Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[GrumpyGregry]

In reply to srw and grumpy, and thinking about the physics / ethics...

It is the cyclist who brings the most kinetic energy into things and thus the source of essentially all the danger.

However, I'd suggest the cyclist would still be the one most likely to be hurt as a glancing blow would only be a shove to the pedestrian yet cause the cyclist to fall off at speed.

In my experience of watching three cyclist pedestrian collisions in that lahndahn the glancing blow has dumped ped on deck with suspected broken bones whilst chummy has ridden furiously away shouting obscenities at his victim. apart from the one guy who rode into the back of a taxi. Now that was funny.

In my experience as a pedestrian who has been collided with three times, all avoidable but I'm an obstinate old bugger, my dropped shoulder has been bruised twice. On two occasions chummy fell off and I didn't enquire, the other wobbled like a bandit but rode off. One guy who I missed skidded to a halt on his fixie and attempted to start a fist fight but was a) 8-stone-wet-thru and b) unable to easily stand on his cleats c) easily distracted when I shouted "They're nicking your bike." They weren't. But by then I'd trotted off into the station.

 

[bigjim]

Completely agree, I thought we'd moved onto more general rather than specifics.

Re,Specifics I think CA was an odious arrogant little scrote, probably lied about not knowing a front brake was needed to make his fixie legal and safe, was probably riding too fast for the urban environment, although ironically possibly slower than vehicles on same road, and was rightly convicted of wanton and furious etc, mainly as he was riding a bike he couldn't stop safely, had time to slow it down (he shouted twice by his own admission) and chose not too. BUT no way should he have been up on manslaughter charge. The fact that the lady died was extremely unlucky and unfortunate and tragic for her family and friends.

Is that correct? I thought he did slow down and attempt to go around her, [which is what I normally do] but she stepped back into his path?

 

[MacB]

Is that correct? I thought he did slow down and attempt to go around her, [which is what I normally do] but she stepped back into his path?

That was my understanding as well, sounded as if he yelled a couple of times, didn't get the reaction he wanted fast enough so swerved, then got the reaction he'd hoped for when he yelled. If he'd been smart enough to allow for slower reaction times in older people it might have been different.

 

[Poacher]

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-...edestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest

Relevant story today on road.cc to this continuing debate about if a pedestrian is indeed a more vulnerable road user than a cyclist.

Predictable coverage from the Daily Wail Online: "
Cyclist died after running down pedestrian who stepped into his path as he raced through busy junction as lights changed to red


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cyclist-died-running-pedestrian.html#ixzz4s6tOHFka "

Of course, no mention of the fact that his organ donations saved 5 lives.

 

[bigjim]

That was my understanding as well, sounded as if he yelled a couple of times, didn't get the reaction he wanted fast enough so swerved, then got the reaction he'd hoped for when he yelled. If he'd been smart enough to allow for slower reaction times in older people it might have been different.

I think the mistake he made was shouting. She would not have moved back.

 

[bigjim]

Predictable coverage from the Daily Wail Online: "
Cyclist died after running down pedestrian who stepped into his path as he raced through busy junction as lights changed to red


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cyclist-died-running-pedestrian.html#ixzz4s6tOHFka "

Of course, no mention of the fact that his organ donations saved 5 lives.

The Mail really needs taking to task for it's stirring up of hatred towards cyclists. They are playing a dangerous game and putting our lives at risk, IMO.

 

[Pale Rider]

The Mail really needs taking to task for it's stirring up of hatred towards cyclists. They are playing a dangerous game and putting our lives at risk, IMO.

It's an inquest report.

The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.

The coroner described the cyclist as 'speeding'.

If you have any beef with that, you need to take it up with the expert who assessed the speed and the coroner who made the remarks.

Coroners - like judges - are fiercely independent and tell it like it is, not how one interested party or another wants it told.

The cyclist's family were not keen on the inquest's conclusions, but they have had their say in the Mail - and probably other - articles.

 

[bigjim]

It's an inquest report.

The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.

The coroner described the cyclist as 'speeding'.

If you have any beef with that, you need to take it up with the expert who assessed the speed and the coroner who made the remarks.

Coroners - like judges - are fiercely independent and tell it like it is, not how one interested party or another wants it told.

The cyclist's family were not keen on the inquest's conclusions, but they have had their say in the Mail - and probably other - articles.

