Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had 'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears

On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and
as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all
the pedestrian's fault?

The noise before the crash is similar to the noise often made by drivers
in an attempt to try to sweep others out of their way.

But how does the vocal and written noise made by the accused after the
event alter the mechanics of the crash?

On 17/08/2017 08:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 16:08, JNugent wrote:
On 16/08/2017 14:08, TMS320 wrote:

Your amnesia is getting the better of you again:

On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:
You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than
what it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that
cyclists can't dismount (and obey the law) because they are
disabled in some way.

That was only because you had claimed that there is no practical
difference between riding a bicycle where that is not allowed
(illegal) and pushing it on foot (legal, as long as pedestrians are
allowed to use the route in question).

I asked you why a cyclist would choose the illegal and anti-social
option when the lawful one is of the same utility to him.

I did not say they have the same utility to the cyclist.

You said there was no difference.

You asked about the difference between *walking and cycling*. This
is about the steady state condition of moving from one place to another.

You said there was no difference.

In order to walk the bike, two state changes are required: when neither
walking or cycling are taking place; getting off the bike and later
getting back on. This is often pointless or inconvenient and for some,
as I told you, literally painful.

You said there was no difference, apart from the cases of those cyclists
who (as you claim) are too disabled to get off their bikes.

Assuming that you are right about there being no difference, it would
seem that the only feasible answer is that cyclists are childishly
rebellious and determined not to respect the rights of others.

When I said "no difference" (to the steady state condition), there is no
difference. If it impacted on others there would be a difference. Do
stop frothing.

So there IS a difference?

And apparently, in the same time and space, no difference?

You are being as clear as you usually are.

Will a law forbidding the riding of bicycles (or the use of any
other carriage) in certain places and in certain circumstances,
suffice?

It might.

Good.

So see Mr Cheerful's response to that question, some days ago.

You raised it, you supply the information. Mr Cheerful's reply was not
applicable.

I am trying to recall whether it was Mr Cheerful or another poster.
Either way, your question was answered.

I found another good quote:

Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should
relax and get used to the idea.

Here's another (from someone called Rod Liddle):

"Cyclists are a menace to society — and self-righteous to boot. You
are just pedalling, you plastic-hatted ninnies, not saving the bloody
planet."

I bet the Spectator insisted on "ninnies" rather than the word in the
draft.

Who are the ones claiming that cyclists are saving the planet? Oddly
enough, it is usually by people that want to use it as an insult.

Ask Liddle?

But at least you don't disagree with the main part of what he wrote:

"Cyclists are a menace to society — and self-righteous to boot...".

On 17/08/2017 09:50, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/08/17 20:45, JNugent wrote:

We are entitled, whether emerging from the property on foot or in a
vehicle, not to be borne down on by someone doing 20mph+

How steep is your hill? Or is this like your one inch rope?

What hill? The house is elevated from the road (slightly), but the
street is fairly flat.

On 17/08/2017 10:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and
as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all
the pedestrian's fault?

The noise before the crash is similar to the noise often made by drivers
in an attempt to try to sweep others out of their way.

But how does the vocal and written noise made by the accused after the
event alter the mechanics of the crash?

It speaks to the issue of his intentions and motivation.

Remember the case (similar in some ways) where another cyclist screamed
at a group of teenagers that they should get out of his effin' way
because he was not going to stop?

On 16/08/2017 19:29, Rob Morley wrote:

However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted
a motorist or bus driver even if they were behaving far more
dangerously.

Even if they had time to sound their horn several times, and had
purposely disconnected their front brakes? I think the accident
investigator would just look for the skid marks, and finding none
would check the vehicle for defects.


You are making an unfair comparison. This week, whilst cycling, I have
shouted at a jogger who had run into the road with out looking. I do
this because my bike is silent and I want them to be aware I am there.
If I had been in a car they would have heard me. In this instance I
shouted "coming by" and the runner responded by shouting "thank you", he
didn't look around.

An incident I observed, whilst driving, was a pedestrian who had walked
into the middle of the road, crossing. He looked disorientated so I
stopped to allow him to complete the crossing. The car going in the
opposite direction didn't stop and when the pedestrian started to move
back across the road, the way he had come, there was a collision, no
time to brake.

I stopped and called an ambulance, whilst doing so I heard a car driver
following the driver involved in the collision console him with the
phrase "There was nothing you could have done". I though it a strange
remark given I had actually stopped as a precaution.

