BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,230
He is a he, not a they.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Cyclist on illegal bike who killed a pedestrian on manslaughter charged 'blamed victim'
- Thread starter Garage_Doors
- Start date
He is a he, not a they.
How do you know? In the current climate the person/s may still be making their mind up! So therefore what social title do you use? Cyclist is good. The CYCLIST in this instance is a totally irresponsible anti-social (enter your preferred choice of label)
I take it you did read the whole article? I won't comment further until the jury reach their decision.
Only in the eyes of the law, not necessarily in reality.
I read somewhere he was also using a mobile phone while riding the bike but I've not seen it mentioned since.
Harsh lesson for her? really? The charge is manslaughter, what does that tell you do you think?
The Large One
Who's Next?
Baldseagull
Well-known member
I think the lesson will be lost on her. Hard to really take in the educational value of the experience when you die from it.
The wording of S35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58), s. 1(2)) is as follows: “35. Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”
Section 1 abolished the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours. 1967
Under English law, according to R v Creamer, a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when he or she intends an unlawful act that is likely to do harm to the person, and death results which was neither foreseen nor intended. The name for this crime is 'manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act' (MUDA).
Plus dangerous cycling: http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-o...usly-recklessly-carelessly-or-inconsiderately
http://road.cc/content/news/178389-£850-fine-red-light-running-cyclist-who-put-man-coma-six-days
Section 1 abolished the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours. 1967
Under English law, according to R v Creamer, a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when he or she intends an unlawful act that is likely to do harm to the person, and death results which was neither foreseen nor intended. The name for this crime is 'manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act' (MUDA).
Plus dangerous cycling: http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-o...usly-recklessly-carelessly-or-inconsiderately
http://road.cc/content/news/178389-£850-fine-red-light-running-cyclist-who-put-man-coma-six-days
Last edited:
Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
- Thread starter
- #31
Yes i did, To be honest i have read most of the various reporting of the court proceedings, generally they are the same with little variation as it a court case rather than something a bit more subjective live a football match.
But i'm sure there is plenty more evidence to come that will/can change many opinions.
Pogue Mahone
Well-known member
- Apr 30, 2011
- 10,952
The one cyclist deserving of your contempt is the one who you don't feel contempt for?
'I hate cyclists' is a truly despicable comment. You hate a group of people because of their mode of transport choice?
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
Did he jump lights? I haven't read he did. He was going about 10-18 miles an hour and the woman walked into the road so it's an accident as far as I see it. He might have clumsily written on a forum to defend himself from a witch hunt, but is that enough to ruin a second life as well the first? Is there's anyone who learnt stuff from this it's him. Let him off with a fine for a shit bike (which we've all had in the past when we were young).
Lower West Stander
Well-known member
The issue for me is that this guy epitomises the stereotype many people have of cyclists as arrogant types who feels they never do anything wrong.
His response is arrogant and wrong - particularly as it is beyond doubt he was riding an illegal bike.
But that isn't to say the victim wasn't culpable in some way. His responses do not mean full culpability on his part and he deserves a fair trial.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
His response is arrogant and wrong - particularly as it is beyond doubt he was riding an illegal bike.
But that isn't to say the victim wasn't culpable in some way. His responses do not mean full culpability on his part and he deserves a fair trial.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Grow up.
I'm beginning to think these replies are a double bluff wind up.
The bike wasn't rode worthy, the bike was illegal to use on UK highways.
I don't imagine it would take me long to find a crime where a driver of a defective car with no MOT, insurance, or vehicle excise duty, has killed someone.
Would you suggest that person should be let off with a fine for driving a shit car?
Apparently a cyclist was knocked off his bike by a car last week running a red light at Church Road Sackville Road junction, I did chuckle to myself when I heard this!! I should say it was allegedly the cyclist who ran the red light!
el punal
Well-known member
Regardless of whether he's found guilty or not guilty, it might have been wiser for him to shut his social media gob.
That's all after the fact though.
Sure after the event and before the full ramifications hit home, he acted like a knob.
For all we know he might have been provoked into knobish behaviour. Nobody on here can claim they've never made a thoughtless post on social media.
I don't care about that, although I'm sure he does at it now makes him easier to vilify.
The simple fact of this case is that he was riding an illegal bike, on which he was unable to perform an emergency stop.
For me the only surprise here is that he is the one still alive.
Seems to me that most are against the cyclist because a) his bike didn't have a front brake and b) he made a stupid social media comment.
There is a suggestion that the victim was either on the phone or checking it at the time she stepped off the pavement and that she could have used a pedestrian crossing less than 10 metres away.
They apparently clashed heads and she suffered the fatal head injuries, although not clear whether that was from the clash of heads or if she hit her head on the ground or both.
What if the circumstances of the accident had been exactly the same but it had been the cyclist that came off, hit the concrete and suffered the catastrophic brain injury. Would she have been charged with manslaughter?
There is a suggestion that the victim was either on the phone or checking it at the time she stepped off the pavement and that she could have used a pedestrian crossing less than 10 metres away.
They apparently clashed heads and she suffered the fatal head injuries, although not clear whether that was from the clash of heads or if she hit her head on the ground or both.
What if the circumstances of the accident had been exactly the same but it had been the cyclist that came off, hit the concrete and suffered the catastrophic brain injury. Would she have been charged with manslaughter?
Do you know for a fact that even with a front brake he would have had time to perform an emergency stop? You seem to conveniently ignore the fact she stepped into the road!