Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[User482]

It is similar to those deaths that occur from just one punch, where one of the parties hits their head on the floor.

In terms of the outcome, yes.

 

[growingvegetables]

Prosecuting this freak accident as a certainty seems anti-cycling to me.

Nope.

Finding some sort of law, no matter how antiquated, to deal with a freak accident incident? Probably - simply because such collisions, with such devastating consequences, are so rare.

What is it on average? Slightly less than two pedestrians every year, dying as a result of a collision involving a cyclist? With those stats, each and every case is hugely different ... and has not been thought a great basis for law-making.

 

[slowmotion]

I don't think anything useful will be achieved by giving this young man a custodial sentence.

 

[gaijintendo]

I more or less agree with everyone here. More or less.

 

[TheJDog]

I think he's massively unlucky (I'm not trying to belittle the fact that someone died). I think it's a freak accident, and but for the fact that he didn't have a front brake, which might not have made a lot of difference, he's going to get two years.

I think this is an awful prosecution with only terrible results in terms of publicity for all cyclists.

If only car drivers were prosecuted with such zeal.

 

[Origamist]

There's no excuse for riding without a front brake. I guess I'm struggling to understand why travelling at 18mph and attempting to avoid the collision meets the definition of "wanton and furious".

I think what did for him was the wilful misconduct/neglect aspect of the charge.

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I don't think anything useful will be achieved by giving this young man a custodial sentence.

Probably the logic applied to many drivers who kill.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think what did for him was the wilful misconduct/neglect aspect of the charge.

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

Wanton = deliberate and unprovoked. He deliberately rode with no front brake and caused bodily harm. He doesn't need to have been going furiously.

 

[slowmotion]

Probably the logic applied to many drivers who kill.

Possibly.

 

[Slick]

[QUOTE 4929121, member: 259"]Yes, me too. I can't feel any sympathy for him, but I've done really stupid things as well.[/QUOTE]
We all have, but nobody died.

 

[Tim Hall]

on a bike with front and back brakes, In an emergency stop peak breaking efficiency is at the point of almost doing and endo over the front wheel and rear breaking effect is zero.... check out Sheldon for the details.

But he didn't have a front brake so there's no chances of doing an endo.

 

[albion]

Personally I don't think he did a lot wrong. Still, having a front brake might have made some difference, and he should have had one. Minor offence * major outcome = moderate punishment. If he had managed to slow from 18 mph to 15 mph his kinetic energy would have been 70% what it was. They say ignorance is no defence in law, but that's for offences that you know are wrong anyway. For example, you might not know what the law of affray is, but you know when you are acting in a threatening manner in a public place. So I suppose it boils down to whether he should have known his bike was more dangerous for not having a front brake.

Still, if he'd been the the one killed in the accident, would she have been prosecuted? Even if he had a front brake?

There was a lot wrong. For starters he should not have been on the road. And 18mph is too fast,in pedestrian busy areas, with little braking.
However scapegoating a cyclist whilst continually letting off motorists' who kill thousands is serious prejudice.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

 

[DaveReading]

Wanton = deliberate and unprovoked. He deliberately rode with no front brake and caused bodily harm. He doesn't need to have been going furiously.

Yes he does.

The offence was wanton AND furious driving, not either/or.

 

[User482]

I think what did for him was the wilful misconduct/neglect aspect of the charge.

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

I'm no lawyer, but that seems to hinge on the harm occurring because of the wilful neglect.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Yes he does.

The offence was wanton AND furious driving, not either/or.

Nope. Whosoever shall by either or.