Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to OPINION
OPINION

Involved in a crash? Here's a modest proposal

Avatar
Avatar
by John Stevenson
Tue, Aug 29, 2017 16:53
145
Involved in a crash? Here's a modest proposalCrash (CC 2.0 BY-NC Edmund white|Flickr).jpg
In the wake of the Charlie Alliston case there's only one sensible thing to do — but you're not going to like it

In the aftermath of the Alliston case, what should you do if you are a cyclist involved in a crash with a pedestrian?

I have one word of advice for you: Leave.

That’s right. Leave the scene. Get out of Dodge. Get away from the situation as fast as you can. Say nothing to anyone. Give nobody your details. Don’t hang around long enough for anyone to get their phone out. Split. Bugger off. Go home the long way — down as many alleys and across as many parks as possible to avoid CCTV.

Say nothing about the crash to anyone. Don’t discuss it in forums. Don’t tweet or post on Facebook about it. Don’t search on Google for news of the crash or its aftermath. Don’t get your bike repaired. Carry on with your life as if nothing happened.

“But, John,” I can hear you say, “that’s awful advice. Ethically you should stop and help, and isn’t leaving the scene an offence?”

Road Traffic Act: leaving the scene

Last point first: no, it isn’t. Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act makes it an offence for the driver of a motor vehicle to leave the scene of a crash, but it specifically only applies to drivers of “mechanically propelled vehicles” as it quaintly calls them. (That means an engine or motor; your bike’s chain and gears don’t count as the propulsion comes from your legs.)

Section 168 makes it an offence to refuse to give your name and address to “any person having reasonable ground” to require it. But they have to ask for it first. Leave before anyone can ask your name, and you’re in the clear. Martin Porter QC, who drew my attention to this part of the Road Traffic Act, added: “I have never yet been supplied with name and address by [a] motorist I have reasonably suspected of careless driving. Asked a few times.”

Ethically, yes, all of this is dreadful. But the Alliston case has put cyclists in the position where we cannot be sure of being dealt with justly. In fact, we can be sure that we will not be treated justly.

There is no way that Charlie Alliston was guilty of manslaughter, and he was rightly acquitted.

But there is also no way he was riding furiously and wantonly. He was riding at 18mph. Traffic and parked vehicles around him left him with nowhere to go and when he yelled to warn Kim Briggs she stepped back into his path. If that’s furious and wanton riding, I’m a banana.

The brakeless fixie issue

You could argue that Alliston would not have ended up in court in the first place if he hadn’t been riding a bike that wasn’t street legal. Would the Met and the CPS have gone after him if he’d been riding a fixie with a front brake? I believe they would.

The tide is turning against cycling in London. The nonsensical claims that a few short stretches of protected cycleway have caused huge increases in congestion and pollution have stuck. Mayor Sadiq Khan has cancelled or postponed shovel-ready cycling schemes and TfL has mysteriously forgotten how to design new ones if its hopeless, inept Nine Elms and Fiveways schemes are anything to go by. I expect that before the end of Khan’s first term, TfL will announce that Cycle Superhighway 3, the world-class protected cycle lane along the Embankment is to be ripped up.

Meanwhile cycling and walking commissioner Will Norman doesn’t realise that his job is to enable active travel, not to run spin for Sadiq Khan’s preference for roads and buses. Khan is running a PR mayoralty, all talk and no delivery, and calling on others to fix problems like air pollution that are well within his power. But to do so would put him into conflict with the influential bus, taxi and haulage lobbies.

With public opinion increasingly hostile to cycling, the Met and the CPS would have gone after Alliston anyway. After all, a mother of two was, tragically, dead. Something Had To Be Done, and prosecuting Alliston was Something. Alliston had dug a huge hole for himself by his forum and Evening Standard postings. He really was a dream defendant — if you’re a prosecutor.

Given the general ignorance about cycling, a fixie with a front brake could still be easily represented as the equivalent to a Formula One car, and equally inappropriate for the streets. Alliston’s lawyer failed to challenge the Met’s nonsensical braking distance tests in either premise or execution; it’s vanishingly unlikely he’d have been able to mount a defence against the charge of furious and wanton cycling even if Alliston had been riding a bike with brakes.

