Tri Talk HomepageTri Talk EventsTri Talk ForumsBlogsTri Talk TrainingTri TradeTriPlayerWikiTeam Tri Talk
Killer cyclist on trial for manslaughter
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 16356
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure with his disposition he'd have an easy time in prison; and his name's all over the Interent too, when any potential employer does the inevitable. I don't think he's set himself up well for the future.
_________________
25 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ed_m




Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 8065
Location: coventry

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
I'm not sure with his disposition he'd have an easy time in prison; and his name's all over the Interent too, when any potential employer does the inevitable. I don't think he's set himself up well for the future.


bikeability coach ?
_________________
Failures are finger posts on the road to achievement [C.S. Lewis]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14707
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
I'm not sure with his disposition he'd have an easy time in prison; and his name's all over the Interent too, when any potential employer does the inevitable. I don't think he's set himself up well for the future.


he wasn't set up well for the future anyway...this has just added to the burden...
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2017 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
hammerer




Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 16327
Location: Right Next Door To Hell

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isnt showing remorse reserved for if you have committed a wrong? If you genuinely believe there was nothing you could do then you may feel terrible that you have been involved in a tragic accident and someone died as a result but if it happened because they walked out on you then it would be very hard to show remorse without admitting some kind of guilt. Maybe remorse is just a bad use of language in this instance. I bet he does feel terrible, just hasn't handled himself well unless he really is someone with no respect for life but there are very few people that cold in this world. How would anyone react if they had a crash that they believed wasn't avoidable, had a manslaughter charge thrown at them and were then tried in the biggest court in the land reserved for the most hardened criminals! Perhaps he's in shock and tried to put up a front as he just cant believe that one day hes a carefree teenager and the next hes one of the most hated people in the land being tried like a murderer and on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and even abroad where the case has been picked up.

I'm not defending anything as I think I would be distraught whatever happened but just trying to look at this with a different viewpoint.
_________________
Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14707
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hammerer wrote:
Isnt showing remorse reserved for if you have committed a wrong? If you genuinely believe there was nothing you could do then you may feel terrible that you have been involved in a tragic accident and someone died as a result but if it happened because they walked out on you then it would be very hard to show remorse without admitting some kind of guilt. Maybe remorse is just a bad use of language in this instance. I bet he does feel terrible, just hasn't handled himself well unless he really is someone with no respect for life but there are very few people that cold in this world. How would anyone react if they had a crash that they believed wasn't avoidable, had a manslaughter charge thrown at them and were then tried in the biggest court in the land reserved for the most hardened criminals! Perhaps he's in shock and tried to put up a front as he just cant believe that one day hes a carefree teenager and the next hes one of the most hated people in the land being tried like a murderer and on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and even abroad where the case has been picked up.

I'm not defending anything as I think I would be distraught whatever happened but just trying to look at this with a different viewpoint.


exactly...

however, he may not actually feel terrible...
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2017 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 16356
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess it's a matter of presentation.
_________________
25 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stenard




Joined: 04 Sep 2013
Posts: 1312

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hammerer wrote:
Isnt showing remorse reserved for if you have committed a wrong? If you genuinely believe there was nothing you could do then you may feel terrible that you have been involved in a tragic accident and someone died as a result but if it happened because they walked out on you then it would be very hard to show remorse without admitting some kind of guilt. Maybe remorse is just a bad use of language in this instance. I bet he does feel terrible, just hasn't handled himself well unless he really is someone with no respect for life but there are very few people that cold in this world. How would anyone react if they had a crash that they believed wasn't avoidable, had a manslaughter charge thrown at them and were then tried in the biggest court in the land reserved for the most hardened criminals! Perhaps he's in shock and tried to put up a front as he just cant believe that one day hes a carefree teenager and the next hes one of the most hated people in the land being tried like a murderer and on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and even abroad where the case has been picked up.

