Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[DaveReading]

You man up. You plead guilty. Anything else involves flying in the face of facts, distortion and, probably, lying.

With the added advantage that, as well as being the right thing to do, it will shorten your sentence compared to being found guilty by a jury.

 

[KneesUp]

From The Independent

"The court heard that the stunt cyclist [Lucas Brunelle} makes "alleycat" videos, in which he rides around cities including London "doing dangerous stuff" such as weaving in and out of traffic, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and going into bus lanes.

But Alliston, who admitted to not wearing a helmet, denied copying the film-maker, or enjoying taking risks.

"I wouldn't say I drove recklessly or at any time dangerously," he said.

"At all times I would know what I'm doing and completely responsible for my actions."

He added: "I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe."

Prosecutor Duncan Penny QC, cross-examining Alliston, suggested "fixies" are popular in urban areas such as Shoreditch, where some riders view them as "stylish".

He asked Alliston: "It's far from uncommon for people riding track bikes or 'fixies' without front brakes to not wear a helmet. It's part of a look, isn't it?"

What has the rider not wearing a helmet got to do with any of this?

 

[Buddfox]

To the lawyers and similarly experienced individuals here - do both sides get to present their own expert witness? I've read reports of one expert witness (I had assumed presented by the prosecution) explaining what the impact on stopping distance might be with there being no front brake. Does the defence get the opportunity to do the same - i.e. argue that the lack of front brake would not have made a difference? Or is it one, independent court-appointed expert that both sides get to cross-examine?

 

[Pale Rider]

From The Independent

"The court heard that the stunt cyclist [Lucas Brunelle} makes "alleycat" videos, in which he rides around cities including London "doing dangerous stuff" such as weaving in and out of traffic, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and going into bus lanes.

But Alliston, who admitted to not wearing a helmet, denied copying the film-maker, or enjoying taking risks.

"I wouldn't say I drove recklessly or at any time dangerously," he said.

"At all times I would know what I'm doing and completely responsible for my actions."

He added: "I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe."

Prosecutor Duncan Penny QC, cross-examining Alliston, suggested "fixies" are popular in urban areas such as Shoreditch, where some riders view them as "stylish".

He asked Alliston: "It's far from uncommon for people riding track bikes or 'fixies' without front brakes to not wear a helmet. It's part of a look, isn't it?"

What has the rider not wearing a helmet got to do with any of this?

The prosecutor is using the absence of a helmet to support the general prosecution contention the cyclist is a risk taker, a guy who looks up to the maker of alleycat videos, a guy who is more concerned with looks than safety - the type of guy who might ride in a wanton and furious manner.

Bear in mind it's only a tiny handul of saddos on internet forums who are obsessed with helmets.

To the common man, a helmet wearing cyclist is one taking a responsible attitude to safety, a non-helmet wearing cyclist is not so responsible.

Beyond that, no one gives a stuff about helmets one way or the other.

 

[jefmcg]

I'm reading a daily mail article, so you don't have to. It has some more details

In one [post] he wrote: 'She put not only hers, but my life in danger.'

In another he said: 'F*** me and my health, I can heal and recover. The bike cannot. Thankfully I was going quite a slowish/moderate speed. If I were going any faster the frame would have cracked or been shattered.'

Jurors were told about a further post, in which Alliston wrote: 'At the end of the day, if you know the flame will hurt you, yet you still proceed to put your hand over it and get burnt, it's your fault.'

But Alliston, now 20, claims he had no idea it was a legal requirement for a front brake, insisting it would not have made any difference when he saw Mrs Briggs come into the road with a mobile phone.

'I tried to go around,' he said.

'Having a brake, I wouldn't have had enough time to pull it. It was a few split seconds prior to the impact, which caused the impact, so a brake at the time wouldn't have made a difference.'

Mark Wyeth QC, defending, asked: 'When did you first see Mrs Briggs?'

He replied: 'I would say before I came out of the box junction.'

Alliston said he shouted twice to warn her.

He added: 'To make the pedestrian aware of my presence, so they were aware if they were to then cross the road.

'At the time of the second shout I was coming through the yellow box junction'.

He said he 'swayed to the left' away from the pavement and adjusted his speed as Ms Briggs walked out into the road moments before the crash.

