Cyclist jumps red light for safety, but what about the child? (on theback)

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 10:00:24 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 24/09/2017 08:59, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 23:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 20:31, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:44, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:18, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 14:45, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510


So the BMW accelerates at the cyclist, although the cyclist
crossing is clearly visible from the start.

If the cyclist had stopped or gone back on him self his the BMW
would have hit him.

So a bit like Alliston's offence. Maybe a bit worse because the car
driver accelerates.

Nothing like, one crashed into a pedestrian, causing her death,
while screaming obscenities and riding an illegal bicycle.

You mean trying to alert the pedestrian of his presence.

The other did not collide with or verbally assault a cyclist that
clearly has no thought for himself or others.Â* He could have done
so, but did not.
AIUI Alliston only collided with the pedestrian because she moved
unexpectedly. If the cyclist had moved unexpectedly there would have
been a collision.

I see the BMW jumped the light too, he didn't wait for green. That
seems to me to be as significant as Alliston's lack of a front brake.


The green light for the car is clearly visible.Â* Therefore the cyclist
went over a red light.

We are talking about it from the perspective of the BMW.

He jumped the light, Alliston didn't. He accelerated at the person in
the road, Alliston decelerated.

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did, but we
know that wouldn't be true.

The car did not collide with the bicycle, which HAD gone over a stop
line/red light.

Looks to me the cyclists used the pedestrian crossing and therefore did not cross a stop line.
Not that I consider that acceptable behaviour.
There is, however, clear evidence the driver did cross a stop line/red light.

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:59:36 AM UTC+1, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 23:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 20:31, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:44, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:18, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 14:45, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510


So the BMW accelerates at the cyclist, although the cyclist crossing
is clearly visible from the start.

If the cyclist had stopped or gone back on him self his the BMW
would have hit him.

So a bit like Alliston's offence. Maybe a bit worse because the car
driver accelerates.

Nothing like, one crashed into a pedestrian, causing her death, while
screaming obscenities and riding an illegal bicycle.

You mean trying to alert the pedestrian of his presence.

The other did not collide with or verbally assault a cyclist that
clearly has no thought for himself or others.Â* He could have done so,
but did not.
AIUI Alliston only collided with the pedestrian because she moved
unexpectedly. If the cyclist had moved unexpectedly there would have
been a collision.

I see the BMW jumped the light too, he didn't wait for green. That
seems to me to be as significant as Alliston's lack of a front brake.


The green light for the car is clearly visible.Â* Therefore the cyclist
went over a red light.

We are talking about it from the perspective of the BMW.

He jumped the light, Alliston didn't. He accelerated at the person in
the road, Alliston decelerated.

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did, but we
know that wouldn't be true.

I am sure Nugent wil be along to tell you, as he has told us many times in the past, there is no such thing as 'right of way' only priority.
Although that may only apply when cyclists have right of way.

On 24/09/2017 12:30, Nick wrote:
On 24/09/2017 10:00, MrCheerful wrote:

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did, but we
know that wouldn't be true.

The car did not collide with the bicycle,

Yes I already discussed that. If the bike had moved erratically it could
have caused a collision which the BMW would have been unable to avoid.
This is similar to the Alliston case.

Some people on these groups present the argument that people should be
punished based upon their level of culpability rather than the outcome.
Without considering the outcome the BMW driver appears to be at least as
culpable as Alliston.

If you would prefer not to consider culpability but just the outcome, I
agree it would be a good deterrent to see all vehicle drivers who kill a
pedestrian jailed.


I take it back, the cyclist did not jump a red light, he came straight
off the pavement, even more stupid.

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 1:26:59 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 24/09/2017 12:30, Nick wrote:
On 24/09/2017 10:00, MrCheerful wrote:

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did, but we
know that wouldn't be true.

The car did not collide with the bicycle,

Yes I already discussed that. If the bike had moved erratically it could
have caused a collision which the BMW would have been unable to avoid.
This is similar to the Alliston case.

Some people on these groups present the argument that people should be
punished based upon their level of culpability rather than the outcome.
Without considering the outcome the BMW driver appears to be at least as
culpable as Alliston.

If you would prefer not to consider culpability but just the outcome, I
agree it would be a good deterrent to see all vehicle drivers who kill a
pedestrian jailed.


I take it back, the cyclist did not jump a red light, he came straight
off the pavement, even more stupid.

Do you also take back your statement that 'the green light for the car is clearly visible'?
Actually I take that back, Nugent will say the green light for the car IS clearly visible. The problem is the car had already crossed the stop line at that point.

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 12:30:59 PM UTC+1, Nick wrote:
On 24/09/2017 10:00, MrCheerful wrote:

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did, but we
know that wouldn't be true.

The car did not collide with the bicycle,

Yes I already discussed that. If the bike had moved erratically it could
have caused a collision which the BMW would have been unable to avoid.
This is similar to the Alliston case.

Some people on these groups present the argument that people should be
punished based upon their level of culpability rather than the outcome.
Without considering the outcome the BMW driver appears to be at least as
culpable as Alliston.

