Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[srw]

Actually it is. When sentencing the judge can take into account:

• the circumstances of the case
• the impact that the crime has had on the victim, and
• relevant law – especially guideline cases from the Court of Appeal.

In considering the circumstances of the case and the impact on the victim, the outcome (that someone was killed) is relevant.

I presume that in this case, where there are no specific guidelines, the court will have used something like causing death by dangerous driving as a starting point?

 

[User482]

Actually it is. When sentencing the judge can take into account:

• the circumstances of the case
• the impact that the crime has had on the victim, and
• relevant law – especially guideline cases from the Court of Appeal.

In considering the circumstances of the case and the impact on the victim, the outcome (that someone was killed) is relevant.

Sorry, yes, good point. The written judgement will be interesting.

 

[srw]

All you're doing is regurgitating sentencing guidelines for an offence that is not comparable with the offence Mr Alliston was convicted of

It is.
Here's what the CPS says:
"
What other driving offences apply in cases involving death?
Other driving offences causing death include:

• causing death by driving when unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured;
• wanton and furious driving - this old offence is used when traffic laws don't apply. For example, when not on a road or public place, or when the vehicle is not motorised."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/

 

[User482]

It is.
Here's what the CPS says:
"
What other driving offences apply in cases involving death?
Other driving offences causing death include:

• causing death by driving when unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured;
• wanton and furious driving - this old offence is used when traffic laws don't apply. For example, when not on a road or public place, or when the vehicle is not motorised."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/

He was not found guilty of causing death.

 

[User482]

Anyway, here's the judgement: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

 

[jarlrmai]

So if he'd not been such a dick then he might not have gone to prison?

 

[User482]

She makes it clear it is his lack of insight and remorse that is at the heart of the sentence. And that there was little or no mitigation.

It hinges I think on the expert evidence that had he been riding a road-legal bike, he would've been able to stop. I still question that, but I guess we'll never know unless it forms the grounds for an appeal. As a cyclist, the judgement does worry me: I have on occasion, instinctively swerved to avoid a pedestrian - would I be guilty because I didn't try to brake? Would a lack of helmet and bell be counted against me?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I can't recall the confiscation of a motor vehicle in similar circumstances. Maybe we can look forward to that now...

 

[User482]

Does it? The judge seems to think otherwise:

"On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident."
​

I don't think she could have been more explicit.

"If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not."


"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance"

 

[User482]

The judge is clear - this did not hinge "...on the expert evidence that had he been riding a road-legal bike, he would've been able to stop".

This:
"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance"

Could not be clearer.

 

[jefmcg]

This:
"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance"

Could not be clearer.

Don't quote halve a sentence. If that was the entire point the judge was making, she'd have put a full stop there.

"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane. "

I.E. He rode a bike that couldn't be stopped in time AND he didn't try to stop it.

 

[User482]

Don't quote halve a sentence. If that was the entire point the judge was making, she'd have put a full stop there.

"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane. "

I.E. He rode a bike that couldn't be stopped in time AND he didn't try to stop it.

...because he couldn't stop. That's the point.

 

[Globalti]

I've long wondered when one of the Lucas Brunelle school of cycling would come unstuck; I wonder if it's already happened in the USA? Here's one, with the rider seeming to display similar lack of concern for the safety of others:

http://road.cc/content/news/89218-u...an-guilty-vehicular-manslaughter-escapes-jail

 

[vickster]

...because he couldn't stop. That's the point.

Through his own negligence riding a bike without the brakes that are legally required to ride on the road. He didn't mow down a Marshall at a velodrome. And clearly didn't care very much that he killed a woman

 

[User482]

Through his own negligence riding a bike without the brakes that are legally required to ride on the road. He didn't mow down a Marshall at a velodrome. And clearly didn't care very much that he killed a woman

I haven't seen anyone argue that his bike was legal, or that he has shown contrition.