'The closer I got I was at a slow enough speed to maintain, I just got to the point where the victim stood right in my path,' he added.



Asked if he thought the crash still would have happened, he said: '100 per cent.'

Tests showed his bike would have taken at least 36ft to stop. A similar model with a front brake could have stopped in 12ft and a mountain bike in 9ft.

The scaffolder and former cycle courier

Who is paying for his QC?

 

[Pale Rider]

I'm reading a daily mail article, so you don't have to. It has some more details






Who is paying for his QC?

Short answer: You are as a tax payer.

Long answer: He's a scaffolder so it's likely he qualifies for legal aid, although if he has a wage coming in he may be required to make a contribution.

The prosecution has briefed a QC, so as a general rule the defendant is allowed equal legal firepower.

Had he been accused of a more minor offence, the prosecution would brief an ordinary barrister, and he would only be entitled to legal aid for the same level of lawyer.

 

[jefmcg]

Short answer: You are as a tax payer.

Yeah. Of course. That seems right.

The tax payers of course are paying for 3 QCs, prosecution, defence and the judge.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The definition of 'above and beyond the call of duty' :

I'm reading a daily mail article, so you don't have to.

 

[Pale Rider]

The definition of 'above and beyond the call of duty' :

The most fulsome account is, as is so often the case, in Mail Online.

It's not the world's best read news site for nothing.

 

[jefmcg]

The most fulsome account is, as is so often the case, in Mail Online.

It's not the world's best read news site for nothing.

Not because of their journalism, because of their excellent click bait game. I read that article, then was tempted by the side bar about a wedding going wrong, that turned out to a description of a scripted reality episode. That's actually why I avoid the DM. I find their click bait nearly irresistible, and almost always disappointing.

 

[Pale Rider]

Not because of their journalism, because of their excellent click bait game. I read that article, then was tempted by the side bar about a wedding going wrong, that turned out to a description of a scripted reality episode. That's actually why I avoid the DM. I find their click bait nearly irresistible, and almost always disappointing.

People log on to Mail Online to read the stories and look at the pics/video.

In other words, for the journalism.

There's no other reason to visit the site.

 

[jefmcg]

People log on to Mail Online to read the stories and look at the pics/video..

Um, that's a description of the web.

 

[Wobblers]

Has anyone found the testimony from the 'Crash Investigator' to be a bit weird. He concludes that Alliston would have been able to stop if he had a front brake. He does this by saying that a mountain bike has stopping distance of about 3 meters and that this bike was four times longer at 12 meters.

As a defence barrister I would be investigating that - who cares what a MTB can stop in, why was teh test not done on Alliston's bike with a brake fitted, in fact is there even a definition of want constitutes a working front brake? I have seen some BSOs that have a front brake that would struggle to stop in 20m. I would even be debating the 12m stopping distance. Is the crash investigator a regular fixed rider? I know that on my fixed at 18 mph my stopping distance could be less than 12m without a front brake, but also it could be a lot longer.

However, I am not defending Alliston, he should have had a front brake and had he had one I assume that he may not be up in court at all, even if he did not use it.

3 metres! If Alliston was going at 18 mph as stated, to brake in three metres would require 1 gee deceleration. That's scarcely plausible for a car with good brakes on a perfect dry road surface. Usually it can be expected to be 20% less. It's just wrong for someone on a bike - stability issues (if you brake too heavily, you'll go over the handle bars) limit maximum braking to about 0.5--0.6g. Clearly he has no idea about braking on bikes.

That's not weird, that's verging on perjury.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Not because of their journalism, because of their excellent click bait game. I read that article, then was tempted by the side bar about a wedding going wrong, that turned out to a description of a scripted reality episode. That's actually why I avoid the DM. I find their click bait nearly irresistible, and almost always disappointing.

The side bar of shame.

Many a boy has been lost there. Slippery slope and all.

 

[KneesUp]

[QUOTE 4921776, member: 259"]I agree with you, but the fact is he'd have been able to stop much faster if he had a front brake. He's going to be stuffed anyway. I wonder though what would've happened if he'd just been driving a car rather than a bike. Probably wouldn't have made the news at all.[/QUOTE]
A car without front brakes?