And I don’t believe the bike made any substantial difference. The instinctive reaction when a pedestrian steps into your path is to try and avoid hitting them. Yes, you’ll slow down too and Alliston did, but Kim Briggs stepped back into his path, they butted heads and she fell to the ground. Had he been going slower (as he would not have had time to stop, despite the Met’s staged video), she might still have fallen, she might still have hit her head on the ground. We just don’t know, and we cannot therefore know that Alliston’s inability to stop faster was the primary cause of Kim Briggs’s death.

The not guilty verdict shows that the jury did not think it was. If Alliston was guilty of an illegal act in not having a front brake, and that illegal act led to Kim Briggs’s death, then he was guilty of manslaughter. If he was not guilty, then his illegal act did not cause Kim Briggs’s death.

That also makes the conviction for wanton and furious driving unsafe too, unless the jury took the view that the injuries that Kim Briggs sustained as a result of Alliston riding into her did not cause her death. That would be a somewhat bizarre conclusion, but that’s juries for you. However, I’m not a lawyer and there may be some twist to the legal reasoning here that I’ve missed. Happy to be corrected in the comments or via Twitter.

The justice system is stacked against cyclists

More broadly, the Alliston case is only the latest example of the justice system failing a cyclist, but it’s unusual in that the rider was accused of perpetrating a fatal crash, instead of being its victim.

London’s police have largely been on the back foot when it comes to cycling since the debacle of Operation Safeway, in which the police targeted minor cycling infringements after several cyclists were killed in London in November, rather than going after the motor vehicle behaviour that kills cyclists. They were pilloried for it by cycling groups, and rightly so.

Presented with an unsympathetic defendant in a cocky, pierced teenager riding a hipster bike, the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service must have thought all their Christmases had come at once.

They therefore charged Alliston with offences that had to be heard in Crown Court, rather than any of the more appropriate lesser offences that would have been heard by magistrates, as Martin Porter QC has pointed out.

There’s a legal maxim that if you want to get off a charge, you go for a jury trial if you can. Juries are composed of people who can’t convince the court they’re too important to be excused jury duty. They tend to be sympathetic to mundane criminality, which is why there are so many breathtaking not guilty verdicts in cases of causing death by careless or dangerous driving.

Charlie Alliston, Daily Mail stereotype

Unfortunately for him, with his tattoos and piercings, Charlie Alliston was as close as it gets to the Daily Mail stereotype of an arrogant, reckless, young tearaway, scofflaw cyclist. There was no way he was going to get a sympathetic hearing from a jury of Londoners who are encouraged to hate cyclists by every story about cycling on the local news, in the London papers, in the national papers, on the BBC and on LBC.

And so it went. Anyone who rides bike knows Alliston’s account of the crash was entirely plausible. Between a parked lorry and moving cars he had nowhere to go. Kim Briggs stepped back into his path (presumably seeing the cars, but not registering Alliston) and he was unable to avoid her.

But by bringing the absurd charge of manslaughter, the CPS could be confident they’d get Alliston for something. I can imagine the jury room discussions. “All right, it’s not manslaughter, but the arrogant git’s guilty of something. What’s this wanton and furious thing? Up to two years bird? Yeah, that’ll do.”

Lynch mob

The resulting atmosphere is that of a lynch mob. I’ve seen posts hoping that Alliston gets anally raped if he goes to prison, and wanting to know his usual riding route so they can string wire in his path. Have you ever seen that for a killer driver?

I fear for the safety of the cyclist next time one of us is involved in a crash with a pedestrian who doesn’t immediately get up and walk away. By bringing this spurious prosecution, the CPS has failed in its duty to act in the public interest. It has made the roads more dangerous, not less.

Cyclists have long known that we will not get justice if we are victims of road violence. Now we can be sure we will not get justice if we are accused of being its perpetrators.

And that means our only recourse is to get away from a crash immediately.

Footnote: If you do choose to stay at the scene of a crash, and there’s even the slightest possibility you might be blamed (in other words, any crash at all in the current climate) say nothing to the police without a lawyer present. Don’t try and be helpful, don’t give a statement. Ask for a lawyer and shut up till he or she arrives.

