Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Journalism and cycling

Options
1…9899101103104…334

Comments

  • Options
    #3002
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    mr spuckler wrote: »
    the cyclist who knocked down and killed the pedestrian in the UK got 18 months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

    Emotion over logic.

    I wonder if the sentence can be appealed, or even the conviction. From reading about it, it seemed to be based on some big assumptions on the stopping distance of bikes.


  • Options
    #3003
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    amcalester wrote: »
    Emotion over logic.

    I wonder if the sentence can be appealed, or even the conviction. From reading about it, it seemed to be based on some big assumptions on the stopping distance of bikes.


    So if i drive a car down a footpath at 18mph with and kill someone, I shouldn't go to jail?

    The fact the cyclist had no brakes on the bike and going at that speed says it all about the person.


  • Options
    #3004
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,426 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    average_runner wrote: »
    So if i drive a car down a footpath at 18mph with and kill someone, I shouldn't go to jail?

    The fact the cyclist had no brakes on the bike and going at that speed says it all about the person.
    Wasn't he on the road? 18 mph isn't all that fast, and he did have a rear brake. There's plenty legitimate failures to criticize but get the facts right at least.

    18 mph is slightly less than 30 km/h which is the speed we're told that there's a 10% change of killing a pedestrian when hit by a car, 90% change of killing them when over. The fact that it occurred at less than that AND it was a bike and not a car puts it into incredibly unlikely territory. Like all collisions it's multiple things going wrong that caused this awful situation.


  • Options
    #3005
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,373 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    average_runner wrote: »
    So if i drive a car down a footpath at 18mph with and kill someone, I shouldn't go to jail?
    Sniggering away here knowing you actually read the word "logic" before typing that moments later! sweet jaysus!


  • Options
    #3006
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Wasn't he on the road? 18 mph isn't all that fast, and he did have a rear brake. There's plenty legitimate failures to criticize but get the facts right at least.

    Sorry thought it was on the path, the bike was illegal in the UK.
    Cycling at the that speed was dangerous as he couldn't made a sudden stop in time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3007
    I love Sean nos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭I love Sean nos


    average_runner wrote: »
    So if i drive a car down a footpath at 18mph with and kill someone, I shouldn't go to jail?
    That would appear to be the case.


  • Options
    #3008
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,426 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    average_runner wrote: »
    Sorry thought it was on the path, the bike was illegal in the UK.
    Cycling at the that speed was dangerous as he couldn't made a sudden stop in time.

    You did say no brakes.

    Define sudden? Presumably the cars in the vicinity were driving at 30 miles per hour (not sure of the speed limits), with a stopping distance > 15 m which if memory serves me correctly was what they calculated he would have needed to avoid her. Were they driving recklessly?

    It seems he had a pretty awful attitude to the incident in court, the article would give you the impression this was the cause of the sentence. The whole thing just seems bizarre to me.


  • Options
    #3009
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    average_runner wrote: »
    So if i drive a car down a footpath at 18mph with and kill someone, I shouldn't go to jail?

    The fact the cyclist had no brakes on the bike and going at that speed says it all about the person.

    He had brakes just not a front brake nor was he on the footpath he was on the road so that's a poor analogy.

    He was charged with "wanton and dangerous" cycling but it seems that this was based not on his actual cycling at the time but more because he liked watching extreme cycling clips on YouTube.

    It was also put forward that had his bike had a front brake he would have been able to stop in 3m. That seems very unlikely, considering he was travelling at 8m per second.


  • Options
    #3010
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,483 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i guess (not based on any legal prowess) the fact that his bike was not legal meant he was going to be found guilty of something. regardless of whether a front brake would have made a difference or not, the prosecution would claim he was knowingly negligent.

    a rather crude corollary - if i was drunk, and driving, and a pedestrian runs out in front of my car, and even if the fact i was drunk would not make any difference to the outcome - would i expect to walk away with just a drink driving charge? i suspect not.


  • Options
    #3011
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i guess (not based on any legal prowess) the fact that his bike was not legal meant he was going to be found guilty of something. regardless of whether a front brake would have made a difference or not, the prosecution would claim he was knowingly negligent.

    a rather crude corollary - if i was drunk, and driving, and a pedestrian runs out in front of my car, and even if the fact i was drunk would not make any difference to the outcome - would i expect to walk away with just a drink driving charge? i suspect not.

