In the news

In what way does the law as it currently stands not work though? Just because it's a bit archaic does not mean that it's any less relevant now than it was when it came in. The crime of causing GBH is another part of the 1861 act, and I don't hear anyone calling for that to be brought up to date because it sounds a bit old fashioned.

I have read it in full, and I stand by my words. Someone who rides like a knob with an illegal bike with no front brake, kills someone, and shows no remorse whilst blaming the victim is exactly the sort of person that we should be making an example of! Unless you think that his actions were acceptable?

Uber to pay a bit more for ubering in London it seems.

yawn, next troll please.

Indeed. Much of the judge's wording is a lot more Daily Mail than I would expect.

I think the judge got the sentencing right, but fuck me, I've read some really well written and considered sentencing remarks but that's some pompous drivel. Wouldn't have thought the ex girlfriend's comments re Charlie being controlling were hugely relevant.

CA claimed to be suicidal after the case, possibly to add to mitigating circumstances for sentencing. I think it is very relevant that CA has made possibly spurious claims of suicidal thoughts in previous difficult situations.

I say possibly spurious on the basis that a mental health assessment came back with moderate depression rather than suicide risk.

Ah, so agreeing with a High Court Judge's remarks, and having a differing opinion to some
other people on the forum (who have every right to those opinions) makes me a troll. Right on!

If they brag about it on some forum and say they like to drive like Vin then it might bite them on the arse at court later.

If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have
stopped

Even the Highway Code says he couldn't.

But she Also said this…

" On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident. "

Quicker. Maybe.

Yes I was slightly shocked by this and would have hoped for better from a judge

because you've ignored all the other discussion and nuance around it and gone with the Daily Mail perspective.

What a hot mess. I cannot fathom how little attention is being brought to the fact that her use of the road put not only herself but others at risk. But I'll be dammed if I put my neck out for this guy. All those years I one or two of us banged the drum about RLJing through peds and the potential that we were cutting up law makers, jurors, editors and CPS members in the process and the possibility that it could result in bullshit like this...That is the only thing that can explain this lop sided coverage.

Is true that given where she stepped [2.5m?] out and the speed he was moving at [19mph?] meant that he was expected to stop in an unrealistic or that urban myth?

Cos woman?

If there's something you don't agree with in what I've written, then please feel free to debate with me. I'm quite happy with that. I've looked at the case in detail, as I'm sure you have too, and I've clearly come to a different conclusion from you.
Challenging viewpoints is healthy. Shutting down debate by shouting 'Daily Mail troll' isn't.

+1

If Charlie had been a 35 year old woman riding a step through to her office this whole story wouldn't have got anywhere near the press

I'm trying to picture this part 'That meant threading a path between her in the middle of the road and a parked lorry on your left' So was she walking towards the parked lorry so on his right or had she walked out from behind/infront of the lorry?

From what I remember in previous accounts she stepped out into the middle of the road, he tried to go round the back of her (parked lorry on the left and her on the right) and she stepped back into his path.

I think that was from his account, I'm not sure whether the CCTV showed that didn't happen or it was deemed irrelevant (although you'd think it would cast a slightly different light if he was going for the gap rather than riding where she was).

Had it indeed been a carefully cycling person there would be no media storm.

So much was written about his character: That doesn't change what happened/what caused it.

Because now the discussion is less about safe provisions for everyone/safe equipment and more about a moan about cyclists, which is not going to resolve conflicts between peds/cyclists, peds/motorists, cyclists/motorists.

I mean, how many people die thanks to lack of a front brake on a bicycle, resulting in a collision? First case I've heard of, there was one case posted when a cyclist cycled a bicycle with faulty brakes. The way the media reports it you'd think this is a common occurrence.

So all the attention of [some, there are good ones] politicians will go there instead of going where it matters, setting back the discussion progress.

/rant over

Shades of Mearsault all over

I seemed to remember there was a parked delivery van (blocking CCTV view) which lady stepped from behind which is why it can be disputed how early CA saw her. Also was said driver lowered back loading tray and carried on delivery while lady lay injured in the road nearby.

If this vehicle was illigally parked near a crossing and driver or company had received an enforcement notice for that event in the past I'd say said driver or company should be facing manslaughter charges. Defence said nowt about this..

The thinking distance seemed to me to make the police stopping evidence totally irrelevant and wanton or furious cycling usually refers to speed which was 12mph under the limit for motor vehicles.

CA has been sent down for being an idiot and to me it's injustice because being an idiot is not a crime in itself. If the lady wants to text her hubby or whomever on her lunch about being promoted that morning she can but it's best to use the crossings properly in the city when your distracted. There's millions of people knocking about.

police stopping evidence totally irrelevant

I'd hoped that police evidence on stopping distances wasn't based on that pitiful video of a inexperienced rider slowly grinding to a halt...
I was also assuming that any reasonably intelligent person would be able to see the irrelevance of such data in this case

Having read the judges summary I feel slightly less certain.

Dear LFGSS users,

There appears to be a number of you which fail to understand that a pedestrian has the right of way, should they step into the road you should do your up-most to avoid a collision regardless of whether your a cyclist, motorist or in charge of a horse.

Whilst you may be able to cycle at 18mph though busy London Street's sometimes it inappropriate as your may not be able to stop in time to avoid a collision.

Should you be involved in a collision, the condition of your cycle or comments made online may be called into question....