Super-Twat

[citoyen]

Twat of humungous proportions Charlie Alliston: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40927791

Skittling peds while riding an illegal bike?  I hope they throw away the key, you utter, utter twat.

I don't know the full details of the case, but there's something that I take issue with in the report:

If Mr Alliston had been riding a bike with proper brakes, he would have been able to avoid the collision with Mrs Briggs, prosecutor Duncan Penny QC said.

If he was "going 20mph" as claimed, he may not have been able to stop regardless of what types of brakes he was using. That said, I encounter pavement lemmings all the time while riding in London and so far I've managed to avoid killing any of them.

Besides which, it remains the case that his bike was not road legal, so he's left himself wide open to the charges.

ETA: apparently, it has also been brought up in court that he wasn't wearing a magic hat or hi-viz clothing. 

[Zipperhead]

I don't know the full details of the case, but there's something that I take issue with in the report:

If Mr Alliston had been riding a bike with proper brakes, he would have been able to avoid the collision with Mrs Briggs, prosecutor Duncan Penny QC said.

If he was "going 20mph" as claimed, he may not have been able to stop regardless of what types of brakes he was using. That said, I encounter pavement lemmings all the time while riding in London and so far I've managed to avoid killing any of them.

From the first article about it in the YACF house newspaper:

"Edward Small, a crash investigator who studied CCTV of the incident, concluded that Alliston, who was then aged 18, would have been able to stop and avoid a collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake.

The defendant had been travelling at an average of 18mph before he noticed Briggs step into the road, jurors heard. He was a minimum of 6.65 metres (21.8ft) away when he swerved and tried to take evasive action.

Tests on a conventional mountain bike found a stopping distance of about three metres, but Alliston’s model had a stopping distance of about 12 metres, the court heard.

I couldn't comment on the accuracy of those numbers, but from todays report:

iving evidence, Alliston said he did not know a front brake was a legal requirement and insisted that having one would not have made a difference when he saw Briggs step into the road holding a mobile phone.

“I tried to go around,” he said. “Having a brake, I wouldn’t have had enough time to pull it. It was a few split seconds prior to the impact, which caused the impact, so a brake at the time wouldn’t have made a difference."

[mrcharly-YHT]

I hope the little arsehole goes to jail.

[citoyen]

Well, as we all know, ignorance of the law is no defence. And I'm sure the crash investigator knows what he's talking about. And anyone who rides a track bike on busy city streets is a pillock of the first order.

Manslaughter still seems an excessively strong charge though. He would probably have got away with a caution if he'd hit a pedestrian with a car instead of a bike.

[jsabine]

Twat of humungous proportions Charlie Alliston: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40927791

Skittling peds while riding an illegal bike?  I hope they throw away the key, you utter, utter twat.

Alternatively, 18 year-old lad modifies his vehicle with scant attention to possible consequences, then operates his vehicle in stereotypical fashion.

While it's obviously right that vehicle operators should be held to account for their actions, I'm a bit concerned that this case has resulted in a manslaughter charge where others, even more egregious, have not.

It seems almost a truism that a dozen motorists¹ presided over by a motorist in a wig will find it easy to decide that operating a Brakeless! Racing! bicycle at c18mph is self-evidently reckless, while operating a ton or more of metal well in excess of the speed limit, or when your eyesight does not meet the legal requirements, or when you can't see a cyclist right in front of you, or when you have been told by doctors that you must not drive in case you pass out, are all simple errors of judgment that do not amount to driving dangerously or even carelessly.






1: In fairness, a London jury may not be *quite* as likely to be full of motorists as one elsewhere.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Saying he should get off because motorists get off is whattaboutery.

He shouldn't get away with it. A motorist who illegally modifies their vehicle, kills someone then disclaims responsibility should not get away with it.

[jsabine]

Who's said he should "get off" or "get away with it"?

[aidan.f]

Bet there will be a lot of fixie hipsters buying front brakes now...

[citoyen]

Bet there will be a lot of fixie hipsters buying front brakes now...

Good!