Charlie Alliston
Crime
Road Safety
justice
CPS
Metropolitan Police
John Stevenson

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

145 comments

Avatar
nbrus replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes

davel wrote:

These are all great conditions and I agree with them almost entirely. But it doesn't answer my question regarding why cycling is going to increase in popularity. *Despite* this backdrop of a perfect storm for cycling going through the stratosphere, we have the reality on the ground in the justice system, the trollumnists, the letdown politicians. My argument runs exactly counter to yours: look how unpopular and unsupported cycling is, *despite* it making perfect sense to back it to the hilt. And I don't think we have time: at least some of your conditions (eg. British sporting success) are at their zenith right now. I wish I shared your optimism, but logic doesn't just prevail. It takes massive effort by people willing to stick their neck on the line, particularly when the rabble-rousers are paid by car advertisers and policy-makers are paid by motor lobbyists and scared of upsetting the motor industry.

Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I don't think shouting louder will help much ... the masses that don't cycle need to be convinced ... they need to see a benefit to themselves before they will stick their neck out in support of cycling. Given the state of our roads, that will be more important to them than diverting money to cycling infrastructure. I've still seen improvements where I live, but I am in a city, so that probably plays a large part in this. As regards the British cycling team, wasn't it 'marginal gains' that was responsible for their success? Or as Tesco put it ... every little helps.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
2 likes
nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

How are you optimistic about increasing numbers of cyclists?

Lots of reasons...

There is an overall concern with public health and cycling is one way to promote a healthy lifestyle. This will cut down the cost of funding the NHS.

Global warming is a real concern (ignoring Trump) and electric cars don't help in that regard, they only reduce pollution ... electricity still needs to be generated. Bicycles are a clean mode of transport.

Cars are expensive to run, bicycles are not. People have less money now than before the last financial crisis, so any way to save money and get healthier at the same time is appealing. It will become even more appealing as family budgets are squeezed.

Driverless cars and Uber will result in more people choosing not to own a car, but hire one on demand. If the cost is low enough this will make a lot of sense and will free up our roads and streets. Car shares may become popular ... borrow one when you need it and pay a rental and membership fee. Fewer cars on the road and safer driving technology will result on more people feeling safe enough to cycle.

Public transport is expensive and not as convenient as we'd like. Being able to hop on a bike and go where you want, whenever you want is very liberating.

Most people find cycling requires too much effort, particularly on hills, and you arrive at your destination all sweaty and in need of a shower. E-bikes solve that problem, but they need to get cheaper and longer range.

Theres lots more cycling sports being covered on TV now than in previous years, and its very popular even amoungst those that don't cycle ... some will be motivated to take up cycling.

Cycling is already popular in other countries like Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Japan, Switzerland, Belgium, China, etc. and it will get more popular here. It just takes time.

I don't think its promoting cycling that will get us there, its natural forces (such as mentioned above) that will. People will take to it when they are ready. We're just not quite there yet.

Seriously? Is this meant to be a serious argument?

None of those 'reasons' are remotely plausible justifications to believe cycling is going to naturally increase (the 'sports on tv' one is particularly risible).

It's already popular in countries like the Netherlands because they made a massive conscious effort to remodel the roads to make it attractive and plausible for ordinary people. And it has _declined_ in China as people have become richer, declined quite dramatically in fact, you can't be so dim that you don't know that.

Driverless cars (if they ever happen, which I think is highly doubtful) will just lead to pedestrians and cyclists being pushed off the streets entirely to make their calculations simpler.

I don't believe you are dim enough to really believe what you just wrote. So it has to be just dishonesty.

As for the remaining 'reasons' - if any of those were going to persuade more people to cycle it would have happened decades ago, when in fact the long-term trend has all been in the other direction.

All that list tells me is that you don't in fact have any problem with the existing situation at all and don't really want anything to change and you post under false-pretences, something that has long been obvious.

Avatar
nbrus replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I don't believe you are dim enough to really believe what you just wrote.

These are just examples ... I'll try and keep it simple for you next time as I don't have the energy/willpower to spell everything out for you. You're hard work. But I wouldn't change a thing. 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 7 years ago
3 likes

As a complete tangent, something that irks me about the whole business is that there will never be any payback for the thoughtlessness of the driving-addicted petrolheads. Either they will continue to dominate, to everyone's cost, or, if there is a radical change somehow, they will just benefit from a shift to cleaner, more-space-efficient, and healtheir modes of travel along with everyone else. They'll just lap up the benefits without ever acknowledging they spent so long trying to deny them to everyone.

It's quite annoying.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

As a complete tangent, something that irks me about the whole business is that there will never be any payback for the thoughtlessness of the driving-addicted petrolheads. Either they will continue to dominate, to everyone's cost, or, if there is a radical change somehow, they will just benefit from a shift to cleaner, more-space-efficient, and healtheir modes of travel along with everyone else. They'll just lap up the benefits without ever acknowledging they spent so long trying to deny them to everyone. It's quite annoying.

