You are reading a single comment by @cyberyark and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Doing it is putting ones own life at risk so the prosecution argument
    for manslaughter to me implies that anyone riding brakless within the
    "not applicable to non motorised traffic" speed limit is seeking to
    hurt themselves and others incessantly. In that kind of an argument if
    he listens to a lot of emo music sounds like it might be relevant.

    This is wrong in law. The prosecution only needs to satisfy the jury that he was reckless as to any injury resulting from his actions, not that he was reckless as to whether anyone could be killed.

  • Thanks. Justice system isn't my thing. That just looks wrong next to an 1861 charge that an 18 year old might reasonably think means cycling like a dumpling. Sorry, Driving. Are we really divers of bikes not cyclists in law?

    I think the not wanting to self harm thing is still valid, helmet. We all have to be responsible for our own actions and stepping out in to busy road without giving it enough respect is reckless.

About

Avatar for cyberyark @cyberyark started