I'm not defending anything as I think I would be distraught whatever happened but just trying to look at this with a different viewpoint.


Completely agree with what you are getting at. And to be fair to him, whilst he's come across in a very bad way and hasnt helped himself, the things he posted when he was unaware how serious her injuries were really don't seem all that bad. Insensitive in hindsight once you know she passes away, but he's not berating her. They seem somewhat balanced and representative of the mindset hammerer portrays.

You can't deny he was riding an illegal bike, but if she really did step out on him when he was only 6-7m away going at nearly 30kph (which is not fast), then I can empathise with his viewpoint there was very little he could have done.

Guardian article wrote:
He wrote: "I feel bad due to the seriousness of her injuries but I can put my hand up and say this is not my fault."

On an internet forum, he described how their heads collided and hers "ricocheted" into his. He wrote: "It is a pretty serious incident so I won't bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault but she did not deserve it."

He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone. He complained: "Everyone is quick to judge and help the so-called victim but not the other person in the situation.

"It all happened so fast and even at a slow speed there was nothing I could do. I just wish people would stop making judgments. People either think they are invincible or have zero respect for cyclists."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SloggingScotsman




Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2639

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PaulL's analysis makes most sense to me and I don't even need pictures Wink

He was riding a bike, that was illegal through not having front brakes, at a speed that most non competitive cyclists might consider fast and furious.

It could have been very different if his bike had those brakes and was Road legal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14707
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SloggingScotsman wrote:
PaulL's analysis makes most sense to me and I don't even need pictures Wink

He was riding a bike, that was illegal through not having front brakes, at a speed that most non competitive cyclists might consider fast and furious.

It could have been very different if his bike had those brakes and was Road legal.


and yet Paul cites three reasons,

PaulL wrote:
So I would also argue that is was his stupidity on two counts that got his charged:
- The fact he didnít have a front brake and didnít know the law.
- His on line reaction to the accident in an age when social media is noticed.


two of which should not be used as a reason for the charges...and, as Stenard has highlighted, his tweets were foolish perhaps but not worthy of imprisonment
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2017 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Paul L




Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4351
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hammerer Ė I take your point about the technical definition of remorse, as Iíve had to look it up. Rolling Eyes

However, this case appears to centre around whether he is actually correct in his belief that there was nothing he could do.

E.g.
- If I am driving my car within the speed limit.
- Then, for no apparent reason, the car in front of me slams their brakes on.
- Despite braking as quickly as I could, I still crash into the back of the car in front.

Legally, I canít claim there was nothing I could do because the car in front braked without warning.

No, instead I am 100% legally at fault for not leaving a safe braking distance between me and the car in front.

So in this case, he appears to be arguing that they was nothing he could after she stepped out in front of him.

However, if he had been riding at a slower speed before she stepped out then there would have been something he could have done and therefore it was avoidable.

As I understand it, it was the distance between the two of them when she stepped out that is the key part of the prosecution case.

So whilst he might believe he is blameless in all this, the jury (who had access to all the evidence) does not agree with him and have found him guilty.

But, as always, what do I know? Wink

Cheers, Paul. Smile

PS
Decades ago a French exchange student I knew ran over and killed a small child here in the UK.
They were driving below the speed limit, in a well maintained car and were not under the influence.
The child arrived in the road at exactly the same time as the car and was hit instantly.
The childís parents were there and saw the whole thing and knew that their child was to blame.
( Apparently he had run out into to the road on many occasions before. )
The police investigation cleared the driver of all responsibility.
Even the childís parents went out of their way to reassure my friend it wasnít their fault. Despite all this, they were still severely traumatised by the childís death.
This was the text book definition of a tragic accident.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul L




Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4351
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Once again I am too slow typing. :rolleyes:

explorerJC wrote:

and yet Paul cites three reasons,

PaulL wrote:
So I would also argue that is was his stupidity on two counts that got his charged:
- The fact he didnít have a front brake and didnít know the law.
- His on line reaction to the accident in an age when social media is noticed.


two of which should not be used as a reason for the charges...and, as Stenard has highlighted, his tweets were foolish perhaps but not worthy of imprisonment


Sorry I donít follow the logic.