    I agree, but there were other offences he could have been charged with. They chose two based on the outcome of the offence rather than the offence itself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3012
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    TheChizler wrote: »
    You did say no brakes.

    Define sudden? Presumably the cars in the vicinity were driving at 30 miles per hour (not sure of the speed limits), with a stopping distance > 15 m which if memory serves me correctly was what they calculated he would have needed to avoid her. Were they driving recklessly?

    It seems he had a pretty awful attitude to the incident in court, the article would give you the impression this was the cause of the sentence. The whole thing just seems bizarre to me.


    Nothing to do with cars, the discussion over cars sudden stop was done ages ago here and it was said if you couldn't stop in time you were going too fast.


    He was on a bike that had no front brakes and ILLEGAL to cycle where he was.
    If he can spend 470 on the bike why couldn't he add front brakes to it?


  • Options
    #3013
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    amcalester wrote: »
    I agree, but there were other offences he could have been charged with. They chose two based on the outcome of the offence rather than the offence itself.


    They did try manslaughter charges!!!


  • Options
    #3014
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    The case highlighted a gap in the law in the UK and led the British government to consider extending the offence of dangerous driving to cyclists.

    Aside from manslaughter, the only other thing they could charge him with was "wanton and furious driving" which only carries a maximum sentence of two years.


  • Options
    #3015
    I love Sean nos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭I love Sean nos


    18mph also sounds rather high. I recall reading that the impact speed was 14mph.

    It's irrelevant anyway. The issue hinged on the lack of an independent brake. The speed he was travelling at was legal and could hardly be described as dangerous if heavier, motorised vehicles could travel legally at greater speed.

    The actual conviction was based upon the defendant being unlikable (he was) and riding a bicycle, which the jury didn't identify with.


  • Options
    #3016
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    I love Sean nos wrote: »
    18mph also sounds rather high. I recall reading that the impact speed was 14mph.

    It's irrelevant anyway. The issue hinged on the lack of an independent brake. The speed he was travelling at was legal and could hardly be described as dangerous if heavier, motorised vehicles could travel legally at greater speed.

    The actual conviction was based upon the defendant being unlikable (he was) and riding a bicycle, which the jury didn't identify with.


    Fixed this for you. He was riding an illegal bike for the road!


  • Options
    #3017
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,426 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    average_runner wrote: »
    Nothing to do with cars, the discussion over cars sudden stop was done ages ago here and it was said if you couldn't stop in time you were going too fast.


    He was on a bike that had no front brakes and ILLEGAL to cycle where he was.
    If he can spend 470 on the bike why couldn't he add front brakes to it?

    It's relevant as you said that speed is dangerous.

    If she had been standing still on the road I would agree that he should have been able to stop, but IIRC she walked out on the road without warning. IMO that brings the argument solely back to braking distance, which he was definitely guilty of affecting due to the lack of a front brake. Whether the addition of a front brake would have stopped him in time is debatable.


  • Options
    #3018
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I think braking distance was only part of the consideration. The sentencing judge said he wasn't even trying to stop:
    Sentencing Alliston judge Wendy Joseph QC said: “I am satisfied in some part it was this so-called thrill that motivated you to ride without a front brake shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way.

    “I’ve heard your evidence and I have no doubt that even now you remain obstinately sure of yourself and your own abilities. I have no doubt you are wrong in this. You were an accident waiting to happen.”

    The judge said Alliston’s “whole manner of driving” caused the accident.

    “If your bicycle had a front wheel brake you could have stopped but on this illegal bike you could not and on your evidence, by this stage, you were not even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of the way.”


  • Options
    #3019
    I love Sean nos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭I love Sean nos


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    The case highlighted a gap in the law in the UK and led the British government to consider extending the offence of dangerous driving to cyclists.

    Aside from manslaughter, the only other thing they could charge him with was "wanton and furious driving" which only carries a maximum sentence of two years.
    There's a review of road traffic law recommended and pending for years. This may be rolled up into that. Chris Grayling will be a biased participant, seeing what he has said in the past and even recently doored a chap on a bike.


