Arrogant cyclist slaughters innocent mother

Status
Not open for further replies.


Pseudonym Number 1 said:
So you've just admitted to racially aggravated assault, nice...
Click to expand...
No i havent you f***ing berk. I was on a cycle path, four chinese lads were walking abreast they all saw me coming but decided not to move (apparently soneone off here says this is to do wuth losing face in front of other blokes) i then barged past while stiffening my elbow to allow him to get the message of if theres a next time get the fuck out of the way. I would have taken the same action whatever their ethnicity you melt.
 
spitfire said:
Pedestrians are becoming as big a hazard on the road as cyclists, and I have to say its mainly lasses walking along with their phones in front of them and headphones on. I stopped one stepping out in front of a car the other day. She wasn't even fit either:evil:
Click to expand...
Nearly ran a young lass over the other day. She was half way across the road, glued to her phone and didn't even seem startled when I beeped at her to not continue her walk right in front of my car.
 
Alliston said he shouted twice after spotting Mrs Briggs.

Asked why he shouted, the defendant replied: "To make the pedestrian aware of my presence so they were aware if they were to then cross the road."
Click to expand...

So he now claims he shouted at her before she tried to cross the road. Why shout get out of my way at her before she tries to cross...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...gs-death-east-london-old-street-a7898496.html

I like the lawyers way of subliminally putting butcher into the minds of the jury.
 
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...

If the deficiency in the vehicle was sufficient to cause the death then he should be prosecuted for causing a death. If the deficiency was not the cause then he should be done for riding an illegal bike.

personally, I would lock up drink drivers whether they are in an accident or not.
 
Morse said:
It wasn't a motorist, though. They face stringent safety checks on their cars because of their mass and speed, and bikes aren't tested at all. They are nowhere near as dangerous as cars, and that is reflected in legislation. If and when they are registered and face compulsory testing, then maybe they can roll out harsh penalties for riding unroadworthy bikes.

The more I think about this case, the more it doesn't add up. I'm struggling to see how the hell a direct collision was the outcome. Did she end up moving the same way as the cyclist swerved? Its like neither of them would yield out of a matter of principle! Of course, that's not the case, but Christ, if I saw I cyclist approaching, I'd at least avoid a direct hit, and if I were a cyclist, it'd be no different. Bikes are extremely manoeuvrable, as is an able bodied person.

If the pedestrian didn't see him it all, the scenario is more plausible, but it seems she did, and the cyclist had time to shout at her to get out of the way. It reminds me of movie scenes where implausible amounts of time elapse between people spotting a hazard and a collision occurring.

I know, and I'm not saying for a second that he shouldn't be punished for that.
Click to expand...
There's no denying she stepped out but the way some on here are going on, it's as if she stepped out directly in front of him with a few metres to spare. He's even stated that he was riding at an “average speed” and claimed she stepped back into his path as he tried to avoid her as mentioned in the link below. Another question is, did he just try to swerve around her by going behind her and choose not to slow down enough to pass safely? Who knows apart from those who've seen the CCTV.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/841093/Cyclist-Charlie-Alliston-Kim-Briggs-London-street-crash

It seems she stepped out 3.8 seconds before the collision. Travelling at 18mph you'd cover around 30 meters in that time travelling at 7.8m/s

http://news.sky.com/story/crash-cyc...-she-lay-fatally-injured-court-hears-10989512

CCTV footage played in the courtroom showed Alliston beginning to swerve as he approached Mrs Briggs at an average speed of 18mph - with crash investigator Edward Small saying she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash.

So nothing like @monkeytassle's earlier ASSumption in this post claiming it was context :rolleyes:

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threa...innocent-mother.1385260/page-14#post-26052888

monkeytassle said:
This is context and not a defence of the little shit.

18mph is give or take 8m per second. He was less than 7m away from her when she stepped out according to the report. That gives him less than a second to register and react. It's possible he didn't even have time to brake under those circumstances.