John F. Kennedy:

Quote:

A rising tide lifts all boats

Avatar
jigr69 | 7 years ago
4 likes

To put people straight on several items, it isn't illegal to ride a bike on the road without a front brake if the seat is below 635mm from the ground, or there is no secondary link between the propulsion and the wheel being propulsed. 

That means a childs bike is allowed on the road without a front brake, a recumbrent is allowed on the road with out a front brake (provided the seat was low enough) and a penny farthing is also allowed on the road (legs propel the front wheel).

So please stop saying that bikes on the road without a front brake is illegal, there are caveats.

As for the police dealing with drivers and cyclists differently in the terms of a crash:

A neighbour and friend was unfortunately killed by a HGV two years ago. The road was straight, visibility was exceptional, neither bike nor HGV was found to be defective. At the scene of the crash, another friend who was nearly killed by the HGV (he saw it at the last minute and avoided it), was placed into the back of a police car for fourty minutes, whilst the driver was allowed to walk around, be questioned, etc. I've not been in the back of a police car, but apparently, you are locked in.

So the guy who has just had a near death experience, watched his friend get crushed by a HGV, is left alone in the back of a police car for 40 minutes. No medics saw him, in fact they weren't made aware that another cyclists was involved, whilst the driver was seen to by medics etc. His words not mine, is that the police basically wanted him out of the way. His respect for the police evaporated after that fateful day.

The same police force have publically stated that Northamptonshire does not have a problem with close passes since their data supports such a stance. However, they don't actually collate any data on the subject! They also told me that close passes are a very small part of total collisions, until I pointed out that if there's a collision, it's an RTC/RTA not a close pass.

So yes, the police do actually treat cyclists and drivers completely different, in favour of the driver, even when the driver is clearly at fault.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 7 years ago
3 likes

 

Rich CB

"Articles like this can only do harm. They cannot improve things for cyclists".

 

I disagree entirely - if two cyclists follow the advice and are not subject to manslaughter charges and evidence being stitched up by the Plod then things have improved for cyclists.

 

"Technology is also on our side, cameras give us evidence, driver aids reduce the risk posed by inattention, longer term self driving technology will eradicate the 'professional' driver and all their lobbying will be for nought".

 

Technology may be on our side but again this doesn't overcome the entrenched bias as most forces make it difficult to submit the evidence and then deem it 'unfit' to use. As for driver aids in cars, many of them appear to be making people lazier and the main pieces of technology used to sell cars are media centres which will do the opposite of what you wish.

 

 

Avatar
Dr_Lex | 7 years ago
4 likes

Good job the other Jonathan didn't have comments enabled on his original modest proposal.

Avatar
nbrus | 7 years ago
0 likes

Rich_cb wrote:
John Stevenson wrote:

Exactly. Cycling campaigns have decades of ineffectual politeness behind them. My favourite example is Sustrans' Safe Routes To School, which has been going in one form or another since the mid-90s with exactly no effect whatsoever on the number of kids riding to school.

If you're not angry you're not paying attention.

Articles like yours will never make things better, they can only make things worse. All you've done is pander to the aggressive, inconsiderate cyclist stereotype that the tabloids constantly reference. You've got a platform, you could use it to do some good, at the moment you're just doing the Daily Mail's work for them.

http://www.ereleases.com/pr-fuel/biggest-pr-myth-of-all/

Quote:

Long before I even got into the PR game, I’d always heard people say “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” The theory is that as long as people are talking about you, it’s a good thing. Even if they’re saying awful things about you or your company, the publicity is supposed to still be good because your name is on the top of people’s minds, keeping you relevant.

...

I could go on and on with examples of how bad publicity has hurt brands of all sizes, but I think you’re starting to get the point. The truth is there is such a thing as bad publicity. And while all of the brands I mentioned can and likely will eventually recover, the bad publicity they’ve received has done some serious damage for at least the short term and maybe longer.

Avatar
nbrus | 7 years ago
1 like

Any cyclist like to bet that they won't be prosecuted under Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act for leaving the scene if they collide with a pedestrian and scarper? Despite the claim that this applies only to motor vehicles (or 'mechanically propelled vehicles') I wouldn't count on that as an argument.   Alliston was convicted of 'wanton and furious driving' but you don't 'drive' a bicycle. Also, his legs count as a rear brake, apparently. You'll likely be done for 'hit and run' if you leave the scene regardless of the lack of a proper definition, and no one will even care.

