Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[Yellow Fang]

I found this part of the judge's sentencing remarks telling as it is another factor that might explain why the jury found Charlie Alliston guilty:

"but I am satisfied on the evidence that you saw her as she stepped off the kerb".

As it was stated he had 3.8 seconds to react when she stepped off the kerb, there was seemingly time to brake with or without a front brake.

I think the sentence is appropriate, but I do find various apsects of this tragic case concerning.

Interesting, where does the 3.8 seconds come from? That's a pretty long time. I wondered how he managed to tell her to get out the way twice. He could have slowed down in 3.8 seconds, but did not want to. He yelled at her to get out the way, but she froze. Then he could not slow down quick enough, because he did not have a front brake.

 

[jarlrmai]

Anyone know what was behind him at the moment he saw her? Road clear? A bus? A tailgating taxi?

 

[Red17]

The jury did from the cctv.

 

[jarlrmai]

fair enough, emergency stops are really scary on the bike as you are worried about getting hit from behind.

 

[Bman]

Apologies in advance if I've missed something in this thread, Ive read about 70% of it but as its over 80 pages long I skipped most of the speculation.

I've followed the case in the news over the last few months and even now, I'm still in two minds.

Part of me thinks "Yes". He should have been punished. Riding a bike that is not street legal, showing no remorse and (less importantly) his online activity after the event.

But, on the other hand, I could totally see myself in the same situation. I encounter belligerent road users all the time. Dozens a week. Road users that have little to no regard for cyclists. Pedestrians that step out without looking. Those that look and step out regardless. Motorists who do the same. I cant imagine what its like in London.

I admit, youth is partly to blame. We all are much more prone to risk taking in our 20's than in later life. I'm not quite the spring chicken I once was and really, really want to avoid any kind of collision at all costs. It hurts! I don't want to hurt anyone else or damage anything either!

That said, riding a completely street legal road bike, within safe speeds and conditions, I could imagine a situation where a pedestrian glued to their phone causes an accident I cannot predict or avoid. If a ball bounces out between parked cars, you expect a child may run out, so slow and prepare to stop. But if there is no ball, you don't expect a child to run out past every parked car you pass.

I guess the ultimate question is, had he been riding fully legally and had he tried to perform an emergency stop (ie not ride like a dickhead) and still caused loss of life, what would be the result?

 

[Origamist]

Interesting, where does the 3.8 seconds come from? That's a pretty long time. I wondered how he managed to tell her to get out the way twice. He could have slowed down in 3.8 seconds, but did not want to. He yelled at her to get out the way, but she froze. Then he could not slow down quick enough, because he did not have a front brake.

The 3.8 secs figure was stated during the trial by the expert witness. I think it puts a different complexion on how the events unfolded. At 18mph, that's circa 30 metres. Of course, only the defendant will know if he did see Mrs Briggs step off the kerb, but with the opportunity to shout twice (sweary exhortations of short sentence length) he chose to scrub a bit of speed off and thread his way between a lorry on his left and a pedestrian on his right. That was a miscalculation that had tragic consequences.

 

[slowmotion]

I think that a CCTV clip of the incident was posted somewhere. I can't find it. Could some kind person put it up again to refresh our minds about what actually happened? Obviously, it didn't record the verbal stuff which may or may not have been important.

 

[Origamist]

I think that a CCTV clip of the incident was posted somewhere. I can't find it. Could some kind person put it up again to refresh our minds about what actually happened? Obviously, it didn't record the verbal stuff which may or may not have been important.

The CCTV sequence was shown during the trial, but it has not been released. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

The Met did release a test film of cyclist stopping distances, but it was rather amatuerish.

 

[slowmotion]

The CCTV sequence was shown during fhe trial, but it has not been released. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

The Met did release a test film of cyclist stopping distances, but it was rather amatuerish.

I'm pretty sure I saw a distant B&W building-top clip of the incident. Maybe it was a simulation by the media. I forget.

 

[srw]

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?

Yes. So what?

Should the "expert witness" involved be worried about a possible perjury charge?

No. There was plenty of opportunity during the trial and before sentencing for his evidence to be challenged.

Anyone know what was behind him at the moment he saw her?

No. If you're worried about what's behind you you get out of the way, you don't swear at people in front of you.

[QUOTE 4963158, member: 43827"]is it likely that there will be any clamp down by police on their use[/QUOTE]
No. Too much like hard work and they're not really dangerous most of the time.

To quote something from earlier in the thread:

It's pretty clear that the judge attaches no, or almost no, blame to the actions of the victim. And that she has spent rather more time examining and thinking about the case, and similar cases (including cases involving drivers) than anyone here.

There are 12 people who know why the manslaughter charge was rejected and the Wanton and Furious Driving charge was accepted. They're not allowed to say anything. There is one person who knows why the sentence handed down was handed down, and her explanations are available for everyone to read and are very clear.

Charlie Alliston was an arrogant, thoughtless yob whose arrogance and thoughtlessness caused the death of an innocent passer-by. Even a good-quality brief couldn't get him off. He was also an extremely rare and unluckly arrogant thoughtless yob - because most yobs in possession of a bike cause broken bones at worst.

Within a few weeks everyone will have forgotten who Alliston was. There's no material prospect of the law on cycling being changed in a way that affects the overwhelming majority of law-abiding cyclists, because our idiot and incompetent government have their hands full with the self-inflicted wound that is Brexit.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Within a few weeks everyone will have forgotten who Alliston was. There's no material prospect of the law on cycling being changed in a way that affects the overwhelming majority of law-abiding cyclists, because our idiot and incompetent government have their hands full with the self-inflicted wound that is Brexit.

That didn't occur in Australia. About 12 years ago, a cyclist somehow managed to cause the death of a pedestrian, and the media (and general public) have been mentioning it ever since. They completely ignore the fact that every year about 200 people are killed by collision with motor vehicles in the state of Victoria alone (this is the state I live in). Such is the hypocrisy of a society completely addicted to motor vehicle use: people will go to great lengths to ignore the death and general misery caused by motor vehicles, because the alternative is to wake up and realise how wrong we all got it.

 

[jarlrmai]

No. If you're worried about what's behind you you get out of the way, you don't swear at people in front of you.

If there was a truck behind me and someone stepped in front of me, you can bet I'd be doing both, thats a bad scenario.

 

[swansonj]

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).

Professor Roy Meadow, a doctor, gave expert evidence that was so flawed that among other things the Royal Statistical Society wrote an open letter to the Lord Chancellor pointing this out. Eventually, several of the people who had been convicted largely on his evidence had their convictions overturned. Far from facing a perjury charge, it was the courts who eventually prevented the GMC from sanctioning him by striking him off the medical register.

 

[swansonj]

That was because the GMC completely cocked up and mishandled the proceedings against him. It was a shocking performance by the GMC.

That is, of course, true, and supplements rather than contradicts the point I was making.

 

[Milkfloat]

Even a good-quality brief couldn't get him off.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but take exception with this - even a half witted brief should have been able to rip the 'expert' to pieces.