The average driver reaction time is 2.3 seconds.
Click to expand...

It certainly seems as if some are hoying on the "I'm a cyclist" blinkers and simply treating this as a pedestrian stepping out very closely in front of a sensible cyclist yet it's looking worse the more info that come out. Here is a bit more info and it states that the crossing that was less than 10m away was on green so no need for him to be slowing down. However it also states that the PC looking at the CCTV couldn't see if she was on her phone so still not yet proven whether she was or wasn't on her phone.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/n...sing-pedestrian-crossing-court-told-1-5149788

Asked if Mrs Briggs was looking at her mobile phone when she stepped into the road, Mr Small said he could not tell “one way or the other” as she was partly obscured on the CCTV by a parked lorry.

Also further down it says this about Alliston's claim she was on her phone.

[i[He originally thought Mrs Briggs was on the phone because he saw the handset after the collision, the court heard.[/i]

This is a contraindicating statement given that above he commented that she actually did stop and had stepped back!

In transcripts read in court, he said: “I have warned her to stop. I thought she would stop but she didn’t. That’s all I can say. That’s all I can remember.”

He's also trying to deny he's a thrill seeker but personally I think he knew what he was doing by having no front brakes.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/n...legal-and-denies-being-thrillseeker-1-5153536

He read out a tweet from Alliston from 2015 in which he said: “The time when you first take your brakes off and feel like you’re in a Lucas Brunelle movie.”

The court heard how the stunt cyclist makes videos, in which he rides around cities weaving in and out of traffic at high speeds, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and going into bus lanes – “doing dangerous stuff”.

he's also backtracking on comments he made after the crash and claiming they were untruthful.

He also said he accepted messages he had posted on cycling forums and in comments on the Evening Standard website in the days following the crash were “not thought through” and “stupid”, and said they weren’t truthful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
scraff said:
No i havent you f***ing berk. I was on a cycle path, four chinese lads were walking abreast they all saw me coming but decided not to move (apparently soneone off here says this is to do wuth losing face in front of other blokes) i then barged past while stiffening my elbow to allow him to get the message of if theres a next time get the fuck out of the way. I would have taken the same action whatever their ethnicity you melt.
Click to expand...

:lol: Ok just plain old assault then.
 
Are the pedals permanently engaged with the rear wheel on the 'fixies'? (someone will say obviously yes but I've never ridden one since I was 4) and if so is the rear wheel braking only done by slowing down the rate your legs are pumping? I imagine the mass of the bike must be low enough to immediately stop the wheel turning by immediately stopping your legs but I can't imagine that's as good as a caliper or disk brake. You're essentially combating the torque of the wheel and the momentum of the bike with an opposing force of your leg muscles, which might be knackered after a long ride. If so your ability to brake must depend on your fitness level and state of tiredness. A front brake sounds like a good idea to me.
 
Typical OTT hysterical, stir the shit headline and thread title. It was a terrible accident. They happen, and this woman has been unfortunate to blindly wander out into the road, and its cost her the ultimate price. But lets sell a few more papers by any means possible. He deserves punishment, but not lynched.
 
Harry Angstrom said:
If the deficiency in the vehicle was sufficient to cause the death then he should be prosecuted for causing a death. If the deficiency was not the cause then he should be done for riding an illegal bike.

personally, I would lock up drink drivers whether they are in an accident or not.
Click to expand...
They are
 
NeilP said:
Are the pedals permanently engaged with the rear wheel on the 'fixies'? (someone will say obviously yes but I've never ridden one since I was 4) and if so is the rear wheel braking only done by slowing down the rate your legs are pumping? I imagine the mass of the bike must be low enough to immediately stop the wheel turning by immediately stopping your legs but I can't imagine that's as good as a caliper or disk brake. You're essentially combating the torque of the wheel and the momentum of the bike with an opposing force of your leg muscles, which might be knackered after a long ride. If so your ability to brake must depend on your fitness level and state of tiredness. A front brake sounds like a good idea to me.
Click to expand...
It is a good idea. But like I said I barely touch mine on my commute through London
 
