Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[GrumpyGregry]

Do you really think they're going to do anything to make roads safer? As in properly safer, Vision-Zero or sustainable-safety-style, not just try to reduce numbers of walkers and cyclists even further?

Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst!

I used the word bollox. Of course the daffodils won't make the roads safer.

 

[srw]

What will happen is cyclists will have to have liability insurance, bikes will have twice yearly safety checks and will be linked by tracker/licence plate to a government scheme...all bringing revenue to the coffers and a minimal percentage of said revenue will go back into making cycling safer/providing more cycle lanes.

You heard it here first kids.

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[jefmcg]

What will happen is cyclists will have to have liability insurance, bikes will have twice yearly safety checks and will be linked by tracker/licence plate to a government scheme...all bringing revenue to the coffers and a minimal percentage of said revenue will go back into making cycling safer/providing more cycle lanes.

You heard it here first kids.

We would come in as a zero emission vehicle, so VED would be £0. So no money would go into any government coffers, but literally millions would be spent on keeping track of every single bike frame in the UK and who owns them, and police time would be wasted enforcing it. And money would also be spent on scrapping all the bikes that would end up dumped as it's too complicated to bother registering them.


Edit: or to put it another way

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If he really wanted to improve road safety there are far more important areas to which he could direct his intelligence and determination ( both of which are admirable).

Jebus. You think he is being rational? FFS, he lost his wife and had his children orphaned in a ghastly, untimely and utterly avoidable way because some nobber with issues had an ego that was out of control.

I'd be gunning down brakeless fixie riders in the street!

 

[AndyMack]

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

We live in a nation that extorts the public for every penny they can, do you seriously think if legislation comes in it won't have a fiscal penalty attached?

 

[srw]

We live in a nation that extorts the public for every penny they can, do you seriously think if legislation comes in it won't have a fiscal penalty attached?

I've highlighted the important word in your sentence. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of legislation. The only non-Brexit legislation that will pass in the next couple of years will be extremely uncontroversial because it will have to have all-party support. What you're suggesting is not extremely uncontroversial.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

We live in a nation that extorts the public for every penny they can, do you seriously think if legislation comes in it won't have a fiscal penalty attached?

Extorts? I think not.

and if it were true why zero VED on some cars. Is there still not VAT on aircraft fuel?

 

[AndyMack]

Perhaps I'm just an old cynic, but wherever I see media outrage I see pound signs.
Someone's always gotta pay.

 

[classic33]

No pedal reflectors dangerous?

If pedals aren't fitted at the time of sale/purchase?

 

[classic33]

7. Cycling furiously Cyclists cannot be booked for speeding, but under the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act , they can be fined for 'cycling furiously'. Under the Offences Against the Person Act 186 cyclists can be convicted and imprisoned for up to two years if found guilty of “wanton and furious driving,” which causes injury to someone other than themselves. Under Section 28 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is an offence for cyclists to ride recklessly or in dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner.
Cycling Offences

 

[al78]

Jebus. You think he is being rational? FFS, he lost his wife and had his children orphaned in a ghastly, untimely and utterly avoidable way because some nobber with issues had an ego that was out of control.

Unfortunately not, when it comes to humans, emotion dominates rational thought. Hence the consideration for a new law to combat a scenario which happens on average once every few years, and for which existing laws can be used to bring a prosecution, as happened in this case.

I'd be gunning down brakeless fixie riders in the street!

That would be equally irrational. Why should other brakeless fixie riders be gunned down for the actions of one who had nothing to do with them? Is the death penalty really appropriate? After I was nearly killed by a careless driver I didn't feel any desire to go around gunning down Audi drivers towing big trailers, in fact quite the opposite, I felt empathy and forgiveness for the driver concerned.

 

[EnPassant]

No front brake, so in practice, no effective braking at all. Yes yes she stepped out, he shouted etc etc. No front brake? End.

(engineering types can come up with the exact percentage front/rear but basically it's all front, the shorter and faster the requirement the more it's front end, on a bike right up to the friction co-efficient that results in an endo afaik).

96 pages to point this out? Ok.

Helpful to the image of cyclists in oh so many ways*.

*Off to take my prescription "anti-sarcasm pill".

 

[PK99]

No front brake, so in practice, no effective braking at all. Yes yes she stepped out, he shouted etc etc. No front brake? End.

(engineering types can come up with the exact percentage front/rear but basically it's all front, the shorter and faster the requirement the more it's front end, on a bike right up to the friction co-efficient that results in an endo afaik).



96 pages to point this out? Ok.

Helpful to the image of cyclists in oh so many ways*.

*Off to take my prescription "anti-sarcasm pill".

I pointed it out well up thread and linked to the Blessed Sheldon for chapter and verse.

 

[jefmcg]

No front brake? End.

According to the judge, he would have hit her even if he had a front brake. Brakes are only effective if you use them.
"On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’"

 

[Alan O]

According to the judge, he would have hit her even if he had a front brake. Brakes are only effective if you use them.
"On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’"

Not quite. Saying he did not try to slow is not the same as saying he would not have tried to slow had he had a front brake. We can't know the latter (although I suspect you're right and he wouldn't).