His bike was illegal and that was part of the reason for the charge.
( The fact he didnít know it was illegal is no defence in the law. )

The fact there was attention drawn to the case creates a ďpublic interestĒ element that leads to a charge.

Which is just like people who post YouTube videos of them speeding.

In the absence of the video clip, there wouldnít be a prosecution.

Apologies again, but Iíve got to goÖ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14707
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul L wrote:
Once again I am too slow typing. :rolleyes:

explorerJC wrote:

and yet Paul cites three reasons,

PaulL wrote:
So I would also argue that is was his stupidity on two counts that got his charged:
- The fact he didnít have a front brake and didnít know the law.
- His on line reaction to the accident in an age when social media is noticed.


two of which should not be used as a reason for the charges...and, as Stenard has highlighted, his tweets were foolish perhaps but not worthy of imprisonment


Sorry I donít follow the logic.

His bike was illegal and that was part of the reason for the charge.
( The fact he didnít know it was illegal is no defence in the law. )

The fact there was attention drawn to the case creates a ďpublic interestĒ element that leads to a charge.

Which is just like people who post YouTube videos of them speeding.

In the absence of the video clip, there wouldnít be a prosecution.

Apologies again, but Iíve got to goÖ


You have stated three things in two sentences...

1. No front brake - bang to rights, certainly a contributory if not defining reason for the accident...

2. Not knowing he should have a front brake - not a defence absolutely, but not actually illegal, just dumb...

3. His reaction - now this is the real issue, because of what you call "public interest" which, in this case means that the CPS treated the case this way not because of the need for public interest, but because of the public interest which has been stirred up. This is a very dangerous approach for the CPS to take...it suggests more of a political play rather than following the rule of law consistently and this bothers me greatly....
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2017 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SGreg




Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 856
Location: High Peak

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul L wrote:
Hammerer Ė I take your point about the technical definition of remorse, as Iíve had to look it up. Rolling Eyes

However, this case appears to centre around whether he is actually correct in his belief that there was nothing he could do.

E.g.
- If I am driving my car within the speed limit.
- Then, for no apparent reason, the car in front of me slams their brakes on.
- Despite braking as quickly as I could, I still crash into the back of the car in front.

Legally, I canít claim there was nothing I could do because the car in front braked without warning.

No, instead I am 100% legally at fault for not leaving a safe braking distance between me and the car in front.

So in this case, he appears to be arguing that they was nothing he could after she stepped out in front of him.

However, if he had been riding at a slower speed before she stepped out then there would have been something he could have done and therefore it was avoidable.

As I understand it, it was the distance between the two of them when she stepped out that is the key part of the prosecution case.

So whilst he might believe he is blameless in all this, the jury (who had access to all the evidence) does not agree with him and have found him guilty.

But, as always, what do I know? Wink

Cheers, Paul. Smile


There is a difference between culpability and CRIMINAL culpability.

She is equally culpable (more so IMO), but would you think she should be prosecuted for manslaughter if he had been the one to die ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hammerer




Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 16327
Location: Right Next Door To Hell

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul L wrote:
Hammerer Ė I take your point about the technical definition of remorse, as Iíve had to look it up. Rolling Eyes

However, this case appears to centre around whether he is actually correct in his belief that there was nothing he could do.

E.g.
- If I am driving my car within the speed limit.
- Then, for no apparent reason, the car in front of me slams their brakes on.
- Despite braking as quickly as I could, I still crash into the back of the car in front.

Legally, I canít claim there was nothing I could do because the car in front braked without warning.

No, instead I am 100% legally at fault for not leaving a safe braking distance between me and the car in front.

