HABA87
Striker
Of course you can feel remorse for something that may well have been not your fault.
What is that last sentence meant to imply?
Arrogant cyclist slaughters innocent mother
- Thread starter Pseudonym Number 1
- Start date
- Status
What is that last sentence meant to imply?
Pseudonym Number 1
Striker
If the car had no brakes and the driver went on like this prick I would.
It was a track bike not fit for use on the road. It had no front brakes making it illegal.
Try reading the article before you spout off, or are you only defending him cos he's a fellow cyclist?
Last edited:
sidneyeric
Striker
It's not hard to work out what I mean't, how many pedal bikes out there without brakes, no wonder I ignore you, arsehole.
Paddy O'Dors
Striker
Not many from what I see. Why would you ride a bike without brakes unless you have a death wish?
monkeytassle
Striker
Last time I checked I was a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcycle rider and car driver.
Was she crossing the road on a crossing or did she step out?
sidneyeric
Striker
I see loads, especially young lads, just a frame wheels and handlebars, some of them have got nee seat never mind brakes.
double maxim
Striker
Terrible accident for all concerned but this lad might as well have walked up to the nearest prison and asked if they had a spare room he could use for 3-4 years with those online comments.
Doubt much would have been made of it if he hadn't posted that, how many bikes are on the road with poorly maintained brakes? If it was a market mountain be bike with defective brakes or He kept his mouth shut this would be put down to a tragic accident.
Doubt much would have been made of it if he hadn't posted that, how many bikes are on the road with poorly maintained brakes? If it was a market mountain be bike with defective brakes or He kept his mouth shut this would be put down to a tragic accident.
D
Deleted member 26022
Guest
Interesting, i wasn't similarly aware of this as well.
The Sinful Dwarf
Midfield
Top quality reporting there:
'But unfortunately the momentum kept me going. If I'd of been going any faster the frame would of cracked or shattered.'
In response to questions about the condition of his bike he complained that if he had been going any faster the frame would have cracked or shattered.
'But unfortunately the momentum kept me going. If I'd of been going any faster the frame would of cracked or shattered.'
In response to questions about the condition of his bike he complained that if he had been going any faster the frame would have cracked or shattered.
Blasting around central London at full tilt on a bike that's designed only for track use and has no breaks, absolutely f***ing stupid behaviour, only a matter of time before he killed himself or sadly as was the case somebody else.
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
Ignoring the twattish comments from the 'arrogant' bike rider, it seems someone hasn't read the article
As pointed out, it's illegal to ride a bike without front brakes. He hasn't just removed them but bought the bike like that and supposedly couldn't have installed them anyway looking at the quote below. I'd dare say there may well be a warning somewhere when purchasing this bike that it is for track use only but it's still illegal regardless of warnings or not.
Prosecutor Duncan Penny QC said: 'The bicycle was not equipped with a front brake and its design does not allow for the installation of a front brake.
'This was a bicycle designed to be ridden on a track. Without a front brake the bike could not be lawfully ridden in a public road.
If he'd had front brakes then they reckon he could have stopped as quoted below. Even if he couldn't stop in time, the reduction in speed would have meant the collision wouldn't have been as severe so she may not have been killed.
Jurors were shown CCTV footage of the horrific accident at the start of the trial of Alliston at the Old Bailey for manslaughter.
Mr Penny said an investigation concluded that Alliston could have stopped in time if he had a front brake.
So do you still have the same opinion now? Would you if it was a relative of yours, regardless of whether she stepped out (bearing in mind she obviously didn't step directly in front of him seeing as they reckon he could have stopped if he had front brakes). As a road user you are obviously taught to be aware of hazards which includes pedestrians and the same goes for any competent cyclist who should also be aware of potential hazards. The sad fact is that most cyclists and other road users aren't fully aware as they are in a hurry to get somewhere, self important, thick as fuck or all 3 and possibly more reasons as to why stuff like this happens.
So it's got nowt to do with it being a cyclist at all as you suggested. If this was a car driver who knowingly had bald tyres while driving in the wet and they hit someone who stepped out due to their stopping distance being far greater, would you be bothered? If they'd had legal tyres then they would have stopped safely so again if this was your relative/friend you naturally be quite angry with them. Even if it was a stranger then surely you'd want to see justice. Aye 30 years is extreme but that's not to be taken literally as it's just a figure of speech if anything made by @Pseudonym Number 1
Last edited by a moderator:
monkeytassle
Striker
Would the car driver face à 30 stretch ?Ignoring the twattish comments from the 'arrogant' bike rider, it seems someone hasn't read the article
As pointed out, it's illegal to ride a bike without front brakes. He hasn't just removed them but bought the bike like that and supposedly couldn't have installed them anyway looking at the quote below. I'd dare say there may well be a warning somewhere when purchasing this bike that it is for track use only but it's still illegal regardless of warnings or not.
Prosecutor Duncan Penny QC said: 'The bicycle was not equipped with a front brake and its design does not allow for the installation of a front brake.
'This was a bicycle designed to be ridden on a track. Without a front brake the bike could not be lawfully ridden in a public road.
If he'd had front brakes then they reckon he could have stopped as quoted below. Even if he couldn't stop in time, the reduction in speed would have meant the collision wouldn't have been as severe so she may not have been killed.
Jurors were shown CCTV footage of the horrific accident at the start of the trial of Alliston at the Old Bailey for manslaughter.
Mr Penny said an investigation concluded that Alliston could have stopped in time if he had a front brake.
So do you still have the same opinion now? Would you if it was a relative of yours, regardless of whether she stepped out (bearing in mind she obviously didn't step directly in front of him seeing as they reckon he could have stopped if he had front brakes). As a road user you are obviously taught to be aware of hazards and the same goes for any competent cyclist who should also be aware of potential hazards. The sad fact is that most cyclists and other road users aren't fully aware as they are in a hurry to get somewhere, self important, thick as fuck or all 3 and possibly more reasons as to why stuff like this happens.
So it's got nowt to do with it being a cyclist at all as you suggested. If this was a car driver who knowingly had bald tyres while driving in the wet and they hit someone who stepped out due to their stopping distance being far greater, would you be bothered? If they'd had legal tyres then they would have stopped safely so again if this was your relative/friend you naturally be quite angry with them. Even if it was a stranger then surely you'd want to see justice. Aye 30 years is extreme but that's not to be taken literally as it's just a figure of speech if anything made by @Pseudonym Number 1
Martin F
Striker
Have you read the report?
Max of 14 years but probably a fair bit less.
monkeytassle
Striker
No of course not. It's the daily mail
Walter Ego
Striker
You're a fatty aren't you?
Yer da claims JSA
Midfield
Cyclist and pedestrian sound equally culpable to me.
He had an illegal bike and she's just wandered out into a busy road while pissing about on here phone
A manslaughter charge seems incredibly harsh
He had an illegal bike and she's just wandered out into a busy road while pissing about on here phone
A manslaughter charge seems incredibly harsh
Walter Ego
Striker
I'd say 99.9% of bikes In the U.K. are illegal. All of mine are.
No, he was going fast enough to kill somebody.
Billy Rocket
Winger
"..an investigation concluded that Alliston could have stopped in time if he had a front brake."
Therefore manslaughter. The illegality of the bike caused the death, even if the woman wasn't paying adequate attention.
Therefore manslaughter. The illegality of the bike caused the death, even if the woman wasn't paying adequate attention.
- Status