Err.. The headline is not the inquest report!
The Mail are notorious for headlining cycling offences and disregarding similar stories regarding motor vehicles. It is very good clickbait for them knowing the mindset of their readers. Just a look at the comments will support this. That is what I am alluding to.

 

[Poacher]

It's an inquest report.

The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.

The coroner described the cyclist as 'speeding'.

If you have any beef with that, you need to take it up with the expert who assessed the speed and the coroner who made the remarks.

Coroners - like judges - are fiercely independent and tell it like it is, not how one interested party or another wants it told.

The cyclist's family were not keen on the inquest's conclusions, but they have had their say in the Mail - and probably other - articles.

As @bigjim has pointed out, the headline is not the inquest report - the "collision investigator Kevin Spiller said CCTV showed the cyclist was travelling at around 24mph on Church Road, but he was unable to tell whether Mr Pedley had just ridden past a green or red light." according to the GloucestershireLive report of the inquest proceedings, but this wasn't good enough for the Mail, which had the cyclist running a red.
"A cyclist who died after running down a pedestrian near a busy junction may have jumped a red light moments before the collision, an inquest has heard."

(OK, it says "may have", but that's good enough for Mail readers to make the obvious conclusion!)

 

[Pale Rider]

Err.. The headline is not the inquest report!
The Mail are notorious for headlining cycling offences and disregarding similar stories regarding motor vehicles. It is very good clickbait for them knowing the mindset of their readers. Just a look at the comments will support this. That is what I am alluding to.

Not many cyclists die in cyclist/pedestrian collisions, the pedestrian usually comes off worst.

Thus the story is newsworthy.

Even then the Mail doesn't have to run it, but they can't change the narrative of the inquest - it is what it is.

I've no idea if the Mail 'disregards' similar stories regarding motor vehicles, but their perception of newsworthiness trumps all, if they deem a story newsworthy it gets used.

All of which is irrelevant to the various points raised in the story, not least the cyclist's family's contention the pedestrian should be held in some way accountable for his actions.

 

[Poacher]

Not many cyclists die in cyclist/pedestrian collisions, the pedestrian usually comes off worst.

Anecdata, but this doesn't match my experience - in the three collisions I've had with pedestrians who stepped/ran straight in front of me, they sustained very minor injuries compared to mine.

 

[bigjim]

Not many cyclists die in cyclist/pedestrian collisions, the pedestrian usually comes off worst.

Thus the story is newsworthy.

Even then the Mail doesn't have to run it, but they can't change the narrative of the inquest - it is what it is.

I've no idea if the Mail 'disregards' similar stories regarding motor vehicles, but their perception of newsworthiness trumps all, if they deem a story newsworthy it gets used.

All of which is irrelevant to the various points raised in the story, not least the cyclist's family's contention the pedestrian should be held in some way accountable for his actions.

They can change the narrative of the headline. If I remember correctly, in the case of Charlie Alliston the Mail ran such headlines as "He Smashed into her" and "He mowed her down".
I think you are confusing newsworthy with clickbait. Rare to find a cyclist so intent on supporting the Daily Mail. Interesting.

 

[Wobblers]

It's an inquest report.

The inquest heard evidence the speed was 24mph.

The coroner described the cyclist as 'speeding'.

24 mph for a motor vehicle would not be classed as "speeding". Interesting applicaiton of double standards here.

Just because a coroner says so does not make it so.

 

[Milkfloat]

Interesting that the Mail don't mention that the pedestrian had just exited a pub. Surely if they were putting 2 and 2 together and making 5 from the cyclist's actions they could come up with 55 from the pedestrian's.

 

[Pale Rider]

They can change the narrative of the headline. If I remember correctly, in the case of Charlie Alliston the Mail ran such headlines as "He Smashed into her" and "He mowed her down".
I think you are confusing newsworthy with clickbait. Rare to find a cyclist so intent on supporting the Daily Mail. Interesting.

And you are confusing the message with the messenger.

The inquest would have been just the same had the Mail not covered it.

@McWobble takes issue with the coroner's use of the word 'speeding'.

Fair enough, the coroner makes his findings which are there to be criticised if anyone wants to.

But, as usual on here, many posters have no interest in the story and are only interested in moaning about the Mail's coverage of it.

A clue is provided by the cyclist's family, they are not calling for a reform of the Mail, they are calling for a reform of the law relating to pedestrians using the carriageway.