, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2018 08:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 23:53, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 19:10, TMS320 wrote:



Alliston didn't express any remorse or sorrow. He even protested his
own "innocence" and thw victim's "guilt" on the internet.

I have no idea what he said on the internet (do you know his precise
words?)


You could easily have Googled it for yourself, but hey ho...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told


QUOTE:
Charlie Alliston ... was said to be going nearly 20mph when he mowed
down Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street, east London, on 12 February
last year. ... Alliston was riding a “fixie”, a fixed-gear track
bicycle with no front brake, which is not legal on the road ... He
allegedly shouted at Briggs to “get out of the way” twice before their
heads smashed together. Briggs suffered brain injuries including two
skull fractures and died a week later.

After seeing a newspaper report about the incident, Alliston posted a
comment online claiming he tried to warn her but she had “ignored” him
and “stopped dead” in his path.

He wrote: “I feel bad due to the seriousness of her injuries but I can
put my hand up and say this is not my fault.”

On an internet forum, he described how their heads collided and hers
“ricocheted” into his. He wrote: “It is a pretty serious incident so I
won’t bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault ...".

He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone. He
complained: “Everyone is quick to judge and help the so-called victim
but not the other person in the situation.
ENDQUOTE

The mobile phone fabrication was shown to be an absolute lie.


It depends on whether he pursued this, knowing it was false or whether
it was just a best assessment made in 3.8 seconds until shown the evidence.


He was reported to have said it in his sworn or affirmed testimony in court.

Apart from that, the only problem is saying a victim "deserves" it. But
then, it is not an uncommon for motorists to say this.

I hope this helps you.


In other words your earlier post was the result of the usual Nugent
mangling.


Whatever you mean by that.

BTW: You started on about the Alliston case. I only mentioned it in passing.

but it is worth a reminder that the victim created the conditions
that demanded avoiding action. In normal circumstances, that wouldn't
require remorse.


I don't agree at all with that remark. But either way, Alliston showed
no remorse. He blamed the victim for his offences.


I very much doubt he blamed her for making him use a bike without a
front brake.


He didn't even accept that that was an offence.

Grovelling does not require prostration. It is an adequate word for
the purpose.

But not for the expression of remorse.

So you prefer the word legal people use. Whatever. A road traffic
collision is caused by behaviour before the collision, so it is hard
to see how behaviour afterwards should have any bearing on the case.


It speaks to the attitude of the cyclist towards other people, of course.


Yes, it helps to fuel your prejudice.

They're his words.

What do they tell you about him? Nothing at all?

Oh, and about your suggestion that they might have wanted to test the
law. If so, do you think they would have told the defendant what
their game was? Plead guilty and get it over with; plead not guilty
and sit through the whole trial go through cross-examination.


Testing the meaning and interpretation of new law (whether criminal or
administrative law) is par for the course. You know that.


I asked for your opinion on whether the defendant would have gone
through it voluntarily.


Which one are we talking about? The coach driver or the cyclist?

I thought the courts were supposed to punish actions not
opinions.

The judge ran perilously close to judging the driver's opinions i
the reported remarks. It was his carelessness (or otherwise)
within the meaning of the law which was at issue.

You're not agreeing with me. Let's hope the judge in Charlie
Alliston's case was more concerned about technical (as in science)
matters than you obsess about his personality.

The central focus in the Alliston trial was the innocent victim. That
and his deliberately dangerous behaviour (despite his assuarances to
the court that it wasn't dangerous at all to cycle without brakes).

Greasing up and slipping into reporting mode doesn't change your long
stated obsession about his personality.


I am not interested in the personality of criminals. As long as they
stay on the right side of the law, they can pretend to be as damaged
mentally as they like.


Would you like to have some of your previous posts dredged up?


Do as you like. I have nothing in particular against mentally-ill people
as long as they don't ride their bikes into other people.

  #36  
Old October 4th 18, 12:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,345
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 28/09/18 21:02, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 20:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/18 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 00:30, TMS320 wrote:

He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone. He
complained: “Everyone is quick to judge and help the so-called victim
but not the other person in the situation.
ENDQUOTE

The mobile phone fabrication was shown to be an absolute lie.


It depends on whether he pursued this, knowing it was false or whether
it was just a best assessment made in 3.8 seconds until shown the
evidence.


He was reported to have said it in his sworn or affirmed testimony in
court.


You accused him of lying. I expect he would have been asked to describe
the situation as he saw it.

Apart from that, the only problem is saying a victim "deserves" it.
But then, it is not an uncommon for motorists to say this.

I hope this helps you.


In other words your earlier post was the result of the usual Nugent
mangling.


Whatever you mean by that.

