Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[PK99]

And Alliston is "bombing along" at 18mph,

That was my view of his speed also, knowing the traffic and pedestrian environment of the area in question.

I was gobsmacked to red the Cycling Lawyer Blog:

"On any objective view, 18mph is a cautious speed and on a busy London Street matching the speed of other traffic, rather than going much slower, is a wise precaution.

 

[swansonj]

Point taken.

There's another way of looking at it maybe? Why are cyclists so often disregarded when road laws are being legislated?
....

Perhaps because there's a bit of a general principle that laws are only introduced to deal with problems, and, generally speaking, cyclists don't cause problems of a level warranting legislation?

 

[growingvegetables]

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.

Oh dear. Did you read it?

"Driving offences
1. Causing death by dangerous driving.
1A.Causing serious injury by dangerous driving
2. Dangerous driving.
2A. Meaning of dangerous driving.
2B.Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving
3. Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.
3ZA.Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, driving
3ZB.Causing death by driving: unlicensed... or uninsured drivers
3ZC.Causing death by driving: disqualified drivers
3ZD.Causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers
3A. Causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs."

As compared to Section 28 (1988) - (watch the wording!) "“dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case."

Modified to Section 28 (1991) - (guess a couple of MPs in the Grayling school of motoring have had their mirrors knocked off) " “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property ..."

Spotted what's missing?

 

[rliu]

Oh dear. Did you read it?

"Driving offences
1. Causing death by dangerous driving.
1A.Causing serious injury by dangerous driving
2. Dangerous driving.
2A. Meaning of dangerous driving.
2B.Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving
3. Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.
3ZA.Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, driving
3ZB.Causing death by driving: unlicensed... or uninsured drivers
3ZC.Causing death by driving: disqualified drivers
3ZD.Causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers
3A. Causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs."

As compared to Section 28 (1988) - (watch the wording!) "“dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case."

Modified to Section 28 (1991) - (guess a couple of MPs in the Grayling school of motoring have had their mirrors knocked off) " “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property ..."

Spotted what's missing?

Yeah it's not good drafting and I alluded to this in the lack of any sentencing guidelines comment. But the framework is there which just needs amendments. The lack of any work done on these sections however is just a reflection of the rarity of cyclists causing death or serious injuries, and thus it's very low on the list of legislative priorities.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I think we can all rest assured that nothing is going to happen on this one. Not with Brexit occupying parliament for the foreseeable.

Andrea Loathsome punted a private members bill for death my dangerous cycling following the last high profile case of this type (Rhiannon Bennett). It didn't go anywhere.

 

[Wobblers]

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.

If Alliston had started braking as soon as he saw her, at the moment she stepped backwards he'd have still have been some distance away from her, and travelling at a slower speed. He would have had enough time to take the appropriate avoiding actions.

His inappropriate speed and (more significantly) inability to control his bike adequately are central factors in how this collision took place.

 

[Origamist]

That was my view of his speed also, knowing the traffic and pedestrian environment of the area in question.

I was gobsmacked to red the Cycling Lawyer Blog:

"On any objective view, 18mph is a cautious speed and on a busy London Street matching the speed of other traffic, rather than going much slower, is a wise precaution.

If he had a working front brake, I would not have much of an issue with Martin Porter's statement, but without a front brake, it does seem odd to describe 18mph as a cautious speed in the circumstances.

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 4929670, member: 43827"]Pedestrians hear a bell and know it's a cyclist coming towards them on the path/road. They hear a shout and may not be so specific about where to look for the noise.

But bells are not cool, are they?[/QUOTE]

Bells have three drawbacks. The first is that they signify "bike" - that is, something assumed to be slow and of little danger. The second is they don't instill any sense of urgency. Combined, that means they're likely to just be filtered out as something of no importance. That's if the bell can be heard at all: the third problem is that bells aren't vey loud. They just aren't that likely to be noticed in the cacaphony of a busy street.

From this I take it that you've never had a pedestrian step out in front of you? I can assure you, if someone does, you will yell. I've found myself doing just that, when a pedestrian stepped out in front of me, less than 30 feet away. And I was going faster than Alliston at the time (it was either that or be decorated by tyre marks courtesy of Hampden Cars). I do feel bad about startling her with my bloodcurdling scream of terror - but then, I'd have felt much worse if I'd actually hit her. Because she stopped dead when she heard me. It works, you see. Remarkably well; it's hard wired into our brains.

Nothing at all with being "cool". Everything to do with effectiveness.

 

[DaveReading]

When I rediscovered cycling a few years ago, I also found to my surprise and delight that I have a very loud and effective "Aaargh !!!" which has proved useful on a number of occasions since.

 

[jarlrmai]

i've had people push prams in front of me, usher kids across the road in front of me, braking and locking up (on my fully legally equipped road bike) I probably would have hit them if I hadn't yelled NOOOOOO!!!! very loudly.

This guy should have a had a front brake and he was only on trial because he didn't and I totally agree with that, but any comments on riding slower etc well the thing is you can always be safer, you can ride at 0.1 mph and never get anywhere, you can get a job working from home and never leave the house, there is inherent risk to every activity, if a society can't handle the risk posed by cyclists it certainly shouldn't be able to handle the one posed by cars, vans and lorries.

 

[growingvegetables]

Perhaps because there's a bit of a general principle that laws are only introduced to deal with problems, and, generally speaking, cyclists don't cause problems of a level warranting legislation?

Hmmm - laws as a knee-jerk reaction? Gives us the the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act?

I know I am unashamedly naive and simplistic, but I happen to think that law-makers might think about broader principles?

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah about that... Psychoactive Substances Act.

 

[rliu]

Yeah about that... Psychoactive Substances Act.

What else did you expect from Theresa May's Home Office legacy?

 

[albion]

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...ho_knocked_down_and_killed_dog_walker_cleared

 

[rliu]

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...ho_knocked_down_and_killed_dog_walker_cleared

Jesus Christ