In the news

+1. Well played.

The story of the sonic atracks in Cuba gets stranger every week

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/castro-response-injured-us-diplomats-cuba

Talking of trolling, I fear that stating this appears as just that. But it's not, it's a genuine question:

Why is the husband of the 'selfie cyclist' arguing that if she wore a helmet she would still be alive, rather than arguing the dangers of messing about on your phone while operating a vehicle of any kind?

I would have thought that falling and dying seems a pretty clear cut argument against being distracted by taking selfies on a bike, regardless of whether a helmet might have reduced risk of death.

I enjoyed this appropriate advert showing up on an article about Boris Johnson

1 Attachment

.

1 Attachment

I was wondering when that was going to happen.

Actually nine months in a young offenders institute.

savage sentence, when drivers who admit their guilt after walking away from the scene get off completely......

I think if he'd shown some remorse, then he wouldn't have found himself in jail. This was a lesson in how not to conduct yourself during a trial. I often wonder if it had happened to anyone else on here, no comments online and genuine remorse if the outcome would have been different.

He'd have still gotten at least a year surely. That's what the other recent, similar cases got.

Remorse equals guilt?

The guardian piece links to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/06/woman-cleared-careless-driving-crowd-funded-prosecution-cycling-uk which is worth re-reading.

Oh wow, I hadnt seen that before. Awful.

I think its viable as a concept to deny guilt but to feel remorseful at the outcome for the woman.

Although it would also be hard to do both and for that to come across as genuine to people

Worth a refresh on this too:

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest

It's depressing to compare these 3 events. Both in terms of media circus & judicial outcome. Edit: not disputing the verdict or sentence in Charlies case at this point, but the discrepancies within the system. 3 people tragically killed by action of another, 1/3 people result in custodial sentence.

Sorry to post daily fail link, but this forum gets a mention

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4894492/Cyclist-killed-mother-two-faces-jail.html#comments

Ped should have been charged with manslaughter for consistency. His mum has a very valid point.

Ben’s mother, Jacqui, emphasised that the council was not wholly responsible. “He was a keen and accomplished cyclist. If someone hadn’t stepped out into the road, the accident would never have happened. It was avoidable. He did not expect someone to boing out into the road without looking.”

18 months seam harsh, i'm sure he'll appeal.

You can drive a 40 ton HGV over the speed limit and on a mobile phone and kill somebody and get 18 months.

http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/county-news-lorry-driver-jailed-after-motorist-crushed-in-a27-collision-1-8134606

The judge even trotted out the classic “No sentence a court can pass can compensate the family in question"

Unsurprisingly, the comments are chock full of people wanking themselves ragged at the prospect of a 20 year old being raped in prison.

The comments are as awful and irrelevant as you'd expect.

1 Attachment

Here is the full judgement which explains the case and the sentence:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

Fuck me,

As to why you chose to ride without a front brake and other safety precautions such as wearing a helmet, you deny it was for the thrill of the experience. However on 5th Feb 2015 you posted on a cycling forum the following message: ‘the time when you 1st take your brakes off and feeling like you’re in an @lucasbrunelle movie’. Lucas Brunelle, it seems, makes alley-cat films in which he and his group, often on fixed-wheel bikes speed through city streets, weaving in and out of oncoming traffic, bus lanes and alleys, narrowly avoiding pedestrians, going through red lights, constantly breaking road traffic laws, and riding in a manner highly dangerous to the public and themselves. This is clearly done for the so-called thrill. It was you, in that posting of the 5th February, who drew the parallel between Brunelle’s movies and your riding. I am satisfied that in some part it was this so-called thrill that motivated you to ride without a front brake, shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way.

I assume if a motorist kills somebody when over the speed limit and they've watched the fast and furious it'll be used against them in a similar way.

We can all make comparisons with other cases involving motorists, but in this instance, the jury came to the correct decision in finding the defendant not guilty of manslaughter, and guilty of wanton and furious cycling, and the Judge has shown herself to be extremely fair and considered in her sentencing.

What I don't understand is the victim's husband calling for a change in the law. There is a perfectly good law already in place which it has been possible to obtain a conviction through. Why do we need a change?

I guess perhaps the charge of wanton and furious driving, a crime created a few hundred years ago to cover people riding horses badly, could do with being brought up to date.

^^ Err have you read the judge's sentencing?
fair and considered aren't the first words that sprung to mind...
she clearly wanted to make an example of the "Charlie Allistons of this world" and has done