BTW: You started on about the Alliston case. I only mentioned it in
passing.


Only as far as wondering how *grovelling* affects a sentence. You
expanded on it.

but it is worth a reminder that the victim created the conditions
that demanded avoiding action. In normal circumstances, that
wouldn't require remorse.

I don't agree at all with that remark. But either way, Alliston
showed no remorse. He blamed the victim for his offences.


I very much doubt he blamed her for making him use a bike without a
front brake.


He didn't even accept that that was an offence.


I expect defendants often don't understand the laws they are accused of
breaking. It's not relevant to your demand that he should have shown
remorse over the victim's behaviour.

So you prefer the word legal people use. Whatever. A road traffic
collision is caused by behaviour before the collision, so it is hard
to see how behaviour afterwards should have any bearing on the case.

It speaks to the attitude of the cyclist towards other people, of
course.


Yes, it helps to fuel your prejudice.

They're his words.

What do they tell you about him? Nothing at all?


Almost nothing. Your reaction tells us more about you.

Oh, and about your suggestion that they might have wanted to test
the law. If so, do you think they would have told the defendant what
their game was? Plead guilty and get it over with; plead not guilty
and sit through the whole trial go through cross-examination.


Testing the meaning and interpretation of new law (whether criminal
or administrative law) is par for the course. You know that.


I asked for your opinion on whether the defendant would have gone
through it voluntarily.


Which one are we talking about? The coach driver or the cyclist?


For goodness' sake, don't be so thick. You raised the idea that the law
likes to test a new law in court. To follow on I asked you whether the
defendant would know about their involvement.

Possible answers are yes, no, don't know. If the answer is no, further
expansion would be useful.


I am not interested in the personality of criminals. As long as they
stay on the right side of the law, they can pretend to be as damaged
mentally as they like.


Would you like to have some of your previous posts dredged up?


Do as you like. I have nothing in particular against mentally-ill people
as long as they don't ride their bikes into other people.


Some of us have something against those that only ever travel by car but
try to be the "pedestrian's friend", constantly pointing their finger at
anybody using a bicycle. I think Doug used to be fond of the word
"hypocrite".
  #37  
Old October 15th 18, 04:18 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 04/10/2018 12:45, TMS320 wrote:

On 28/09/18 21:02, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 20:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/18 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 00:30, TMS320 wrote:

He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone. He
complained: “Everyone is quick to judge and help the so-called
victim but not the other person in the situation.
ENDQUOTE

The mobile phone fabrication was shown to be an absolute lie.

It depends on whether he pursued this, knowing it was false or
whether it was just a best assessment made in 3.8 seconds until shown
the evidence.


He was reported to have said it in his sworn or affirmed testimony in
court.


You accused him of lying. I expect he would have been asked to describe
the situation as he saw it.


He did not see the victim use her phone. We know that because she wasn't
using it - and it is trivially easy to check whether a phone has been
used at a particular time.

He didn't see her using it (she wasn't using it) so when he (at first)
said that she was using it, he was lying.

Which bit of that is too difficult for you to either understand or accept?

[ ... ]

Which one are we talking about? The coach driver or the cyclist?


For goodness' sake, don't be so thick. You raised the idea that the law
likes to test a new law in court. To follow on I asked you whether the
defendant would know about their involvement.

Possible answers are yes, no, don't know. If the answer is no, further
expansion would be useful.


What?

"The law" does not "like" to test itself. That was a preposterous thing
to say, even for you.

Defendants are soimetimes to plead NG in order that the correct
interpretation of a (new) law may be investigated by the court.

That is all.

I am not interested in the personality of criminals. As long as they
stay on the right side of the law, they can pretend to be as damaged
mentally as they like.

Would you like to have some of your previous posts dredged up?


Do as you like. I have nothing in particular against mentally-ill
people as long as they don't ride their bikes into other people.


Some of us have something against those that only ever travel by car but
try to be the "pedestrian's friend", constantly pointing their finger at
anybody using a bicycle. I think Doug used to be fond of the word
"hypocrite".


I am a pedestrian most of the time.

It is interesting that you, by implication at least, do not regard
yourself as a pedestrian and are readily prepared to take the side of
errant cyclists against pedestrian victims in all circumstances.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cycle death race 2000 coming soon to St Thomas's MrCheerful UK 0 May 20th 16 05:23 PM
Cycle death case handling 'may need to change' Bod[_5_] UK 40 October 29th 15 08:34 PM
Compassion plea after cycle death Judith M Smith UK 62 August 24th 09 11:10 AM
Kicking cyclists to death and watching them cycle off cliffs Mark Thompson UK 2 February 27th 07 11:46 PM
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death Snoopy Racing 78 September 10th 03 02:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.