Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[classic33]

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

Somehow I doubt that would be the case.

Edited so the quote reads correctly.

 

[mjr]

Doubt all you like. If vehicles making the whole road unsafe for all nearby traffic by smoking thickly only get a stripey (as I've seen), I don't see half-knackered brakes that probably mainly endanger you and one other getting worse. At worst, it's got a handbrake and engine braking so it's still one up on the track bike.

It ain't right but it's what I suspect would happen.

 

[growingvegetables]

It made a good deal of sense - if you regard the perhaps one case a year in which a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist, and the fraction of that one case a year in which the cyclist merits prosecution, and the fraction of that fraction of that one case per year in which the existing laws are not adequate, as sufficient basis for campaigning for a change in the law.

Point taken.

There's another way of looking at it maybe? Why are cyclists so often disregarded when road laws are being legislated? Parking on double yellows, speed limits, overtaking on pedestrian crossings, the recent one on small claims limits for whiplash claims - four that come to mind very quickly. Two don't matter, but two of them "do my head in".

Causing death/serious injury by dangerous cycling? Could so easily have been included in some way ... when the legislation was being considered for drivers?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

have to say, when I ping my bell pedestrians in my locale generally stop, and, this is what kills me, look up at the sky before my cheery follow up greeting causes them to leap away as if I was coming at them with a large knife. If a couple, the furthest from me will almost invariably pull the nearest away with a huge tank of the arm. Even though my path will take me at least 1m away from them, and at trickle past speed too.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Doubt all you like. If vehicles making the whole road unsafe for all nearby traffic by smoking thickly only get a stripey (as I've seen), I don't see half-knackered brakes that probably mainly endanger you and one other getting worse. At worst, it's got a handbrake and engine braking so it's still one up on the track bike.

It ain't right but it's what I suspect would happen.

Some forces would impound the car. Maybe only the ones whose traffic divisions feature on the tellybox.

 

[rliu]

Point taken.

There's another way of looking at it maybe? Why are cyclists so often disregarded when road laws are being legislated? Parking on double yellows, speed limits, overtaking on pedestrian crossings, the recent one on small claims limits for whiplash claims - four that come to mind very quickly. Two don't matter, but two of them "do my head in".

Causing death/serious injury by dangerous cycling? Could so easily have been included in some way ... when the legislation was being considered for drivers?

Have a look at section 28-30 of the Road Traffic Act, covers dangerous cycling, careless cycling, and cycling under influence of drink or drugs.
It's just laziness that sentencing guidelines have not been created in tandem with these existing offences.
As regards the manslaughter charge in this case, I highly suspected someone at the CPS wanted the media coverage to boost their own CV and career progression potentials. They could have gone for far more mundane charges if they wanted to.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If I roller bladed or long boarded or even ran flat out down a busy London street, shouted at someone to get out of my way, collided with them and they died, what would people say?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Have a look at section 28-30 of the Road Traffic Act, covers dangerous cycling, careless cycling, and cycling under influence of drink or drugs.
It's just laziness that sentencing guidelines have not been created in tandem with these existing offences.
As regards the manslaughter charge in this case, I highly suspected someone at the CPS wanted the media coverage to boost their own CV and career progression potentials. They could have gone for far more mundane charges if they wanted to.

Why would we want the cps to go for a mundane charge when someone was killed?

 

[PK99]

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.

Depressing isn't it?

When someone makes a mistake and rides up the inside of a left turning lorry, the phrase ".. the penalty for making a mistake should not be death.." or similar often appears.

yet we read in this thread;

"The main contributory factor in her death was that she stepped out into the road into his path."

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

Should schools teach driving?

And sorry @mjr whilst I agree with you on a lot, if chummy twat is a 'cyclist' I'm glad I'm just a bloke who builds and rides bicycles. I want no part of any tribe he is a member of.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Depressing isn't it?

When someone makes a mistake and rides up the inside of a left turning lorry, the phrase ".. the penalty for making a mistake should not be death.." or similar often appears.

yet we read in this thread;

"The main contributory factor in her death was that she stepped out into the road into his path."

I blame the lead they used to put in petrol. It has retarded the intellectual development of so many.

 

[rliu]

Why would we want the cps to go for a mundane charge when someone was killed?

More mundane charges mean higher odds of a conviction.
The media circus is a separate issue to justice or the law being enforced fairly. Did it help the widower to have his photo in the papers every day and the circumstances of his wife's death played out in day by day updates?

 

[PK99]

And sorry @mjr whilst I agree with you on a lot, if chummy twat is a 'cyclist' I'm glad I'm just a bloke who builds and rides bicycles. I want no part of any tribe he is a member of.

Me neither. Nor the tribal support he is receiving here.

 

[User482]

Me neither. Nor the tribal support he is receiving here.

A couple of people are doing that. A couple of people would have him hanged, drawn and quartered. Both groups are degrading the signal: noise ratio.

 

[growingvegetables]

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

Agreed.

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

Umm ... really?

I'm going to make extrapolations - yeah, I know. I wasn't there, and it's not in the reporting I've seen.

Lunchtime central London street; motor vehicles moving (- but at NOTHING like 18mph); pedestrian steps out hoping to cross (- but motors are moving just fast enough to make it impossible; guesswork - 5-8mph?); pedestrian steps back (why, we can't know).

And Alliston is "bombing along" at 18mph, in the space between the slow-moving traffic and the kerb. No escape, no evasion space. My phrase - and I stand by it; as I envision the situation, 18mph was far too fast, in that narrow space.

Doubly so when his ability to brake is so compromised.

Shouting a "warning" (although it was rather more aggressive than a warning, by his own account), or even two of them (again, by his account) is
a) useless, in such a noisy, distracted environment, and
b) probably a sign of HIS panic (given the words he claimed to have used) that a situation he had thought was under control (and could more or less ride through), was, suddenly and completely, out of his control.

On b) - all it took was a fraction of a second. And he was ****ed. 18mph was far too fast, in that context.

Yes - I do appreciate I have made lazy assumptions. But (unlike some of the generalisations above), I hope they're pretty fairly based on the actual situation, at that time?