justice.gov.uk/offenders/ty … /juveniles
seems to confirm age limit of 18 for youth offenders. Puzzled now.
justice.gov.uk/offenders/ty … /juveniles
seems to confirm age limit of 18 for youth offenders. Puzzled now.
isnt it time all bikes were registered,tested for basic saftey and insured and any cyclist should pass a cbt before being allowed to ride like the rest of the real world?
think of all the cash the authorities could generate in fines…
xamtex:
isnt it time all bikes were registered,tested for basic saftey and insured and any cyclist should pass a cbt before being allowed to ride like the rest of the real world?
think of all the cash the authorities could generate in fines…
Not just fines. Dvla for registration fees etc, an industry of training providers and examiners.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
del949:
Under-18 young offender institution contact details - GOV.UKseems to confirm age limit of 18 for youth offenders. Puzzled now.
According to this gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility 18 to 25 year olds don’t go to full adult prison. Wikipedia seems to think young offenders institutions are upto the age of 20.
I’ve learnt something new!
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
Rowley010:
TiredAndEmotional:
Rowley010:
Finally cyclists might start to get the message that they can’t just do whatever they want on the road and blame everyone who is bigger than them for it. There are actually rules for them to follow and this shows that now and again the law might actually come down hard on them.Wot? Like bad car and truck drivers have learned their lesson?
The difference is cyclists seem to think they can just blame everyone else because they are cyclists
Ha they are not alone.A few on here do exactly the same all the time.
Drivers in general never think they are in the wrong.
tachograph:
The woman’s widower is right to say there should be a new law of “causing death by dangerous cycling”.
Totally agree. I dont have much personal experience re cyclists in the UK anymore but shopping in Malaga walking around the streets here is bad enough, theyre a law unto themselves, wherever theres a gap they’ll be two wheels coming through and thats just the pavements…
I have no problem with the prison sentence for the cyclist, and I have no problem with those that say it should have been harsher, in fact I welcome tougher sentencing for all who break the laws of the road. But I can’t help noticing the severity of this sentence in comparison to drivers who have killed by crap uncaring driving who then don’t go to prison. I can’t help but think if this had been a car driver it may have just been a few penalty points or a short disqualification.
Google ‘Driver Kills and Escapes Jail UK’ and read through the astonishing levels of leniency, drivers escaping jail seems the norm. here are a few below, (strangely most seem to be drivers killing cyclists)
standard.co.uk/news/crime/d … 31126.html
express.co.uk/news/uk/791220 … s-argument
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi … 660564.stm
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s … d-38030084
so even though I am happy that the sentence is reasonable, I can’t help but think it is out of proportion when compared to when drivers kill.
1…its like dog bites man is no news,but man bites dog is…media frenzy means the wee fanny gets crucified.the judge has to be seen to be firm and cover his jacksie so no flak goes in his direction for leniency.
2.the guy is a dweeb,and no doubt had no intentions of doing any criminal deed. he might have been riding a superdooper bike with no brakes,along with another 1000 riding the same bikes every single day in every single uk city(just more of them in londonistan) hence the option of jail time in a young offenders instead of prison.
if he is unrepentant then he is entitled to his own opinion.he wasnt riding on the pavement,and the wifey stepped out in front of him apparantly on the phone,so if she stepped out in front of a car (albeit one with brakes) then she would have been totally to blame.this has blame on both sides.the fanny was just another whale kissing cyclist doing what they do and just copped some grief for it.
Bluey Circles:
I have no problem with the prison sentence for the cyclist, and I have no problem with those that say it should have been harsher, in fact I welcome tougher sentencing for all who break the laws of the road. But I can’t help noticing the severity of this sentence in comparison to drivers who have killed by crap uncaring driving who then don’t go to prison. I can’t help but think if this had been a car driver it may have just been a few penalty points or a short disqualification.Google ‘Driver Kills and Escapes Jail UK’ and read through the astonishing levels of leniency, drivers escaping jail seems the norm. here are a few below, (strangely most seem to be drivers killing cyclists)
standard.co.uk/news/crime/d … 31126.html
express.co.uk/news/uk/791220 … s-argument
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi … 660564.stm
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s … d-38030084so even though I am happy that the sentence is reasonable, I can’t help but think it is out of proportion when compared to when drivers kill.
