Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[jefmcg]

Hands up anyone who, when they were a young adult, didn't behave at some time or another in a way that was reckless, selfish, dangerous, and probably illegal.

When I was young, I was driving late at night and distracted, completely failed to notice a red light to the last moment. Rear ended a car, no real damage done as both cars were already dented. But my attitude was "what if it had been a pedestrian instead of a bumper bar I hit?" I learned to always focus while driving, to stop and rest if I can't, changed my life so I wasn't driving home exhausted at midnight.

 

[PK99]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/moped-driver-screamed-at-dying-woman-then-fled-6mdqzr90c

A moped driver knocked down a 78-year-old woman and screamed, “What were you doing walking in the middle of the road?”, as she lay dying.

Simon Coker, 32, was over the legal alcohol limit for driving and had taken cocaine the previous evening. He told police that he left the scene because people who ran to help Helen Doherty “were giving me s***”.

Coker, a convicted drug dealer, was jailed for eight years by a judge who said that he had shown “temerity and cowardice” after causing the death of the widow and church volunteer, described as a “kind-hearted community stalwart”.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Are you a lawyer?

How very dare you!

I'm not sure why when the Guardian, Telegraph, Standard, Independent and BBC are all asserting he has been charged with manslaughter, you are certain they are wrong. That Old Bailey page doesn't look like any sort of legal document or charge sheet, it's just picking out enough details of each case that the public can identify it even if you don't know the names of those involved. I'm sure it doesn't list all the charges.

Again, it's a genuine question, not a dig.

I could very well be wrong; the basis for my statement was the link I quoted (which I accept is not an official court resource).
He's either been charged with Crime A or Crime B, or the prosecution is proceeding with Crime A with the alternative charge of Crime B. My guess is that it's the latter.

 

[Pale Rider]

The defendant is charged with wanton and furious cycling, and manslaughter.

Had any of us heard the prosecution opening, we would know how the case is being put.

One definition of manslaughter is the unintended consequence of a deliberate act.

The act in this case being wanton and furious cycling.

The prosecution need to prove the wanton and furious in order to establish it as a deliberate act.

Once that's established, the prosecution can then seek to prove wanton and furious cycling resulted in the collision, which in turn caused the death of the pedestrian.

No doubt there will be some medical evidence about that.

 

[stiffknees]

"and if he's found guilty those words are the kiss of death to any of the vanilla reasons mitigation, such as genuine remorse etc."

He is showing no remorse as yet; but believe me when they are in the dock they are all very very sorry and won't do it agin m'lud.

The toot from my scooter horn is just that, about as loud as a bee in a bucket, as for passing wide, when I passed mycar test back in 1966 it was impressed on me that in law "...a cyclist is entitled to wobble.." and to give a 6ft wide pass as thats about the length an adult male would fall. Makes sense to me and its how I have always driven.

There is some paranoid victim complexes on show here; lets show some respect for cyclists, thats why I give warning when I pass, because I see so many with earplugs in while riding, deaf to everything almost, equally lets look out for people with earhones in for phone or music or staring at their damn phones.
It's a small increasingly overcrowded island, with increasingly overstressed people in it.
Like it or not cyclists do not have any special claim to any space, but the pillock in this case thought otherwise. Like he said, no one is invincible.

He'll find that out soon enough.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The defendant is charged with wanton and furious cycling, and manslaughter.

Thanks for the clarification.

Can you also clarify whether it's possible for this defendant to be convicted of both crimes?

 

[T4tomo]

I think the answer to that is yes, but if they can't prove a) then they can't try for b)

 

[jefmcg]

Thanks for the clarification.

Can you also clarify whether it's possible for this defendant to be convicted of both crimes?

Why not? It's possible to be convicted of possession of an unlicensed firearm, and murder.

I think the answer to that is yes, but if they can't prove a) then they can't try for b)

I assume the jury will only deliberate once, so the judge would have to direct them to only consider b) if they have already found him guilty of a). The prosecution will present the case for both.

#NotALawyer

 

[T4tomo]

Just my opinion from having ridden both, but whilst a fixed wheel "counts" as a rear brake in some senses, I'd rather have a proper rear brake by some distance. So whilst some comments are referring to him having only one brake, its really more like half a brake.
The jury will decide whether, had he had a front brake too, then the collision would have been avoided or the impact significantly reduced

 

[jefmcg]

The toot from my scooter horn is just that, about as loud as a bee in a bucket, as for passing wide, when I passed mycar test back in 1966 it was impressed on me that in law "...a cyclist is entitled to wobble.." and to give a 6ft wide pass as thats about the length an adult male would fall. Makes sense to me and its how I have always driven.

I think this would be better in a separate thread

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/vehicles-tooting-just-before-passing-a-cyclist.222471/

 

[T4tomo]

If they accept the witness testimony, that he shouted twice, then accepting that he would have had time and space to stop had he had a front brake, should follow like night and day.

Yes I agree if its accurately reported. If there is CC TV that should make it pretty clear.
If she was on her phone that's a bit foolish, but not something that should get you killed. As soon as she steps out he should be breaking/slowing and making sure he avoids her.

 

[stiffknees]

In my keener youth I tried and failed to ride a fixed wheel cycle, every time I tried to stop I couldn't.
Maybe you got stronger legs than I had back then.
Fixed wheels were for Herne Hill and Sunday morning Bath Road keen types.

"If they accept the witness testimony, that he shouted twice, then accepting that he would have had time and space to stop had he had a front brake, should follow like night and day."

Thats the reason in road accidents the length of the skid is so important.

 

[mjr]

No it was that same Hyde park,some years ago, I never return to London any more,

Oh so not really up to date with the cycling boom there, then.

but I do remember it was like walking into a stampede, most of which was not using the cycle lanes, a bit of abuse chucked at this old bloke too. Not exactly ambassadors for cycling. Even old blokes in suits can be cyclists incognito. Antagonising your friends is not a good idea.

Exactly - so I don't understand why the Royal Parks repeatedly antagonise cyclists who should be their best friends, biggest fans and most ardent supporters.

All the cycle routes that have been provided are after all, a concession,not a right, it would take only a shift in political attude to have them removed.

Yeah, that's probably the hope of whoever's manufacturing that conflict.

In my keener youth I tried and failed to ride a fixed wheel cycle, every time I tried to stop I couldn't.

So jealousy of fixie riders as well

Are they implying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to step out into the road without looking?

Possibly - and why not? Walkers are about one degree more predictable than their pet animals and two than wild animals.

If yes, I'm struggling to see that logic applied to car drivers on the same roads, if it is reasonable to expect peds to step out without looking, why are'nt all cars everywhere being driven at 12mph just in case a ped steps out.....cos that's happening isn't it.....

Indeed. It should, but we've completely lost control of them.

Like it or not cyclists do not have any special claim to any space

Not a special claim, but actually almost exactly the same claim to the carriageway as a walker and more so than a licensed motorist.

...a reasonable expectation that she would wait for him to pass before crossing. That is the standard arrangement between pedestrians and linear traffic.

What standard's that then and where's it set?

 

[User6179]

From the BBC

Witness - Mr Callan said mother-of-two Mrs Briggs had not been using a crossing some 30 feet (9m) away.

Does not really change anything other than pointing out the shoddy reporting.

 

[User6179]

It is often suggested that crossing a road in the vicinity of a crossing but not using it, is more dangerous than crossing away from a crossing.

Especially a Pelican crossing that has a green light as some drivers and cyclists will actually speed up to get through before it turns red.