  • Options
    #3020
    mr spuckler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,107 ✭✭✭mr spuckler


    TheChizler wrote: »
    If she had been standing still on the road I would agree that he should have been able to stop, but IIRC she walked out on the road without warning.

    didn't he also try to swerve around her but she stepped back into his path while trying to get out of his way? like there's no doubt the guy is a complete dick but it's a fairly layered incident that seems to have been treated in black and white.


  • Options
    #3021
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Wasn't he on the road?
    He was, the victim stepped out in front of him is my understanding.
    18 mph isn't all that fast,
    Its just shy of 30kmph, it is not fast but it certainly is not slow, far faster than a typical commuter in Dublin in my experience.
    and he did have a rear brake.
    He was on a track bike but there was no mention of having or not having a rear brake. He certainly didbn't have a front one which would be the only important one on a track bike.
    There's plenty legitimate failures to criticize but get the facts right at least.
    Indeed, and if he had been driving, it is likely the punishment would have been less severe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3022
    I love Sean nos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭I love Sean nos


    average_runner wrote: »
    Fixed this for you.
    What did you fix? :confused:


  • Options
    #3023
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    amcalester wrote: »
    It was also put forward that had his bike had a front brake he would have been able to stop in 3m. That seems very unlikely, considering he was travelling at 8m per second.
    If he had a front brake he may have slowed before she stepped out anyway, as most good cyclists and motorists would have if they suspected it might happen.
    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    I think braking distance was only part of the consideration.
    Which means that all the other aside, and this is cold on my part, he was to idiotic to either get a good solicitor or at least pretend to be sympathetic. Most of us would feel bad but according to the judges statement, if taken as accurate, he still believes he was in the right and also capable to deal with the situation.


  • Options
    #3024
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Or he had a good solicitor but just didn't listen to them.


  • Options
    #3025
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    I think braking distance was only part of the consideration. The sentencing judge said he wasn't even trying to stop:

    I thought she stepped out on the road 12m in front him, he covered that distance in 1.5 seconds. Doesn't really give him much time to react.

    And it was her then stepping backward that resulted in the collision.

    I think this fella is being railroaded because of people general dislike of cyclists in general and him in particular.


  • Options
    #3026
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,373 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    a rather crude corollary - if i was drunk, and driving, and a pedestrian runs out in front of my car, and even if the fact i was drunk would not make any difference to the outcome - would i expect to walk away with just a drink driving charge? i suspect not.
    if you were well over the limit I would also not. A better analogy might be you being sent home from a garage after a mechanic told you your brakes were "somehow illegal" yet still working to some degree.

    What the woman did would have been illegal here. If they did have "jaywalking" type laws in the uk and the bike was road legal and the guy died I wonder would she have been locked up.

    They could probably dismiss the jaywalking as a spur of the moment act, while he set out on the bike knowing it was illegal. But many do leave the house here with no intention of obeying the road crossing laws, many are unaware they even exist.


  • Options
    #3027
    I love Sean nos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭I love Sean nos


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Indeed, and if he had been driving, it is likely the punishment would have been less severe.
    This table is always good for a laugh.

    fines.png


  • Options
    #3028
    mr spuckler
    Registered Users Posts: 3,107 ✭✭✭mr spuckler


    I love Sean nos wrote: »
    This table is always good for a laugh.

    where did that come from originally do you know?


  • Options
    #3029
    I love Sean nos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭I love Sean nos


    mr spuckler wrote: »
    where did that come from originally do you know?
    It's from a blog called Beyond The Kerb. Have a read of the full article.


  • Options
    #3030
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,468 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I love Sean nos wrote: »
    This table is always good for a laugh.

    fines.png

    Indeed. The real issue isn't the rights and wrongs of the case. The real issue is the degree of coverage given to the case. It is on the front page of the Irish Times breaking news site as we speak. Did any of the cases of the drivers who killed cyclists and got piddly sentences make the home page of the Irish Times?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3031
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,426 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    I guess it being such a rare occurrence makes it more remarkable at the very least. It's awful but the opposite is happening so often it's becoming less noteworthy.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement