jaywalking uk

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

ross
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:59 am
Location: Oxfordshire UK

by ross

That Charlie Alliston has never shown a single bit of remorse for what he did, so its his attitude that has been his downfall and I agree the existing laws cover this issue without needing further legislation, and that had he been using at least a front brake he could likely have avoided the impact

by Weenie


User avatar
bomber
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: L'Australie

by bomber

WinterRider wrote:So.. your saying running down the street on a bike w NO brakes is acceptable behavior and not worthy of punishment?


No that's is not what I am saying. Punish having no brakes definitely but I don't believe its wanton and furious driving. 18mph is not fast. He was riding in the road not on the sidewalk.


bm0p700f wrote:Ride without brake at pace and you are asking for the book to be thrown at you.

18pmh isn't at pace in traffic or fast for even a semi fit rider. Cars are travelling 30mph + in this area.

bm0p700f wrote:Try driving a car with engine braking and a handbrake only and then argue it was the pedestrians fault.

Not equivalent - 1500kg of metal vs 100kg or flesh and bone

bm0p700f wrote:It does not matter that if charlie had a front brake and he might not have stopped. He could have srubbed enough speed that her death might have been avoided.

She died from a brain injury not the impact so you can't say that with any certainty. Tragic nonetheless.

ross wrote:That Charlie Alliston has never shown a single bit of remorse for what he did, so its his attitude that has been his downfall and I agree the existing laws cover this issue without needing further legislation, and that had he been using at least a front brake he could likely have avoided the impact

Remorse is not prosecutable - tragically she stepped out in front of him and he attempted to avoid her. Evidently he was traveling at 18mph or 8 metres every second and had 3 metres within which to try and stop. With a brake he might have been going slower but as to the outcome we will never know.

My simple and only point is that what happened is not wanton and furious driving. Throw the book at him for not having brakes but this in my opinion is bad precedent for any cyclist Vs pedestrian case as has already been shown with calls to reopen past cases.
Friends don't let friends ride Mavic... or Pinarellos!


My ex ride
My old rides

KB
Posts: 3868
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: HULLGARIA UK

by KB

Remorse is not prosecutable ....
Yes, not as an offence. However, his lack of remorse will likely go against him at sentencing. Plus the tabloid press in the UK have and will stoke the fires against him. But then there's a sizeable anti-cycling lobby in the UK who think cyclists have no rights, which is also backed up by the courts with the pathetic sentences handed out to motorists.

User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

"My simple and only point is that what happened is not wanton and furious driving"

Is not .. the moronic use of a bike in a busy urban area SANS brakes not "wanton"... ? C'mon.

No matter the pedestrian's behavior .. riding a bike sans brakes is ASKING for trouble. He should get it now.. full dose.

Would not .. a motorist driving sans brakes .. run over same pedestrian be charged with a more severe charge.. that would 'stick'?

Car or bike .. operating w/o brakes is same .. idiocy.

ross
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:59 am
Location: Oxfordshire UK

by ross

"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 ..."

wilful neglect = knowingly riding without a front brake

sawyer
Posts: 4460
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

markyboy - you are right

Alliston was done for because his bike was unroadworthy in a way that was materially relevant to the incident. Based on what is in the public domain I would have come to the conclusion that a front brake would have reduced the likelihood/likely severity of a collision and to that extent CA was guilty. Had he had a front a brake fitted I don't believe it would have got to court.

And I have to agree re pedestrians, indeed, imagine for a moment that CA had had a front brake fitted and he'd been the one who was killed, or even seriously injured. Who walked out into the road, apparently not looking, into oncoming traffic that had right of way? What about campaigning for a law to punish such dangerous behaviour?
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

evan326
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:51 pm
Location: RVA,USA

by evan326

Are UK laws not like here in the US where you have to use the cross walk as a pedestrian? I was taught in school as a child that if you aren't in the cross walk it's your fault if you're hit.

User avatar
euan
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:20 am

by euan

No and its better that way.
"Step forward the climber and all those who worship at the altar of lightness" - R. Millar

evan326
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:51 pm
Location: RVA,USA

by evan326

Why is that better?

bilwit
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Seattle, WA

by bilwit

The US is very car-centrist, even in metropolitan areas where it's completely asinine to pander to unsustainable travel methods (one car per person), they'll still throw millions and millions of dollars into car-focused infrastructure. If pedestrians were not expected to only use crosswalks, perhaps the driver culture here would not be so cavalier about their roles on the road. Here in Seattle, they already don't give three shits about crosswalks or "no left turn on red" signs or rolling rights at junctions when pedestrians are crossing (I've been actually been physically assaulted by a driver who almost hit me doing this while I was walking across).

As for the incident at hand.. whether or not the kid could have done anything with brakes is debatable, but it raises the same safety question all the same. It probably should be a law everywhere to have bikes equipped with at least a front brake if used on the road. That's more justifiable than a helmet law. If you fall off without a helmet, that's your problem to deal with. If you're gunning it without brakes, that's potentially putting other people at risk and not just yourself.

User avatar
euan
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:20 am

by euan

evan326 wrote:Why is that better?


Because when walking to the corner shop across the road it is more convenient. Three metres across the road to a traffic island in the middle and another three metres is substantially better than walking 200m down to the pedestrian crossing, waiting for to allowing you to cross, walking another 200m and repeating the journey.

Jaywalking laws and pedestrian crossings give priority to the motorised vehicle, which is the wrong way around. Especially if you consider a city like where I live, which has less than 45% of the population owning a vehicle.
"Step forward the climber and all those who worship at the altar of lightness" - R. Millar

bikewithnoname
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: UK

by bikewithnoname

The notion that it would be a crime to cross the road is bizarre, ok maybe walking across an autobahn or motorway should be punishable, but crossing a normal town/city street? Seems odd the land of the free wants to criminalise its people so much...
"We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities." Oscar Wilde

Pegoretti Responsorium, Parlee Z5i, Donhou Commuter, 1946 MacLeans Featherweight L'Eroica!, 2x MTB 'dales

evan326
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:51 pm
Location: RVA,USA

by evan326

euan wrote:
evan326 wrote:Why is that better?


Because when walking to the corner shop across the road it is more convenient. Three metres across the road to a traffic island in the middle and another three metres is substantially better than walking 200m down to the pedestrian crossing, waiting for to allowing you to cross, walking another 200m and repeating the journey.

Jaywalking laws and pedestrian crossings give priority to the motorised vehicle, which is the wrong way around. Especially if you consider a city like where I live, which has less than 45% of the population owning a vehicle.

I partially understand your point. It being more convenient to walk across the street wherever you want is true, but there are a ton of things that would be more convenient for cars too. Lots are against the law because they aren't safe for everyone else. If walking to the end of the street to cross is inconvenient for you, does that make it OK, even if it puts others at risk?
I'm not saying this lady deserved anything. I just think people need to take more responsibility for their own safety.

User avatar
euan
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:20 am

by euan

A jaywalking law is nothing to do with responsibility. Its about giving control to the motor vehicle.
"Step forward the climber and all those who worship at the altar of lightness" - R. Millar

sawyer
Posts: 4460
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

Agree with Euan

No need for a jaywalking law, though if there is to be a review of law in respect of cyclists I do think it should consider pedestrians also.

From what I've read of the CA case, Mrs Briggs' actions were not those of a alert pedestrian, taking responsibility for her own safety and those of other vulnerable road users, including CA.
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

by Weenie


Post Reply