Avatar
wildnorthlands | 7 years ago
0 likes

It would be terrible if CS3, the segregated route along the Embankment was ripped out. Maybe we should start a petition about this now. 

Avatar
Dnnnnnn | 7 years ago
1 like

Setting aside the moral objectionability of the suggestion you should hit-and-run... in a busy urban at least the chances of making a clean escape, whether at the time or subsequently, may be fairly slim.

If there aren't useful witnesses to the collision (some of whom might intervene - I think I might) then I'd thought you are quite likely to be traceable via CCTV before the incident. Perhaps all the way to your point of origin (workplace/home).

And if you're caught having done that then no-one will care if they stepped out in front of you or you couldn't reasonably avoid them.

Charlie Allison was probably found guilty as much for what he did either side of the collision as for the tragic incident itself. You shouldn't go to jail just for being a twat - but he probably will.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 7 years ago
2 likes

I think we already have.

 

Have you seen the stopping distance video used in the Alliston case?

 

How can you prove 5 minutes after a car has passed over ice how a car with different tyres would act?

 

Then we just need to look at the discourse that surrounds the several hundred car drivers killing a pedestrian each year and the charges presented compared to the rare incidents involving a cyclist.

 

If the WiFi under your bridge allows access to other sources, give it a go. As a cyclist yourself, do these things not concern you?

Avatar
nbrus replied to alansmurphy | 7 years ago
1 like

alansmurphy wrote:

I think we already have.

Have you seen the stopping distance video used in the Alliston case?

How can you prove 5 minutes after a car has passed over ice how a car with different tyres would act?

Then we just need to look at the discourse that surrounds the several hundred car drivers killing a pedestrian each year and the charges presented compared to the rare incidents involving a cyclist.

If the WiFi under your bridge allows access to other sources, give it a go. As a cyclist yourself, do these things not concern you?

Yes, I would be very concerned if I believed some great injustice was taking place. And I'll be here pointing it out. I've still to see it.

I have seen the stopping distance video on the Alliston case ... I'm not sure how useful it is seeing as Alliston didn't manage to stop within 6.53 m whereas a bike with normal brakes managed to stop within 3 m in the wet and without lifting the rear wheel. Kind of proves the point.

Avatar
davel replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
0 likes

nbrus wrote:

I have seen the stopping distance video on the Alliston case ... I'm not sure how useful it is seeing as Alliston didn't manage to stop within 6.53 m whereas a bike with normal brakes managed to stop within 3 m in the wet and without lifting the rear wheel. Kind of proves the point.

Are you saying that that video represents a reasonable test of how Alliston's bike would have behaved in the collision, had it had a front brake?

Avatar
nbrus replied to davel | 7 years ago
1 like

davel wrote:

nbrus wrote:

I have seen the stopping distance video on the Alliston case ... I'm not sure how useful it is seeing as Alliston didn't manage to stop within 6.53 m whereas a bike with normal brakes managed to stop within 3 m in the wet and without lifting the rear wheel. Kind of proves the point.

Are you saying that that video represents a reasonable test of how Alliston's bike would have behaved in the collision, had it had a front brake?

Seems reasonable ... even with considerable margin for error (6.53 - 3 = 3.53 m). They did the test in the wet and they didn't use disc brakes. Granted it isn't perfect, but they did suggest even a butchers bike could have stopped in time ... who rides a butchers bike? It would be nice to see some stopping distances for the actual bike. Why would a fixie without a front brake be classed as non road legal without a front brake if the stopping distances weren't impacted? Have they been improperly categorised? Should they be road legal? Unless someone does more tests, then the Police tests are all we have.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
3 likes

nbrus wrote:

[...] Why would ae fixie without a front brake be classed as non road legal without a front brake if the stopping distances weren't impacted? Have they been improperly categorised? Should they be road legal? Unless someone does more tests, then the Police tests are all we have.

the reason why you have to have two independent braking systems is to provide back-up when one of them fails. Failure of the only braking system would be catastrophic.

