Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[Red17]

Who says he's being investigated for perjury?

Daily Mail

 

[graham bowers]

The charge of 'furious cycling' is so open to interpretation that the anti cycling establishment could go after any one of us now. Cycling without pedal reflectors, cycling what they would see as too far out from the kerb, overtaking a line of parked traffic, not wearing what they deem to be bright enough clothing, swearing at them when they step or pull out in front of us, you name it, they can go after us for anything now.

Just 'cos I'm not paranoid doesn't mean the b@stards aren't out to get me ;-)

 

[Red17]

And you believed them?

No - just answering your question

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The charge of 'furious cycling' is so open to interpretation that the anti cycling establishment could go after any one of us now. Cycling without pedal reflectors, cycling what they would see as too far out from the kerb, overtaking a line of parked traffic, not wearing what they deem to be bright enough clothing, swearing at them when they step or pull out in front of us, you name it, they can go after us for anything now.

That isn't going to happen. And the charge is well understood and will continue to be applied appropriately.

 

[jefmcg]

Daily Mail

No they don't.

They just say he could face perjury charges.

 

[DaveReading]

They just say he could face perjury charges.

If that were to happen, it would presumably follow the investigation that the OP referred to. Neither he nor the DM said charges were inevitable.

 

[chriswoody]

Road cc are also reporting the Perjury story. Seems the judge also made a passing comment in her sentencing.

http://road.cc/content/news/229482-...g-perjury-charge-over-claim-he-worked-courier

 

[Venod]

@Flick of the Elbow said

The charge of 'furious cycling' is so open to interpretation

@User said

No it's not

@GrumpyGregry said

And the charge is well understood and will continue to be applied appropriately

I think the title " Wanton and Furious cycling" is not understood by a lot of cyclists including me, from what I can gather its only applied when when someone is injured or killed by a cyclist, if ever a charge needed renaming to bring it up to date this does.

 

[Milkfloat]

[QUOTE 4962646, member: 45"]Here's an example of what some might think an excessive sentence for another type of road user.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...biker-who-pulled-wheelies-on-the-m6-is-jailed

The bikers are all complaining that he didn't hurt anyone.[/QUOTE]

It does make me wonder if the why if the police were that concerned for his and others safely that they followed him for 16 minutes filming rather than pulling him. But I guess that is another thread on its own.

 

[Alan O]

It does make me wonder if the why if the police were that concerned for his and others safely that they followed him for 16 minutes filming rather than pulling him. But I guess that is another thread on its own.

They may well have been waiting until they thought it was safest to stop him - startling someone when they're behaving like that moron can be dangerous.

 

[Pale Rider]

The judge has ruled out the apparent perjury making any material difference to the sentence.

But that's not the whole story, a more important point is did the perjury make any material difference to the verdicts?

The legislation says it's for the 'court of trial' to decide what is and isn't 'material' to the case.

The fact that Alliston was convicted of something and jailed may mean, practically, that's an end to it.

But I wonder what would have happened had he given the same evidence and been acquitted of both charges.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The fact that it is not understood by a lot of cyclists is not the same as it being open to interpretation.

It does not only apply to cyclists - it can be used when injury is caused by any vehicle (motorised or non-motorised). However, for motor vehicles there are some equivalent offences which are more commonly used.

Also can be used for motor vehicle offences where road law does not apply, e.g. Off road.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think the title " Wanton and Furious cycling" is not understood by a lot of cyclists including me, from what I can gather its only applied when when someone is injured or killed by a cyclist, if ever a charge needed renaming to bring it up to date this does.

Culpable ignorance would be the prosecutions argument.

Whilst the language is dated the meaning of the law is clear.

 

[rliu]

Very interesting that it seems the Mrs Briggs looking at her phone aspect and the Alliston being an experienced bike courier aspect are both unsubstantiated. Wouldn't it have been in the defence counsel job role to proof Alliston on his oral evidence and tell him not to bother lying about these things as it only aggravates his eventual sentencing?

 

[Poacher]

The reality is that it is only perjury if what was lied about was material to the case. This wasn't.

If everyone who lied in court was prosecuted for perjury the prisons would be very full (or rather much fuller than they currently are).

The evidence given in court regarding stopping distances seemed questionable, to put it mildly, and was certainly material to the case. Should the "expert witness" involved be worried about a possible perjury charge? (Don't expect the Daily Mail to be investigating that one).