Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[rliu]

No I don't think it is unfair. What is unfair is the leniency others get.

We're in agreement on that and I think basically everybody is in agreement killer drivers literally get away with murder, due to conscious choices like speeding, drink or drug driving, or dangerous manoeuvres due to impatience or arrogance.
I have no preference as such for how the verdict goes. I am however highly doubtful a conviction of Alliston will lead to more dangerous drivers of any form of mode of transport being charged with manslaughter in the future. As we can see how long his case has dragged out prosecutions like this are expensive, and in our market driven society where justice ministers call court users customers the CPS will always go for low hanging fruit careless driving charges that lead to fines and community service only.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

There are many cases of pedestrian deaths due to excessive speeding which has tripled or quadrupled braking distances, I would say that is an apt comparison to the situation here.

https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/

The writer here points out the lenient sentences given to drivers who kill due to excessive speeding.

If Alliston is convicted he would not escape a custodial sentence given the seriousness of a manslaughter charge. Surely that is unfair.

What is unfair is that we, as a society, are so wedded to car use we can't even stomach the idea of charging drivers with manslaughter when they kill, because juries won't convict, and so have introduced lesser charges of "causing death by...'"

And even then juries don't convict.

That's what's unfair.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I have, on many occasions, said that our criminal justice system needs to take a tougher attitude from one end to the other on policing our roads. The written law on what constitutes careless driving and dangerous driving is a too undemanding. Our police officers excuse poor and dangerous driving too readily. The CPS are too wary about prosecuting serious charges. Juries appear to be too ready to dismiss serious charges.

^This. Cubed.

 

[Buddfox]

I'm sure we all agree that our justice system needs toughening up in relation to dangerous drivers, but I am surprised at the number of cyclists hoping for the first precedent to be set with a cyclist themselves, under fairly arcane legislation. Let's see what the jury comes up with.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm sure we all agree that our justice system needs toughening up in relation to dangerous drivers, but I am surprised at the number of cyclists hoping for the first precedent to be set with a cyclist themselves, under fairly arcane legislation. Let's see what the jury comes up with.

Is it a precedent?

 

[PK99]

I think basically everybody is in agreement killer drivers literally get away with murder,.

No. No agreement at all on that.

 

[growingvegetables]

The article on the defence summing up has a line about it being agreed that she stepped backwards into him.
So it seems that not only did she step out in front of him 30 ft from a Zebra crossing, but when he had avoided her she stepped backwards into him.
It strikes me as being a harsh prosecution ....

Nope.

Your "not only" has me spitting bits of teeth.
Your "when he had avoided her ..."has me spitting more bits of teeth.

 

[growingvegetables]

I'm sure we all agree that our justice system needs toughening up in relation to dangerous drivers, but I am surprised at the number of cyclists hoping for the first precedent to be set with a cyclist themselves, under fairly arcane legislation. Let's see what the jury comes up with.

I'd rather think a fair number of us are not being "tribalist" about sticking up for "fellow"-cyclists, no matter what. I'd like to think they are trying to be objective, even scientific about degrees of vulnerability - recognising that a human body at 3mph has rather less destructive force than a human body at 18mph?

 

[PK99]

I'd rather think a fair number of us are not being "tribalist" about sticking up for "fellow"-cyclists, no matter what. I'd like to think they are trying to be objective, even scientific about degrees of vulnerability - recognising that a human body at 3mph has rather less destructive force than a human body at 18mph?

Quite right, there is a hierarchy of vulnerability. The more vulnerable are owed a duty of care by the more robust.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

I'd rather think a fair number of us are not being "tribalist" about sticking up for "fellow"-cyclists, no matter what. I'd like to think they are trying to be objective, even scientific about degrees of vulnerability - recognising that a human body at 3mph has rather less destructive force than a human body at 18mph?

I thought it was a human body PLUS a bicycle (the latter having various hard, metal, pointy bits on it).

 

[Wobblers]

He's in court because the pedestrian died.

If only I could bring myself to believe that.

I can't: on average, over 100 pedestrians are killed in this country every year by motor vehicles when they are on the pavement. How many of the drivers face manslaughter charges, I wonder. Actually, I wonder just how many of them face any sort of charges at all.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If only I could bring myself to believe that.

I can't: on average, over 100 pedestrians are killed in this country every year by motor vehicles when they are on the pavement. How many of the drivers face manslaughter charges, I wonder. Actually, I wonder just how many of them face any sort of charges at all.

But those deaths are accidents surely? Unavoidable. Nobody's fault. In fact if anyone is to blame it is the pedestrians for being unprotected and on foot near roads, they'd be safer in cars, after all.

 

[Helenbells]

If the scenario had been such that both parties were insured as if they were drivers in a ' car park shunt' the one going backwards into the path of one going forwards with right of way, I reckon the one going backwards would be penalized. However unfair the consequences.

 

[Pale Rider]

But those deaths are accidents surely? Unavoidable. Nobody's fault. In fact if anyone is to blame it is the pedestrians for being unprotected and on foot near roads, they'd be safer in cars, after all.

All drivers do so in the reasonable expectation a pedestrian will not step into the carriageway in front of their vehicle.

If that wasn't the case, no one would drive through a built up area at more than walking pace.

Thus when a pedestrian does step into the path of a vehicle, it's an uphill task to hold the driver of the vehicle responsible - if that's what you are trying to do.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

All drivers do so in the reasonable expectation a pedestrian will not step into the carriageway in front of their vehicle.

If that wasn't the case, no one would drive through a built up area at more than walking pace.

Thus when a pedestrian does step into the path of a vehicle, it's an uphill task to hold the driver of the vehicle responsible - if that's what you are trying to do.

All pedestrians who walk on pavements do so in the expectation that motor vehicles will stay on the tarmac and off the pavement. That mistaken, flawed expectation gets around 100 pedestrians killed every year in the UK.