Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[PK99]

CTC's view from the BBC new site repot:

Duncan Dollimore, head of advocacy and campaigns at Cycling UK, said: "Riding a fixed wheel bicycle on busy roads without a front brake is illegal, stupid and endangers other road users especially pedestrians.

"Charlie Alliston's actions had tragic consequences for Kim Briggs' family and it was entirely right that this led to his prosecution."

 

[User482]

Interesting view from the Cycling Silk: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

 

[TheJDog]

I find it absolutely bizarre. If an identical accident had happened with a guy with a front brake (and little of what I've read makes me think it would have panned out differently had he had a front brake) there would have been none of this nonsense. I don't understand the prosecutor's actions nor the jury's decisions.

I realise it's an awful situation for him, but what law does the widower want changed? His wife stepped into the street on her phone without looking and just because the cyclist is a nob that removes all responsibility from her?

 

[fossyant]

I don't think the lads attitude and subsequent trail on social media helped at all. One nobber and we are guilty !

 

[rliu]

I find it absolutely bizarre. If an identical accident had happened with a guy with a front brake (and little of what I've read makes me think it would have panned out differently had he had a front brake) there would have been none of this nonsense. I don't understand the prosecutor's actions nor the jury's decisions.

I realise it's an awful situation for him, but what law does the widower want changed? His wife stepped into the street on her phone without looking and just because the cyclist is a nob that removes all responsibility from her?

Campaigning is just a part and parcel of people's response to an unfortunate situation now, just look at the sheer volume of petitions out there, be it change.org or Government petitions website or any other similar platform. I don't blame the widower but objectively speaking Alliston got charged with the highest level of criminal offence possible in the circumstances.

This was alluded to in Martin Porter and RFDF's articles, but this is the comparable case concerning a motorcyclist http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Wells-killed-pensioner-crash-spared-jail.html - suspended sentence when there was excessive speeding and a dangerous manoeuvre.

 

[TheJDog]

I'm guessing it'll be near the top end.

Remember the case of Philip Benwell who injured a young girl on a pedestrian crossing and fled? He pled guilty to GBH and got a year, Alliston's victim died.

But that young girl had the right of way. The woman Alliston collided with stepped out in front of him without looking when he had a green light.

 

[fossyant]

BBC News reported he 'removed his front brake' - Erm the PX forks don't have a brake mounting point.

 

[TheJDog]

such blatant victim blaming here

If anything else had hit her, a car, a horse, a lorry, a bike with a front brake, no one would put one iota of blame anywhere apart from her.

It's terrible that she died, absolutely, there is no way around that, mother of two kids, jesus. But that does not absolve her of responsibility.

 

[PK99]

I find it absolutely bizarre. If an identical accident had happened with a guy with a front brake (and little of what I've read makes me think it would have panned out differently had he had a front brake) there would have been none of this nonsense. I don't understand the prosecutor's actions nor the jury's decisions.

I realise it's an awful situation for him, but what law does the widower want changed? His wife stepped into the street on her phone without looking and just because the cyclist is a nob that removes all responsibility from her?

Had the cyclist had a front brake it would not have been identical

Plus, sad to see such blatant victim blaming here of all places

 

[fossyant]

Changing the law for just one death - god if that happened with motorists ?

 

[User482]

Had the cyclist had a front brake it would not have been identical

Plus, sad to see such blatant victim blaming here of all places

It's not victim blaming to believe that the cyclist was possibly not guilty of the charges brought.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

in no way comparable.

I was inviting comparison of the publicity given.

a driver faces "causing death by dangerous/careless driving". there is no comparable "causing death by wanton and furious cycling" hence the resort to the manslaughter charge.

I know all that. I'm asking what tougher laws he wants.

 

[growingvegetables]

If anything else had hit her, a car, a horse, a lorry, a bike with a front brake, no one would put one iota of blame anywhere apart from her.

It's terrible that she died, absolutely, there is no way around that, mother of two kids, jesus. But that does not absolve her of responsibility.

Sorry - but out of place. Way out of place.

Apart from me feeling deeply uncomfortable with the victim-blaming, the simple fact is ... the guy was on trial for HIS actions. There's no question of allocating responsibility to the victim, nor indeed of absolving her. She was not on trial.

The only other element that might be, conversationally speaking, have been on trial? I presume he and his legal team made (ahem!) "strategic" choices, first regarding whether to plead guilty or not, and second regarding the arguments to marshal in support of his "not guilty" plea. Let me be generous ... they "miscalculated". Badly.

 

[classic33]

If it had been a car, in use on the road with no front brakes, what then.

 

[growingvegetables]

Changing the law for just one death - god if that happened with motorists ?

Whispers quietly - I wonder if this may soon morph into highly-charged campaigns for compulsory insurance?

[Edited to add] It's starting .... 'Lawyer Keith Barrett, of Fieldfisher law firm, said he was pursuing a civil claim on behalf of the Briggs family, adding: "I hope that the spotlight on this trial will encourage courier companies and others to insist that their agents are full insured, as they would a car or van driver, in the event they seriously injure or kill someone on the roads."'