Avatar
nbrus replied to ConcordeCX | 7 years ago
1 like

ConcordeCX wrote:

nbrus wrote:

[...] Why would ae fixie without a front brake be classed as non road legal without a front brake if the stopping distances weren't impacted? Have they been improperly categorised? Should they be road legal? Unless someone does more tests, then the Police tests are all we have.

the reason why you have to have two independent braking systems is to provide back-up when one of them fails. Failure of the only braking system would be catastrophic.

Thanks ... I should have googled that.

Avatar
Ush replied to ConcordeCX | 7 years ago
0 likes
ConcordeCX wrote:

nbrus wrote:

[...] Why would ae fixie without a front brake be classed as non road legal without a front brake if the stopping distances weren't impacted? Have they been improperly categorised? Should they be road legal? Unless someone does more tests, then the Police tests are all we have.

the reason why you have to have two independent braking systems is to provide back-up when one of them fails. Failure of the only braking system would be catastrophic.

Which is why I have always run a front brake on my fixie although I rarely actually use it in practice ... once the lockring popped off the rearhub and boy, was I glad I had a front brake.

Avatar
Avicenna replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
4 likes

nbrus wrote:

I have seen the stopping distance video on the Alliston case ... I'm not sure how useful it is seeing as Alliston didn't manage to stop within 6.53 m whereas a bike with normal brakes managed to stop within 3 m in the wet and without lifting the rear wheel. Kind of proves the point.

Is this the video where a police cyclist can clearly see the upcoming cone and plan to brake as he goes past it? Where they probably had several practice takes and chose the one where he timed his braking best? This is in no way representative of real life.

Reaction time for an unexpected hazard (pedestrian stepping out between parked vehicles) is far longer than for an anticipated hazards (pedestrian stepping out on zebra crossing). And he was travelling at 18mph = 8 metres/ second.

Avatar
nbrus replied to Avicenna | 7 years ago
0 likes

Avicenna wrote:

Is this the video where a police cyclist can clearly see the upcoming cone and plan to brake as he goes past it? Where they probably had several practice takes and chose the one where he timed his braking best? This is in no way representative of real life.

Reaction time for an unexpected hazard (pedestrian stepping out between parked vehicles) is far longer than for an anticipated hazards (pedestrian stepping out on zebra crossing). And he was travelling at 18mph = 8 metres/ second.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Alliston aware of the potential hazard before it became a hazard? He shouted his first warning before Mrs Briggs stepped out and before he took avoiding action. He could have chosen to slow down first just in case she stepped out, but he kept on going instead. He was already aware there was a potential problem ahead.

(I'll retract that as I can't find where I got that from ... but two shouts in 1 second is a lot ... I can't do it).

Avatar
alansmurphy | 7 years ago
1 like

You tell me how they were able to replicate the exact same conditions to come up with the answer he couldn't have stopped. Just one tyre may have been off the ice (half a tyre even), or the ice may have been thinner at one point, churned up to slush. It certainly wouldn't have been the same after he went over it as before let alone at whatever point they tried to investigate.

 

Him setting out in an unroadworthy car absolutely had a bearing on him killing people.

 

 

Avatar
nbrus replied to alansmurphy | 7 years ago
0 likes

alansmurphy wrote:

You tell me how they were able to replicate the exact same conditions to come up with the answer he couldn't have stopped. Just one tyre may have been off the ice (half a tyre even), or the ice may have been thinner at one point, churned up to slush. It certainly wouldn't have been the same after he went over it as before let alone at whatever point they tried to investigate.

Him setting out in an unroadworthy car absolutely had a bearing on him killing people.

Ok, I think I see your problem ... you don't trust the Police ... you believe they deliberately make up evidence and reinterpret witness statements and do everything possible to side with motorists against cyclists. The legal system is completely rigged against cyclists and you are very angry about that. I absolutely get it. Now we just need to prove it.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
4 likes

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

You tell me how they were able to replicate the exact same conditions to come up with the answer he couldn't have stopped. Just one tyre may have been off the ice (half a tyre even), or the ice may have been thinner at one point, churned up to slush. It certainly wouldn't have been the same after he went over it as before let alone at whatever point they tried to investigate.

Him setting out in an unroadworthy car absolutely had a bearing on him killing people.

Ok, I think I see your problem ... you don't trust the Police ... you believe they deliberately make up evidence and reinterpret witness statements and do everything possible to side with motorists against cyclists. The legal system is completely rigged against cyclists and you are very angry about that. I absolutely get it. Now we just need to prove it.