I was not called to give evidence I presume the police didn't take it to
trial.

Apparently when a pedestrian walks in front of a car it is their fault
when they walk in front of a bike it is the bikes fault. There is a
double standard.

On 17/08/2017 14:35, Nick wrote:
On 16/08/2017 19:29, Rob Morley wrote:

However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted
a motorist or bus driver even if they were behaving far more
dangerously.

Even if they had time to sound their horn several times, and had
purposely disconnected their front brakes? I think the accident
investigator would just look for the skid marks, and finding none
would check the vehicle for defects.


You are making an unfair comparison. This week, whilst cycling, I have
shouted at a jogger who had run into the road with out looking. I do
this because my bike is silent and I want them to be aware I am there.
If I had been in a car they would have heard me. In this instance I
shouted "coming by" and the runner responded by shouting "thank you", he
didn't look around.

An incident I observed, whilst driving, was a pedestrian who had walked
into the middle of the road, crossing. He looked disorientated so I
stopped to allow him to complete the crossing. The car going in the
opposite direction didn't stop and when the pedestrian started to move
back across the road, the way he had come, there was a collision, no
time to brake.

I stopped and called an ambulance, whilst doing so I heard a car driver
following the driver involved in the collision console him with the
phrase "There was nothing you could have done". I though it a strange
remark given I had actually stopped as a precaution.

I was not called to give evidence I presume the police didn't take it to
trial.

Apparently when a pedestrian walks in front of a car it is their fault
when they walk in front of a bike it is the bikes fault. There is a
double standard.

yelling 'get out of the way ' doesn't appear in the Highway Code, nor
does it give you any more 'right of way' than anyone else. stopping,
slowing, altering course as/if needed is the correct thing to do.

On 17/08/2017 15:42, MrCheerful wrote:

On 17/08/2017 14:35, Nick wrote:

[ ... ]

Apparently when a pedestrian walks in front of a car it is their fault
when they walk in front of a bike it is the bikes fault. There is a
double standard.

yelling 'get out of the way ' doesn't appear in the Highway Code, nor
does it give you any more 'right of way' than anyone else. stopping,
slowing, altering course as/if needed is the correct thing to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/17/charlie-alliston-london-cyclist-front-brake-collision-kim-briggs-old-bailey

EDITED HIGHLIGHTS:

(a) A former bicycle courier accused of killing a woman by knocking her
down in east London has denied being a thrill-seeker [ ... ] During
cross-examination, Duncan Penny QC, prosecuting, questioned Alliston
over a tweet he sent in February 2015 that compared cycling without a
front brake to being in a “Lucas Brunelle movie�.

Brunelle makes “alleycat� videos, in which he rides around cities
including London “doing dangerous stuff� such as weaving in and out of
traffic, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and going into bus lanes, the Old
Bailey heard.

Alliston denied copying the film-maker and enjoying taking risks. “I
wouldn’t say I drove recklessly or at any time dangerously,� he said.
“At all times I would know what I’m doing and be completely responsible
for my actions. I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe.�

(b) Alliston had taken the bike out on 12 February last year to buy food
.... “I was cycling at a safe and reasonable speed personal to myself,�
Alliston told the court. “I was capable at the time of controlling it.�

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.�

(c) 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�.

On 17/08/17 12:29, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 09:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:45, JNugent wrote:

We are entitled, whether emerging from the property on foot or in a
vehicle, not to be borne down on by someone doing 20mph+

How steep is your hill? Or is this like your one inch rope?

What hill? The house is elevated from the road (slightly), but the
street is fairly flat.

In other words, your estimate of 20mph is about as far off the mark as
your one inch rope.

On 17/08/17 12:27, JNugent wrote:

When I said "no difference" (to the steady state condition), there is no
difference. If it impacted on others there would be a difference. Do
stop frothing.

So there IS a difference?

If you cleaned the froth off your screen more often it might help you
read more easily.

Yes, I have said there is no difference between cycling at walking speed
and walking.

(Assuming that cycling and walking are acts of moving across the ground.
If you know any other definition, I am willing to be corrected.)

On 17/08/17 12:30, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 10:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and
as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all
the pedestrian's fault?

The noise before the crash is similar to the noise often made by
drivers in an attempt to try to sweep others out of their way.

But how does the vocal and written noise made by the accused after the
event alter the mechanics of the crash?

It speaks to the issue of his intentions and motivation.

I asked about the mechanics of the crash. Would the woman be less dead?