[sg37409]

Agree with jsabine. Only that:   I'm a bit concerned that other more egregious cases have not resulted in a manslaughter charge like this one did

Twat of humungous proportions Charlie Alliston: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40927791

Skittling peds while riding an illegal bike?  I hope they throw away the key, you utter, utter twat.

Alternatively, 18 year-old lad modifies his vehicle with scant attention to possible consequences, then operates his vehicle in stereotypical fashion.

While it's obviously right that vehicle operators should be held to account for their actions, I'm a bit concerned that this case has resulted in a manslaughter charge where others, even more egregious, have not.

It seems almost a truism that a dozen motorists¹ presided over by a motorist in a wig will find it easy to decide that operating a Brakeless! Racing! bicycle at c18mph is self-evidently reckless, while operating a ton or more of metal well in excess of the speed limit, or when your eyesight does not meet the legal requirements, or when you can't see a cyclist right in front of you, or when you have been told by doctors that you must not drive in case you pass out, are all simple errors of judgment that do not amount to driving dangerously or even carelessly.






1: In fairness, a London jury may not be *quite* as likely to be full of motorists as one elsewhere.

[Basil]

Geoffrey Boycott

[Duckfoot1606]

I hope the little arsehole goes to jail.

Well I see he has been cleared of manslaughter but found guilty of furious riding

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

[Veloman]

I hope the little arsehole goes to jail.

Well I see he has been cleared of manslaughter but found guilty of furious riding

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

Which very likely will result in a custodial sentence.

[Duckfoot1606]

I hope the little arsehole goes to jail.

Well I see he has been cleared of manslaughter but found guilty of furious riding

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

Which very likely will result in a custodial sentence.

The beak commented he hasn't shown the slightest remorse, so he hasn't done himself or anyone else any favours.

[ian]

He could have said sorry a lot, had his solicitor tell the court that this is the first time it's happened and he's of such previously good character, and then told the judge that he needs his bike to help his sick mum.

It usually works for drivers.

[mcshroom]

If you would like to gauge the harshness of the sentence when he receives it, according to Road Peace, 27% of drivers found guilty of death by careless or inconsiderate driving are sent to prison, of whom 54% get a sentence of less than 12 months. It will be interesting to see what the judge gives as I would say the charge is roughly equivalent.

http://www.road-peace.org.uk/resources/RoadPeace%20Sentencing%20of%20Causing%20Death%20by%20Driving%20offences%20England%20Wales.pdf

[rogerzilla]

The owner of the Bath tipper truck, which also had no effective brakes, got 7 years and 6 months.

The law seems to be tougher on vehicle maintenance than on driver faults, possibly because they can be foreseen and the driver can't claim a momentary lapse of attention.

[Polar Bear]

He could have said sorry a lot, had his solicitor tell the court that this is the first time it's happened and he's of such previously good character, and then told the judge that he needs his bike to help his sick mum.

It usually works for drivers.

Actually, having worked on such matters it really is far from the simple task as portrayed by the daly hate, the sexpest and the scum.

[Steph]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/09/04/doctor-who-writer-hits-out-at-trannies-and-rainbow-cult/

Knob, from the pretentiously and peculiarly named Stephanie Anne.  Now FOAD.

[Guy]

Weird-looking Tory arsehole Jacob Rees-Mogg (again)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172426

What a load of spherical objects this twat does spout

[Redlight]

Why do you say that?

All he has said is that he follows a particular religion and therefore accepts the teachings and dogma of that faith. There's no suggestion that he  seeks to change the law, or would do if he became a minister, and, as the comment from BPAS makes it clear, Parliament and public opinion are predominantly pro-choice.

You may not agree with him. I don't agree with him. But surely he is entitled to make his own moral judgements, even if the majority of people may disagree.

[Kim]

Because Tim Farron?

[Redlight]

Good point.

Again, without defending his views, I thought the way he was hounded by the media and others was disgraceful, especially when the PM - who has pronounced that her religion influences her decisions -  appeared to be left alone, despite consistently voting against almost every bit of civilising legislation in recent years.

Ironically, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Ress-Mogg would be in favour of a return to capital punishment...

[orienteer]

Rees Mogg is a pompous, patronising prig.

[ElyDave]

Rees Mogg is a pompous, patronising prig.

that's putting it rather politely