Rigged against cyclistsd probably not. Rigged in favour of motorists becausethey are the majority group, yes, probably. Maybe not even intentionally.

Avatar
Ush replied to oldstrath | 7 years ago
1 like
oldstrath wrote:

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

You tell me how they were able to replicate the exact same conditions to come up with the answer he couldn't have stopped. Just one tyre may have been off the ice (half a tyre even), or the ice may have been thinner at one point, churned up to slush. It certainly wouldn't have been the same after he went over it as before let alone at whatever point they tried to investigate.

Him setting out in an unroadworthy car absolutely had a bearing on him killing people.

Ok, I think I see your problem ... you don't trust the Police ... you believe they deliberately make up evidence and reinterpret witness statements and do everything possible to side with motorists against cyclists. The legal system is completely rigged against cyclists and you are very angry about that. I absolutely get it. Now we just need to prove it.

Rigged against cyclistsd probably not. Rigged in favour of motorists becausethey are the majority group, yes, probably. Maybe not even intentionally.

This is a nuanced and essential point that I'm glad you made. All too often this complaint is mistaken for the claim that there is a conspiracy against cyclists.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
3 likes

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

You tell me how they were able to replicate the exact same conditions to come up with the answer he couldn't have stopped. Just one tyre may have been off the ice (half a tyre even), or the ice may have been thinner at one point, churned up to slush. It certainly wouldn't have been the same after he went over it as before let alone at whatever point they tried to investigate.

Him setting out in an unroadworthy car absolutely had a bearing on him killing people.

Ok, I think I see your problem ... you don't trust the Police ... you believe they deliberately make up evidence and reinterpret witness statements and do everything possible to side with motorists against cyclists. The legal system is completely rigged against cyclists and you are very angry about that. I absolutely get it. Now we just need to prove it.

Almost - the police clearly decide who they think is to blame and then try to make the evidence fit, and they are just as suceptible to prejudiced thinking as the rest of us with no direct experience of a situation - that is why the media frenzy surrounding this case is inappropriately disproportionate.

Avatar
nbrus replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
1 like

beezus fufoon wrote:

Almost - the police clearly decide who they think is to blame and then try to make the evidence fit, and they are just as suceptible to prejudiced thinking as the rest of us with no direct experience of a situation - that is why the media frenzy surrounding this case is inappropriately disproportionate.

Agree, I think that is exactly what happens ... Police are not there to prove innocence, they are there to bring prosecutions in respect of the victim (I could be wrong). This is normal.

If a case gets to court, then the judge/jury do not pick sides ... they start with a blank slate and look at both sides of the argument.

Avatar
nbrus | 7 years ago
0 likes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4194196/One-crash-day-involving-...

Quote:

UPDATED: 6 February 2017

One crash a day involving cyclists and pedestrians: 50% rise in accidents in the past seven years 

  • Accidents rose from 274 in 2009 to 408 in 2015, a 47 per cent increase 
  • In several collisions, pedestrians were killed and the cyclist was prosecuted
  • Biggest regional spike was London, which rose from 124 in 2009 to 226 in 2015

The number of accidents between cyclists and pedestrians has soared by almost 50 per cent in seven years.

One crash on pavements or roads now takes place every day as the number of cyclists increases. The total number of accidents rose to 408 in 2015, according to official figures, a significant jump from the 274 in 2009.

They involved several collisions in which pedestrians were killed and the cyclists were subsequently prosecuted for reckless behaviour.

Campaigners branded the figures worrying and said more work needs to be done to keep all those on the pavements and roads safe.

The statistics emerged after police in one north London borough said they would no longer pursue cyclists seen riding on the pavement. Instead of receiving a fixed £50 penalty, they will be asked why they are not on the road.

Research by analysts Mapmechanics found over the seven-year period, 3,476 people were injured – 696 seriously. The Department for Transport figures showed accidents between cyclists and pedestrians left 525 casualties, including two deaths, in 2015 – a 47 per cent increase from 2009.

The biggest regional spike was in London, where accidents jumped from 124 in 2009 to 226 in 2015.

Among the most serious crashes was that involving Philip Benwell, who knocked down a schoolgirl and left her for dead after jumping a red light in 2013.

He was jailed for a year after admitting causing grievous bodily harm. He was initially charged with ‘wanton and furious cycling’ under a law enacted in 1861.

