In the news

That'd be me! Small world indeed :-)

I used to work shifts at the NME and Uncut in there, had to borrow someone's fucking pass every time I wanted to go for a piss/fag... Good canteen...

Papa John's

The Scottish one?

Canteen is really shit now IPC sold the building. And expensive.

Have all the mags moved as well? Their fish and chips on a Friday was a particular highlight...

I reported on the US biofuels mandate for a few years and that aspect of this story about Icahn/Trump tomfoolery rings true
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/carl-icahns-failed-raid-on-washington/amp

Tl;dr

Srsly. Get to the point, murcan journos.

there's a bloke who works at the NNE called basil (not sure of his last name) - we got chatting in the lift one day on account of some band tshirt i was wearing. bumped into him in the canteen a few times, had lunch etc. Lovely bloke, has some stories to tell etc.

Last tuesday i get in the office and he's propped up against the coffee cart downstairs, absolutely hammered. Slurs my name, i go over ask if he's alright, reeks of booze and has vom streaked down his trousers - the security guard is trying to usher him outside.

haven't seen him since.

Names changed to protect the innocent.

csb

At least his trousers were up.

Reading through some of these pages has been quite haunting.
Someone was killed and we're hear arguing over technicalities when we all agree brakeless is A) Illegal and B) Pointless.
I understand we are legion but logic should be used here.
Charge him for manslaughter.
Some examples have been brought up before but if for instance my 8 year old takes a pit bike on the roads and has competed MX for 2 years on fields. Should he be on the road? Does his presence on the road increase risk?
(I don't have a 8 year old, totally hypothetical)
The point is, there wouldn't, couldn't, be an accident because there is no circumstance where that bike is permitted on the road.
You think you know the risk till you end up facing a manslaughter charge.
Forget your own interests, the dude killed someone and broke multiple laws. He should be charged accordingly.
To all the 'but this motorist got off' its probably the lawyers understanding of law that 'gets the off' not the attitude of 'ooo cars! fuck bikes'.
Someone even said to me 'Manslaughter's a bit harsh, should be death by dangerous driving' Eugh.

What if the bike had brakes but no reflectors and therefore there is no circumstance that the accident could happen because that bike is not permitted on the road.

Is that also a manslaughter charge?

And why is a bike with no brakes not permitted on the road? Bicycles don't have permits to be on the road.

An equivalent is saying that someone who is carrying stolen goods is not permitted to be on a pavement.

Awaits "common sense"* defense.

*never common, rarely sensible.

the dude killed someone and broke multiple laws.

Oh i didn't realise the verdict was out. I thought the jury would start deliberations on monday? Can you please clarify exactly what they all are?

I've seen evidence suggesting he didn't have a front brake. Call that one.

If the collision occurred after the hours of darkness then a bicycle is required to have reflectors. Failing to have them could be contributory negligence. A bicycle is also required to have two forms of braking so only having one would mean it is not allowed (permitted) to be used on the road. Again contributory negligence and as we all know ignorance of the law is no defence.

Is there a UK example of a fatal collision involving a non-commercial motor vehicle that was later found to be not up to spec, resulting in a manslaughter charge?

Edit - did someone mention a collision where 'illegal' tinted windows were found on the vehicle?

Yeah, a guy opened his door into the path of a cyclist on Holloway Rd, cyclist crashed and was hit by a bus, if I remember correctly. He couldn't see the cyclist in his mirror due to the illegal tints, I think.

Edit: here you go http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496

There are two separate issues here, I feel- one is the degree of culpability which the rider had in what happened.

The second is the consistent refusal of the legal system to punish motorists appropriately for killing people.

Whatever the decision in the current case it won't change the serious, continual failure of the legal system - Mr Masons needless death on Regent Street and so forth.

That's not to say that the decision in the current case will be wrong- it might be right and all other such decisions may be wrong.

FWIW I rode brakeless in Central London for a year, I'd probably ride to the track sans brake if I were still riding there.

Doesn't change my view on this case, although that view is incomplete and therefore somewhat inchoate as I have not studied the detail.

Thanks. Fuck me that's grim reading. You've got to wonder what the bus driver was doing in that case, too.

Any examples that were where the vehicle was being driven? STW thread mentions a case in Wales where 4 were killed when a driver lost control of his car on ice, tyres later found to be bald. £180 fine no prosecution because link between loss of control on ice and neglect, bald tyres, not strong enough to warrant prosecution.

The HGV driver who killed Ying Tao was in a faulty vehicle, his auditory warning was broken and only one side sensor worked. He indicated 1.4 seconds before turning, failed to check nearside, failed to see the cyclist in the cycle lane, killed her. At the inquest he refused to answer any questions about the state of his vehicle. He was charged with nothing. Evidence provided by City Police collision investigator PC Tim Harryman was that the victim was "in the wrong gear and cycling too slowly". She was visible in the cycle lane had the driver checked.

So in the case of a cyclist's death the police witness says her slow speed helped cause the collision. She was cycling too slowly, which would also suggest she was visible for longer to anyone who bothered looking. But because she was cycling too slowly if was partly her fault she got killed. They get you coming and going. PC Harryman said:

“I don’t believe it’s a careless act... it’s a very busy junction with lots going on and lots vying for Mr Williams’s attention. I can understand how Ms Tao would have been missed in that situation.”

He's been charged with manslaughter and is in court now to decide if he's guilty or not. I think that's right and should also be the case with a lot of other incidents on the road.

The way I see it is that you can argue about whether a front brake would have helped or not, forever. Fact is, it's in the law that you need one, and this case would would have been a lot different if he had one.

I can't see how this case would not have an influence on people's decisions, who don't, to change their minds.

It will be interesting to see how long the jury takes to reach a verdict.

And why is a bike with no brakes not permitted on the road?
-Cos its illegal.
Bicycles don't have permits to be on the road.
-lol, Ok. No, you don't need a permit.
'Parking on single yellow lines is only permitted outside the times...' wouldn't need a permit there but I can see how my choice of wording is the issue here.

An equivalent is saying that someone who is carrying stolen goods is not permitted to be on a pavement.
-He's not permitted/allowed/entitled to steal/handle stolen goods. So no I don't think he is.
Either way, why are you excusing this behaviour?

Oh i didn't realise the verdict was out.
-I haven't said that. One law he broke is the brake thing, the fact that he is facing a charge means there is another law he has probably broken too which is why it has gone this far and is in court to decide which other law he may or may not have broken. I think that constitutes as multiple laws.

Personally, and no doubt controversially (eugh) I worry that if he gets off on just the wanton driving charge there is gonna be even more hate towards cyclists and the way some people have tried to justify his actions means that our attitude does have to change a little bit.
Im not saying make an example, just saying follow the law.
This isn't even about the case anymore its brklss self appointed cool dude super riders v every other road user it seems and its embarrassing.

Edit: Please excuse any incorrect terminology.
And my amateur forum formatting.