Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[glasgowcyclist]

No guidelines.

The chances are the judge will have invited both barristers to refer her to other similar cases which have been dealt with, if they want to.

There's a couple in one of the BBC stories which both resulted in immediate custody.

The prosecutor might refer to those on sentencing day, the defending barrister might be able to dig up other cases in which a more lenient sentence was passed.

Thanks. That's what I wanted to know.

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

What's the point in changing the law due to this case?

He was prosecuted successfully.

I'm tired of hearing about new laws that change nothing materially. Simplifying the law is different - e.g. Killing people and their death being your fault should be covered by a single law, whether a bike, car or spoon is involved.

Yes but it's a moot point whether his actions killed her or not. The main contributory factor in her death was that she stepped out into the road into his path. Whether his lack of a front brake was also a contributory factor is mostly a matter of conjecture. We know that he shouted an audible warning, we know that he slowed down, we know that he changed course to avoid her. But then in a split second just as he was about to safely pass her she took the action to step back into his path. In the split second that followed it must be questionable whether brakes or no brakes would have made any difference.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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 ?

wanton not furious.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

What's the point in changing the law due to this case?

He was prosecuted successfully.

I'm tired of hearing about new laws that change nothing materially. Simplifying the law is different - e.g. Killing people and their death being your fault should be covered by a single law, whether a bike, car or spoon is involved.

wishful thinking in a world where killing people with a motor vehicle is third class killing people and thus the acceptable price we pay for folks love of motors.

 

[mjr]

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."

Good old CTC, spending your subscriptions on piling into the attack on the cyclist He should have been arguing mainly that bicycle legality should be covered at school as part of Bikeability or similar, which far too many schools still don't teach.

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

You get a Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme ticket (aka a stripey) and two weeks to prove you've fixed it?

You can very reasonably prove, beyond any doubt at all, that, had he had and used a brake, the collision would have been at a very low speed, if it had occurred at all.

No, you can argue it (although I don't think it's convincing) but you can't prove it because there are too many undocumented elements to the collision.

And 18mph is too fast,in pedestrian busy areas, with little braking.

Pull the other one, it's got a car accelerator pedal on!

[QUOTE 4929215, member: 259"]I agree with everything you say apart from him not knowing his bike wasn't legal. He isn't daft. If he really didn't know, at that age, then I don't know what. Compulsory test for cyclists?[/QUOTE]
Nobber Hayles on BBC Breakfast was basically in favour in principle, but thought it unworkable because of child cyclists.

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

When was the last time a driver was prosecuted for manslaughter? And how many get two years because they were doing 18mph and collided with someone crossing the road? This seems skewed badly the wrong way, with the lighter vehicle's operator being held to a higher standard and facing stiffer penalties.

[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.[/QUOTE]
Even a fossil like me sometimes manages 18mph peak speeds in central London (well away from the kerb, though) and Old Street at Charlotte Street is one of the wider bits, isn't it?

Matt Briggs, who is a cyclist himself

You couldn't make it up! Does he also have friends who are cyclists?

But then in a split second just as he was about to safely pass her she took the action to step back into his path.

If she could step back into his path in a split-second, then he wasn't about to pass her safely. He was passing dangerously close and fast.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

When was the last time a driver was prosecuted for manslaughter?

The only one I can think of was the guy who killed Sam Harding by dooring him into the path of a bus.
The jury deliberated for a good 60 minutes before acquitting him.

 

[Tim Hall]

As per User482, common-sense would make me realise it was a dumb idea. But this guy was part of the Courier/fixed wheel fraternity and I'm pretty certain this must have been mentioned at some time. Apart from Bravado and fashion, there's no good reason not to have a front brake on a road bike.
Interesting interview from the m,echanic at 'Look mum no hands' this morning on R4.

Got a link? Or failing that, which programme was it on?

 

[youngoldbloke]

Got a link? Or failing that, which programme was it on?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091s82b
- at about 49 min in (6.50 am) - suggests a bike 'MOT' at 52 min. Presumably performed by 'qualified' mechanics (but then he would wouldn't he?) - beware what they wish for.

 

[Tim Hall]

Thanks both. That's before my alarm, which is why I missed it, so Listening Again now.

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

Rather shabby bit of victim-blaming there...

He was also a victim.

 

[mjr]

They generally don't have to be prosecuted for manslaughter as there is a specific offence of causing death by dangerous driving (which carries up to 14 years imprisonment) - there is no such equivalent for non-motorists.

I'm aware of that. The current offence has only existed since 1988, hasn't it? A previous similarly-named offence existed 1972-1977. What I'm wondering is, was some motorist successfully prosecuted for manslaughter when CDbyDD didn't exist, if not since?

That said, the CPS Guidance is clear - motorists can be prosecuted for manslaughter where the death by dangerous driving offence may not apply.

In other words, whenever the third-class homicide offence CDbyDD applies, CPS helps motorists get its softer sentences even if manslaughter would be a valid charge, but because this time it was only a cyclist, they went for the maximum?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Lovin' the way the nobber apologists for chummy's twattery sound just like the apologists for nobber drivers.

All the same tedious excuses for this knobjockey on the bike as get trotted out for the knobjockeys behind the wheel.

Couldn't make it up.

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

No he wasn't, despite what he may have tried to make out. He was an arrogant, ignorant, victim-blaming little cock.

Loving your calm, logical, dispassionate assessment of the facts. Says it all.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 4929776, member: 1314"]Bells don't give a sense of direction, and too 'warningly', which is why I use my voice or whistle.[/QUOTE]
I suspect that depends on the bell and sometimes the manner of use.

[QUOTE 4929776, member: 1314"]For example, I may say, as I approach pedestrians from behind:

'Coming past on your right.'

This lets them know I'm, erm, coming past on their right. They move to their left and I say thanks as I cycle past. Job done.[/QUOTE]
Really? When I spent a while trying it a few years ago, they seemed to move to their right as often as their left. IMO you can't direct walkers, it's better not to try, and we should be prepared for them to do whatever.

 

[Inertia]

I suspect that depends on the bell and sometimes the manner of use.


Really? When I spent a while trying it a few years ago, they seemed to move to their right as often as their left. IMO you can't direct walkers, it's better not to try, and we should be prepared for them to do whatever.

I have the same experience, normally because for me to talk to them, I have to get very close which feels Im like sneaking up on them. At that point, me speaking comes out of the blue so they don't hear what I said and usually end up looking around or jumping out of surprise.

That's if they even hear me, its a 50/50 chance that they have headphones in. In that situation I usually end behind them, at walking pace, trying to get their attention.

The tactic that works for me is to ring the bell loudly, but early so they have time to notice me, assess the situation and usually move to one side so I can pass on the other.