Another cyclist, Darryl Gittoes, was also jailed for a year in 2015 after knocking down a 73-year-old woman in Hereford while riding without brakes and a flat rear tyre. The victim died nine days later.

David Cockrell, of Mapmechanics, said many accidents will have taken place at crossings, junctions or on pavements.

‘Trying to prevent accidents and injuries caused by cyclist and pedestrian crashes remains a significant challenge for the authorities,’ he said.

Tompion Platt, of Living Streets, a charity which campaigns for ‘everyday walking’, called for more to be done to protect pedestrians.

‘Mixing people walking and cycling together can cause fear and even serious injury,’ he said.

But Sam Jones, of Cycling UK, said the ‘perception’ of a conflict between cyclists and pedestrians ‘simply does not exist’, pointing out that most serious or fatal accidents involving pedestrians are due to collisions with motor vehicles.

He said: ‘We appreciate the concern but we cannot agree [pavement cycling] is the danger many believe it must be.’

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to nbrus | 7 years ago
3 likes
nbrus wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4194196/One-crash-day-involving-...

Quote:

UPDATED: 6 February 2017

One crash a day involving cyclists and pedestrians: 50% rise in accidents in the past seven years 

  • Accidents rose from 274 in 2009 to 408 in 2015, a 47 per cent increase 
  • In several collisions, pedestrians were killed and the cyclist was prosecuted
  • Biggest regional spike was London, which rose from 124 in 2009 to 226 in 2015

The number of accidents between cyclists and pedestrians has soared by almost 50 per cent in seven years.

One crash on pavements or roads now takes place every day as the number of cyclists increases. The total number of accidents rose to 408 in 2015, according to official figures, a significant jump from the 274 in 2009.

They involved several collisions in which pedestrians were killed and the cyclists were subsequently prosecuted for reckless behaviour.

Campaigners branded the figures worrying and said more work needs to be done to keep all those on the pavements and roads safe.

The statistics emerged after police in one north London borough said they would no longer pursue cyclists seen riding on the pavement. Instead of receiving a fixed £50 penalty, they will be asked why they are not on the road.

Research by analysts Mapmechanics found over the seven-year period, 3,476 people were injured – 696 seriously. The Department for Transport figures showed accidents between cyclists and pedestrians left 525 casualties, including two deaths, in 2015 – a 47 per cent increase from 2009.

The biggest regional spike was in London, where accidents jumped from 124 in 2009 to 226 in 2015.

Among the most serious crashes was that involving Philip Benwell, who knocked down a schoolgirl and left her for dead after jumping a red light in 2013.

He was jailed for a year after admitting causing grievous bodily harm. He was initially charged with ‘wanton and furious cycling’ under a law enacted in 1861.

Another cyclist, Darryl Gittoes, was also jailed for a year in 2015 after knocking down a 73-year-old woman in Hereford while riding without brakes and a flat rear tyre. The victim died nine days later.

David Cockrell, of Mapmechanics, said many accidents will have taken place at crossings, junctions or on pavements.

‘Trying to prevent accidents and injuries caused by cyclist and pedestrian crashes remains a significant challenge for the authorities,’ he said.

Tompion Platt, of Living Streets, a charity which campaigns for ‘everyday walking’, called for more to be done to protect pedestrians.

‘Mixing people walking and cycling together can cause fear and even serious injury,’ he said.

But Sam Jones, of Cycling UK, said the ‘perception’ of a conflict between cyclists and pedestrians ‘simply does not exist’, pointing out that most serious or fatal accidents involving pedestrians are due to collisions with motor vehicles.

He said: ‘We appreciate the concern but we cannot agree [pavement cycling] is the danger many believe it must be.’

What's that supposed to prove? Is it a scientific study showing who comes off worse of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians? Doesn't appear to be. Certainly I challenge you to show that the division of injuries is anywhere near the same as with collisions between motorists and pedestrians.

Doesn't surprise me that you use the Daily Mail as a source.

Absolutely agree that mixing walking and cycling is a bad idea. Which is why space needs to be taken from drivers.

Avatar
Rich_cb | 7 years ago
6 likes

This article is bullshit.

If you've injured another human being stop and help them.

Ask yourself what you would want people to do if it was your relative lying there injured.

Then do exactly that.

The Daily Mail are currently trawling cycling websites looking for anything to paint cyclists in a negative light.

Well done for making their job a whole lot easier.

Pages

Latest Comments