If you would prefer not to consider culpability but just the outcome, I
agree it would be a good deterrent to see all vehicle drivers who kill a
pedestrian jailed.

I am wondering if this was all about ego.
The BMW driver was horrified at the notion of having to give way to a cyclist because BMW drivers are the elite and bicycles are for the rabble.
The problem is the only 'BMW' the driver could afford was an overpriced Skoda.

On 24/09/17 12:30, Nick wrote:
On 24/09/2017 10:00, MrCheerful wrote:

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did,
but we know that wouldn't be true.

The car did not collide with the bicycle,

Yes I already discussed that. If the bike had moved erratically it
could have caused a collision which the BMW would have been unable to
avoid. This is similar to the Alliston case.

Agreed. A ditherer is unpredictable. Once committed the best choice is
to keep going.

Some people on these groups present the argument that people should
be punished based upon their level of culpability rather than the
outcome. Without considering the outcome the BMW driver appears to be
at least as culpable as Alliston.

The perspective is from a very low angle. Looking at it in detail, when
we see the rider's head directly above the car, the car was not yet half
way over the junction. The driver judged the timing to avoid; something
perfectly routine and it seems to me the issue has been blown out of
proportion. Though perhaps the rider should have stopped when reaching
the island.

If you would prefer not to consider culpability but just the outcome,
I agree it would be a good deterrent to see all vehicle drivers who
kill a pedestrian jailed.

It would certainly be good if drivers that kill pedestrians received the
same national opprobrium and sentences as cyclists. With more than one a
day to choose from it is impossible that none of them make worse
judgements than Alliston.

On 24/09/2017 17:30, TMS320 wrote:

The perspective is from a very low angle. Looking at it in detail, when
we see the rider's head directly above the car, the car was not yet half
way over the junction. The driver judged the timing to avoid; something
perfectly routine and it seems to me the issue has been blown out of
proportion. Though perhaps the rider should have stopped when reaching
the island.


I wouldn't say out of proportion. Yes I see many drivers act in this
aggressive way. Normally everything goes OK. The point is I'm not
convinced Alliston was doing anything worse.

As we get more AI and automated driving hopefully this type of
antisocial behaviour will be detected and deterred.

On 25/09/2017 13:27, Nick wrote:
On 24/09/2017 17:30, TMS320 wrote:

The perspective is from a very low angle. Looking at it in detail, when
we see the rider's head directly above the car, the car was not yet half
way over the junction. The driver judged the timing to avoid; something
perfectly routine and it seems to me the issue has been blown out of
proportion. Though perhaps the rider should have stopped when reaching
the island.


I wouldn't say out of proportion. Yes I see many drivers act in this
aggressive way. Normally everything goes OK. The point is I'm not
convinced Alliston was doing anything worse.

Has that BMW got no brakes, then?

How can you tell?

As we get more AI and automated driving hopefully this type of
antisocial behaviour will be detected and deterred.

On 25/09/17 13:27, Nick wrote:
On 24/09/2017 17:30, TMS320 wrote:

The perspective is from a very low angle. Looking at it in detail, when
we see the rider's head directly above the car, the car was not yet half
way over the junction. The driver judged the timing to avoid; something
perfectly routine and it seems to me the issue has been blown out of
proportion. Though perhaps the rider should have stopped when reaching
the island.

I wouldn't say out of proportion. Yes I see many drivers act in this
aggressive way. Normally everything goes OK.

Of course but I still think we need a better visual perspective.

Perhaps the test could be on whether or not the driver could have
avoided had the rider stopped directly in front of the car's original
path. Maybe we're all guilty at some point of assuming that the
person/44 tonne lorry will be out of the way by the time we get there?

The point is I'm not
convinced Alliston was doing anything worse.

I don't disagree. Some people seem to have more issue with the noises
Alliston made, than his mechanical actions. After all, the fact of him
having no front brake, the physics involved and the collision with Mrs
Briggs weren't in doubt so the only point of the trial was to look
inside his head and set the sentence based on what they found in there.

As we get more AI and automated driving hopefully this type of
antisocial behaviour will be detected and deterred.

When pedestrian casualties drop with automated cars we will know how
many of the 400 peds a year just "stepped out" and how many human
drivers get off the hook despite being at primary fault.

The thing is, when a pedestrian does get run down by an automated car,
that will undoubtedly produce even more howling than we get for the one
or two cyclists. Four hundred is acceptable but one is not.

On 26/09/17 09:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/09/17 13:27, Nick wrote:

The point is I'm not convinced Alliston was doing anything worse.

I don't disagree. Some people seem to have more issue with the noises
Alliston made, than his mechanical actions. After all, the fact of him
having no front brake, the physics involved and the collision with Mrs
Briggs weren't in doubt so the only point of the trial was to look
inside his head and set the sentence based on what they found in there.

I posted this just before reading about the driver going ahead with the
teacher on his bonnet. With sentencing based on state of mind, not
consequences, 10 months looks rather lenient in comparison. Refusal to
park properly and walk 100 yards should also have been added to the package.