So in this case, he appears to be arguing that they was nothing he could after she stepped out in front of him.

However, if he had been riding at a slower speed before she stepped out then there would have been something he could have done and therefore it was avoidable.

As I understand it, it was the distance between the two of them when she stepped out that is the key part of the prosecution case.

So whilst he might believe he is blameless in all this, the jury (who had access to all the evidence) does not agree with him and have found him guilty.

But, as always, what do I know? Wink

Cheers, Paul. Smile

PS
Decades ago a French exchange student I knew ran over and killed a small child here in the UK.
They were driving below the speed limit, in a well maintained car and were not under the influence.
The child arrived in the road at exactly the same time as the car and was hit instantly.
The childís parents were there and saw the whole thing and knew that their child was to blame.
( Apparently he had run out into to the road on many occasions before. )
The police investigation cleared the driver of all responsibility.
Even the childís parents went out of their way to reassure my friend it wasnít their fault. Despite all this, they were still severely traumatised by the childís death.
This was the text book definition of a tragic accident.


Its good to have you back Paul Smile
I don't dispute he was wrong in riding a bike that is illegal, I don't dispute he should face punishment for killing someone whilst riding an illegal bike.

I do take issue with one point you raise. Driving too close to a vehicle that you cant stop in time is careless, with that we can agree. To suggest if he had been riding slower he could have reacted quicker would be a worrying development if used in a court as yes maybe it would mean this accident didn't happen but they are already well below the legal limit for motorised traffic so its almost advocating strict liability if you are in an accident. You cannot always legislate for stupidity, human error, and the total lack of awareness and concentration demonstrated all too frequently by pedestrians on the streets, so as a cyclist and a driver do we go back to having a man walk in front with a red flag, or do we go down the American route and make it illegal to cross a road away from a designated crossing
_________________
Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stenard




Joined: 04 Sep 2013
Posts: 1312

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SloggingScotsman wrote:
at a speed that most non competitive cyclists might consider fast and furious.

Are you being serious? 29kph? That's below even the Richmond Park speed limit which recreational cyclists often breach without realising.

People I know who get on a bike for the first time in years can be well in excess of 30kph without particularly trying.

If you were talking 30mph, maybe, but we're not. He was riding at the speed of the traffic from what i have read, which would be the safe thing to do (its cars coming past, or going past cars, that creates most of the risk in cycling).

Paul L wrote:
So in this case, he appears to be arguing that they was nothing he could after she stepped out in front of him.

However, if he had been riding at a slower speed before she stepped out then there would have been something he could have done and therefore it was avoidable.

As I understand it, it was the distance between the two of them when she stepped out that is the key part of the prosecution case.

So whilst he might believe he is blameless in all this, the jury (who had access to all the evidence) does not agree with him and have found him guilty.

So by your argument, you are saying that we should all ride around, at all times, at about 5mph, just in case a non-road user does something in front of us that we need to react to? Are you having a laugh?!

Your car example is fine. Keeping a safe stopping distance is an obligation of the car behind and something you have to factor in. A non-road user, i.e. a pedestrian, unexpectedly stepping into the flow of traffic, is not something you can be expected to preempt. After years of cycling you do get a bit of sixth sense about when someone is going to do something like that, but that's just a bonus. Your PS is more akin to what has happened here from what I have read.

On the jury point, if you read the cycling specialist QC's review of the case, he appears to have been very badly defended, and the prosecution arguments not properly rubbished as has now been suggested by experts in such areas. I'm not saying the jury are at fault for believing what they have been told, but the judicial system has let the defendant down if poor evidence has been allowed to stand unchallenged.

I repeat, he was riding an illegal bike, and for that should be appropriately punished. But facing jail time when more egregiously acting drivers just get fined and a driving ban, is not equitable IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 7 of 12
  Share
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum





Home | About TT | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Advertising | Contact TT
Copyright ©2003-2015 TriTalk®.co.uk. All rights reserved.