Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

Maybe she saw him, stepped backwards to get out of his path but got clobbered anyway? It happens.

 

[srw]

around 100 pedestrians killed every year in the UK.

Have you got a link?

 

[fossyant]

Any reasonable driver, or cyclist, keeps a careful eye on pedestrians on the pavement, to spot the early warnings that someone might be about to step onto the carriageway so that they can accommodate that.

Exactly. The number of pedestrians that do step into the road expecting vehicles to stop is huge. See it every day in the city centre. It's like they have an invisible force field that will make 1500kg of car suddenly stop. "Ah they won't run me over".

 

[PK99]

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.

according to the highway code no one has right of way.

plus, the pedestrian was not acting illegally, but the cyclist was.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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

"A prudent man will guard against the possible negligence of others, when experience shows negligence to be common." Lord du Parcq

​

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Have you got a link?

I expect @McWobble may have...

 

[rliu]

"A prudent man will guard against the possible negligence of others, when experience shows negligence to be common." Lord du Parcq

​

Negligence, in the context of that quote, is a civil liability/law of tort concept. Civil law has a lower evidential and liability threshold than criminal law. While it may be fair to expect an insurer to pay up for a pedestrian that mindlessly steps in front of a car, the same would not stretch to criminally prosecuting that driver and imposing a criminal sentence. This is also why the word gross is added in the context of gross negligence manslaughter, meaning the negligence must be reckless or egregious. This is a distinction we must make here.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 4928119, member: 45"]I was walking up the road with my boys a few weeks ago. We were side by side. A car passed and the wing mirror hit me. The driver said it was my fault because I was too close to the edge of the pavement.[/QUOTE]
As a pedestrian aren't you meant to stand to attention and salute your superiors as they pass?

 

[Alan O]

"A prudent man will guard against the possible negligence of others, when experience shows negligence to be common." Lord du Parcq

Didn't he get run over by a bus?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Negligence, in the context of that quote, is a civil liability/law of tort concept. Civil law has a lower evidential and liability threshold than criminal law. While it may be fair to expect an insurer to pay up for a pedestrian that mindlessly steps in front of a car, the same would not stretch to criminally prosecuting that driver and imposing a criminal sentence. This is also why the word gross is added in the context of gross negligence manslaughter, meaning the negligence must be reckless or egregious. This is a distinction we must make here.

You're right, and I ought to have made clear the remark was in connection with civil law.

However, it remains a useful and relevant maxim when operating a vehicle in a location busy with predictably unpredictable pedestrians.

 

[rliu]

You're right, and I ought to have made clear the remark was in connection with civil law.

However, it remains a useful and relevant maxim when operating a vehicle in a location busy with predictably unpredictable pedestrians.

Yes I agree it's certainly a good principle to bear in mind, as it would be undoubtedly very stressful causing an injury to a pedestrian and facing a civil claim as a cyclist, given many don't have third party liability insurance.

I just wanted to call out however applying this standard to the Alliston case would be unduly harsh.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Jury has been directed on returning a majority verdict.

 

[Buddfox]

Jury has been directed on returning a majority verdict.

Directed how? That they may or may not?

 

[rliu]

Directed how? That they may or may not?

The direction is always going to be that the jury may return a majority verdict as I understand it.

 

[Pale Rider]

The direction is the judge will now accept a verdict on which at least 10 of them are agreed.