Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[Flick of the Elbow]

Can't get my head around this. Other than being a prat the only offence he has committed is riding a bike that isn't road legal. I don't get how this translates to a charge of furious cycling. It makes me wonder, next time I'm freewheeling at 18mph down a gentle gradient, passing through green lights, and an inattentive pedestrian steps out in front of me, possibly looking at their phone...Regardless of whether I have 2 working brakes, if I swerve to avoid ped then ped steps back into my path, am I going to be looking at the same charge ?

 

[User482]

20mph isn't OK for other road traffic in central London. It's freakishly fast.

Anyone who's ever ridden a bike in central London will know that 18mph is far too fast to be safe to be riding near unpredictable pedestrians. That's a speed to do on a clear road with decent visibility, or when you're riding in the middle of clear-flowing traffic, as traffic.

In general, I agree, but no-one is going to be prosecuted for it.

 

[srw]

In general, I agree, but no-one is going to be prosecuted for it.

They are when they knock someone down. Despite the hand-wringing, drivers are regularly prosecuted for injuring other road users.

 

[User482]

They are when they knock someone down. Despite the hand-wringing, drivers are regularly prosecuted for injuring other road users.

You were referring to speed. No court will hold 18mph to be unreasonable. So we are left with whether or not he could've stopped with a front brake, or slowed sufficiently to prevent injury or death.

 

[Tin Pot]

I'd like to point out that LBC - normally known for wild populist tripe - put on a very rational balanced show last night, on this point.

They had a cycling rep on who rightly tried to focus the attention on people who behave badly, rather than the tribal labels cyclist, motorist, pedestrian. And the show host tried to keep that message throughout.

Obviously you had the frothing loons dialling in with the registration, license, helmet and they-are-all-the-same nonsense but the show hosts did a good job in my opinion.

Kudos to LBC.

 

[srw]

You were referring to speed. No court will hold 18mph to be unreasonable. So we are left with whether or not he could've stopped with a front brake, or slowed sufficiently to prevent injury or death.

...either of which are easier at a slower, more appropriate speed. Speed is an integral part of the case.

 

[User482]

...Speed is an integral part of the case.

That's not my understanding of the prosecution's case.

 

[MacB]

That's not my understanding of the prosecution's case.

No they did make a lot of the stopping distance variables but, as the article you linked to pointed out, even with a front brake it's doubtful stopping could have happened given speed and distance. For this the lack of a front brake is an issue, at least theoretically and the theoretical bit is whether he'd have even considered using it had one been on the bike. That's where my 'over estimating his skills' comment came in. He saw what was ahead, shouted twice, didn't get the reaction he wanted so swerved seemingly at the same time as the reaction he'd been looking for came. You could argue that had he not bothered shouting and stuck to swerving only then this could have been avoided...we'll never know.

 

[MacB]

[QUOTE 4929381, member: 1314"]There is, literally, a world of difference between 'freewheeling down a gentle gradient' at 18 mph somewhere quiet, and cycling at 18 mph through central London with very little space for pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles to navigate around each other due to the ancient London urban infrastructure.

It was Alliston's responsibility to make sure that, firstly, his bike was roadworthy; secondly, he was cycling defensively, not just for his safety but also that of more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians; and, thirdly, that if he was not going to do either that he had the skills to stop or avoid hazards.

Pedestrians commonly step out onto London roads without checking. It's not always their fault as they aren't put at the heart of London's transport policy as they should be. I worked in central London for ten years and walking around was a 'mare.

I don't think his age is an excuse.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree but still feel he's being scapegoated for his attitude as much as his actions, age is not an excuse just part of the explanation. I've ridden enough in London to be appalled by some other cyclists most obviously as they stream past when I stop at lights. I've also seen plenty weave through pedestrians who are crossing rather than wait.

 

[Venod]

Can't get my head around this. Other than being a prat the only offence he has committed is riding a bike that isn't road legal. I don't get how this translates to a charge of furious cycling.

I agree where does the furious cycling fit in with this, not having a front brake is stupid, but was he cycling furiously ?

[QUOTE 4929381, member: 1314"]Pedestrians commonly step out onto London roads without checking. It's not always their fault[/QUOTE]

I would say if you step into the road without checking there is a good chance its your fault.

 

[User482]

It was, specifically the inability to control it.

Specifically related to the lack of front brake, not that his speed was held to be unreasonable.

 

[MacB]

I would say if you step into the road without checking there is a good chance its your fault.

This is true but I think the point being made is that most of us would be cycling more sensibly and defensively in keeping with the roads we were traversing. I know I would be but would I have been aged 18? well I can remember some hairy moments cycling when I was young, disaster only averted by the quick thinking of other road users. I've become a more considerate, less angry and more risk averse cyclist over the years. I'd actually say the same for my driving, in my 20s road rage could rear its ugly head but looking back the same incidents now wouldn't even cause me to raise an eyebrow.

 

[MacB]

Specifically related to the lack of front brake, not that his speed was held to be unreasonable.

Yeah but I think that was the angle they used, speed reasonable if he had a front brake but unreasonable because he hadn't. whether this is factual or not didn't seem to come into it.

 

[growingvegetables]

... scapegoated ...

Wrong word. He was NOT "scapegoated".

[Pedantic? Yup . Important? Yup (imho) .]

 

[Banjo]

It is a complete tragedy but is no responsibility at all being put on the woman for not looking before stepping out onto the road?

If the bike was being ridden by a vicar and was completely roadworthy the collision could still have occurred.