Arrogant cyclist slaughters innocent mother

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some cyclists become sanctimonious arseholes when on 2 wheels, just look at the regular threads on here. They adopt a different persona, almost like they're manic. They become possessed by their holiness of pedalling, wanting us all to realise it's for our own good...
 


mutley said:
Who's saying the bike didn't make any difference to the death? The bike was illegal to use on a public road,a bike without a front brake can't stop as quickly as one with front brakes.
Just guessing but that's probably why it is illegal,and the little prick knew that.
Click to expand...
The defence. they may be utterly wrong. I said if.

I assume it cannot stop as quickly. The point is that it may have made no difference to the outcome. I think that is unlikely but I'm not an expert and have no knowledge of these bikes.
 
Harry Angstrom said:
The defence. they may be utterly wrong. I said if.

I assume it cannot stop as quickly. The point is that it may have made no difference to the outcome. I think that is unlikely but I'm not an expert and have no knowledge of these bikes.
Click to expand...
Me neither,but as you say it can't stop as quickly,so therefore it will have been traveling at a greater speed on impact.

Lambchops said:
you are judging the person not the situation
Click to expand...
No,I'm judging the situation,merely adding the person seems like an arrogant prick. You disagree?
 
Last edited:
mutley said:
Who's saying the bike didn't make any difference to the death? The bike was illegal to use on a public road,a bike without a front brake can't stop as quickly as one with front brakes.
Just guessing but that's probably why it is illegal,and the little prick knew that.
Click to expand...
He's claiming he didn't but nobody will know. That is unless he was daft enough to comment about it somewhere like on tw@tter just as he did regarding feeling like that stunt cycle rider. Given this comment in the trial and his previous tweet then is his claim of not knowing the law easily believable?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...t-front-brake-collision-kim-briggs-old-bailey

Under cross-examination by the prosecutor, Duncan Penny QC, Alliston said: “I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe.”

Yet he made a tweet about riding a fixed bike being like riding in a Lucas Brunelle movie. Here is one video that I think is Lucas Brunelle.


So maybe he is arrogant and a prick but again not easily proved but it's not looking like he was 100% innocent like a cyclist who tries to stay within the law to the best of their knowledge but may have removed their front brake and oblivious to the front brake law.

Imagine if a car driver had made previous comments about feeling like Ken Block (or those mad drivers who treat the roads as race tracks though I can't find a video quickly) when driving due to some illegal modification they'd made and they then killed a kid. There'd be uproar arl ower the place but how many would still be 'defending' him the driver just on the fact that they could have pulled a handbrake turn and stopped, or claimed some other expertise skill to stop in time? What if it was also claimed that if he hadn't modified the car that the death could have been prevented and possibly no collision at all would have happened?

I didn't know about the front brake law and probably quite a few others didn't who've now heard about this case. That's at least 1 good thing to come out of this unfortunate incident.

Harry Angstrom said:
The defence. they may be utterly wrong. I said if.

I assume it cannot stop as quickly. The point is that it may have made no difference to the outcome. I think that is unlikely but I'm not an expert and have no knowledge of these bikes.
Click to expand...

They are claiming the stopping distance is 3M on a conventional bike and that he was a minimum 6.65M away when he took evasive action (swerved) and his bike was tested at 12M stopping distance. There is also CCTV of the incident so I'm assuming they've measured this 6.65M and I think it did make a difference to the outcome given what has been said so far as surely you'd be able to stop within 6.65M? Bear in mind that 6.65M is when he took action and not when he may have first seen her. I've seen it reported that she stepped out so far but then stepped back into his path.

There was a pedestrian crossing less than 10 metres away but even so that does not change the fact he was riding illegally.
 
mutley said:
Me neither,but as you say it can't stop as quickly,so therefore it will have been traveling at a greater speed on impact.


No,I'm judging the situation,merely adding the person seems like an arrogant prick. You disagree?
Click to expand...

He may well be a prick but that doesn't mean hes guilty - he could be the nicest lad going and the lass would have still stepped out in front of him without looking
 
mutley said:
Me neither,but as you say it can't stop as quickly,so therefore it will have been traveling at a greater speed on impact.


No,I'm judging the situation,merely adding the person seems like an arrogant prick. You disagree?
Click to expand...
Agreed, but the difference between the actual speed and the predicted speed may have still had the same outcome.
 
MackemX said:
They are claiming the stopping distance is 3M on a conventional bike and that he was a minimum 6.65M away when he took evasive action (swerved) and his bike was tested at 12M stopping distance. There is also CCTV of the incident so I'm assuming they've measured this 6.65M and I think it did make a difference to the outcome given what has been said so far as surely you'd be able to stop within 6.65M? Bear in mind that 6.65M is when he took action and not when he may have first seen her. I've seen it reported that she stepped out so far but then stepped back into his path.

There was a pedestrian crossing less than 10 metres away but even so that does not change the fact he was riding illegally.
Click to expand...

i have no idea what happened. Thepost I replied to was about stopping distances. My point is that it may have made no difference if the bike had no front brakes, depending on the circumstances. I'll leave the decision to the jury.
 
Lambchops said:
He may well be a prick but that doesn't mean hes guilty - he could be the nicest lad going and the lass would have still stepped out in front of him without looking
Click to expand...
'Mens rea' - in this case his attitude to his bike and his behaviour, his general intentions, his foresight or lack of it, his recklessness or lack of it - is an important element of the crime of manslaughter. Without proof of the necessary mens rea he can't be convicted of manslaughter. "He was a little prick" is one way of expressing a finding that he had the necessary mens rea.
 
MackemX said:
He's claiming he didn't but nobody will know. That is unless he was daft enough to comment about it somewhere like on tw@tter just as he did regarding feeling like that stunt cycle rider. Given this comment in the trial and his previous tweet then is his claim of not knowing the law easily believable?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...t-front-brake-collision-kim-briggs-old-bailey

Under cross-examination by the prosecutor, Duncan Penny QC, Alliston said: “I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe.”

Yet he made a tweet about riding a fixed bike being like riding in a Lucas Brunelle movie. Here is one video that I think is Lucas Brunelle.

Click to expand...
 
Lambchops said:
wouldn't have been caught if the wife hadn't stepped out in front of him though would he - she wasn't on a pedestrian crossing either?
Click to expand...
By a leap of logic, drink driving is ok as long as nobody walks out in front of you? By riding/driving on a road you are bound by the rules & regulations, one of which is to have the ability to avoid a collision. He didn't
 
c032745y said:
By a leap of logic, drink driving is ok as long as nobody walks out in front of you? By riding/driving on a road you are bound by the rules & regulations, one of which is to have the ability to avoid a collision. He didn't
Click to expand...

I know man ;) my take on it all is that it was just an accident that had a horrific outcome - he shouldn't have been riding that bike on a public road and she should have been paying attention to her surroundings. The incident was easily avoidable by all parties
 
Lambchops said:
I know man ;) my take on it all is that it was just an accident that had a horrific outcome - he shouldn't have been riding that bike on a public road and she should have been paying attention to her surroundings. The incident was easily avoidable by all parties
Click to expand...
But, BUT, I am guilty of day dreaming or being in a warped version of reality as I wander around the planet, I'm sure we all are. I don't expect to be twatted by some barmpot choosing to NOT ride legally & proficiently...
 
c032745y said:
But, BUT, I am guilty of day dreaming or being in a warped version of reality as I wander around the planet, I'm sure we all are. I don't expect to be twatted by some barmpot choosing to NOT ride legally & proficiently...
Click to expand...

But would you walk into a road without looking? if you do and get splattered you can't really complain
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top