MackemX said:
There's no denying she stepped out but the way some on here are going on, it's as if she stepped out directly in front of him with a few metres to spare. He's even stated that he was riding at an “average speed” and claimed she stepped back into his path as he tried to avoid her as mentioned in the link below. Another question is, did he just try to swerve around her by going behind her and choose not to slow down enough to pass safely? Who knows apart from those who've seen the CCTV.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/841093/Cyclist-Charlie-Alliston-Kim-Briggs-London-street-crash

It seems she stepped out 3.8 seconds before the collision. Travelling at 18mph you'd cover around 30 meters in that time travelling at 7.8m/s

http://news.sky.com/story/crash-cyc...-she-lay-fatally-injured-court-hears-10989512

CCTV footage played in the courtroom showed Alliston beginning to swerve as he approached Mrs Briggs at an average speed of 18mph - with crash investigator Edward Small saying she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash.

So nothing like @monkeytassle's earlier ASSumption in this post claiming it was context :rolleyes:

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threa...innocent-mother.1385260/page-14#post-26052888



It certainly seems as if some are hoying on the "I'm a cyclist" blinkers and simply treating this as a pedestrian stepping out very closely in front of a sensible cyclist yet it's looking worse the more info that come out. Here is a bit more info and it states that the crossing that was less than 10m away was on green so no need for him to be slowing down. However it also states that the PC looking at the CCTV couldn't see if she was on her phone so still not yet proven whether she was or wasn't on her phone.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/n...sing-pedestrian-crossing-court-told-1-5149788

Asked if Mrs Briggs was looking at her mobile phone when she stepped into the road, Mr Small said he could not tell “one way or the other” as she was partly obscured on the CCTV by a parked lorry.

Also further down it says this about Alliston's claim she was on her phone.

[i[He originally thought Mrs Briggs was on the phone because he saw the handset after the collision, the court heard.[/i]

This is a contraindicating statement given that above he commented that she actually did stop and had stepped back!

In transcripts read in court, he said: “I have warned her to stop. I thought she would stop but she didn’t. That’s all I can say. That’s all I can remember.”

He's also trying to deny he's a thrill seeker but personally I think he knew what he was doing by having no front brakes.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/n...legal-and-denies-being-thrillseeker-1-5153536

He read out a tweet from Alliston from 2015 in which he said: “The time when you first take your brakes off and feel like you’re in a Lucas Brunelle movie.”

The court heard how the stunt cyclist makes videos, in which he rides around cities weaving in and out of traffic at high speeds, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and going into bus lanes – “doing dangerous stuff”.

he's also backtracking on comments he made after the crash and claiming they were untruthful.

He also said he accepted messages he had posted on cycling forums and in comments on the Evening Standard website in the days following the crash were “not thought through” and “stupid”, and said they weren’t truthful.
Click to expand...
Crossing 10m away. Interesting.

NeilP said:
What about in an emergency when your legs are really tired? Would you call it essential?
Click to expand...
Not noticed a difference legs tired or not. I wouldn't rode without one that's for sure.
 
Lambchops said:
But would you walk into a road without looking? if you do and get splattered you can't really complain
Click to expand...
People do all sorts of involuntary stuff through absentmindedness. I've stepped out blindly onto roads before, without meaning to. We all have.

Having no brakes isn't absentmindedness though. It's calculated and illegal. You're knowingly exchanging personal safety (yours and others) for the thrill.
 
Billy Rocket said:
People do all sorts of involuntary stuff through absentmindedness. I've stepped out blindly onto roads before, without meaning to. We all have.

Having no brakes isn't absentmindedness though. It's calculated and illegal. You're knowingly exchanging personal safety (yours and others) for the thrill.
Click to expand...

You can brake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top