I haven’t read all the links but from what I’ve seen I would say that the difference is that this cyclist was riding a bike that was not made for road use.
I think you’ll find that if a car driver killed a pedestrian because he knowingly took onto a busy public road a car that was not fitted with brakes, he would probably also get a prison sentence.
its the norm for every dispatch rider and your average cool dude cycling dweeb to use these bikes now because they use them on tracks and its just the coolest thing ever if your toodling around the city. nobodys going to give a monkeys about using them or policing them so once they see some american film with someone riding them,then its off to the bike shop for a designer brakeless bike.
dieseldog999:
1…its like dog bites man is no news,but man bites dog is…media frenzy means the wee fanny gets crucified.the judge has to be seen to be firm and cover his jacksie so no flak goes in his direction for leniency.
2.the guy is a dweeb,and no doubt had no intentions of doing any criminal deed. he might have been riding a superdooper bike with no brakes,along with another 1000 riding the same bikes every single day in every single uk city(just more of them in londonistan) hence the option of jail time in a young offenders instead of prison.
if he is unrepentant then he is entitled to his own opinion.he wasnt riding on the pavement,and the wifey stepped out in front of him apparantly on the phone,so if she stepped out in front of a car (albeit one with brakes) then she would have been totally to blame.this has blame on both sides.the fanny was just another whale kissing cyclist doing what they do and just copped some grief for it.
summed up nicely - also the unfortunate victim seems to part of the middle class with her role as a Human Resources Consultant so I guess the media considered her to be one of their own London elite. Put it another way had this lad hit some old wifey shuffling her way to her factory job in Sunderland, would anyone of cared ? for once justice has been done.
Was the cyclist an irresponsible idiot for riding a track bike on the road with no front brake - yes of course he was. Irresponsibly idiotic 18 year old male road users are sadly not of course either a new or rare phenomenon.
This article makes for interesting reading:
theguardian.com/environment … ing-charge
Expert evidence from the police for the prosecution was that Alliston had been going at 18mph (8 m/s) and that his braking distance was 12 metres. From experiments on other bicycles, including a police mountain bike, it was alleged that with a front brake he would have been able to stop in 3 metres. In cross-examination, it was suggested to him that with a “butcher’s bike” with good brakes, he could have avoided the collision.
There is no record that Alliston had his own expert to give evidence, or that the risk of tipping over the handlebars was considered. The 3 metre braking distance is frankly absurd. Newtonian physics using Wilson’s calculated 0.5g yields 6.5 metres with the front brake and 13 metres without it. The difference is a factor or two, not four.
Given that the prosecution case was that Alliston was 6.53 metres away when Briggs stepped out, this difference is crucial. The Highway Code gives a typical stopping distance of 12 metres for a car driving at 20mph, suggesting that if Briggs had stepped into the path of a “slow” moving car, the driver would not have been able to avoid her. Like a driver, Alliston has to be given some reaction and thinking time. He shouted twice and gave evidence that he moved to pass behind her when she stepped backwards. Any cyclist will confirm that quick steering may be preferable to emergency braking when avoiding a pedestrian.
The article seems to suggest that even with a front brake, there is a good chance he would have hit her anyway (although perhaps at a lower speed).
I have no desire to speak ill of the deceased, but if as is alleged the pedestrian stepped out a mere 6.53 metres in front of a bicycle doing 18mph then that was also irresponsible !!!
Like dieseldog says there was blame on both sides and given that (the above article states) that 90% of pedestrians hit by a CAR at 20mph survive, she was very very unlucky.