Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[Dan B]

I think we (in the widest sense of the word) run the risk, as cyclists, of fixating on the issue of the front brake and the evidence around that, as that is something we are familiar with, rather than on the wider point: we owe a duty of care to other road users, especially more vulnerable road users, and shouldn't ride like dicks.

Fair point but it's not just cyclists fixating: look at the KimBriggsCampaign account on Twitter, for example. Half his effort seems to be devoted to contacting bike shops and getting them to stop selling/advertising/depicting brakeless bikes

 

[bigjim]

True it is that she put herself in the middle of the road. 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'm confused [as usual]. I don't see how he caused the accident. I thought an accident was a no blame event. If you need to blame or establish a cause, surely the cause was the lady walking into the road? The fact that he was trying to establish [not force, why use that wording] a gap between the vehicle and the woman then he was doing his best to avoid a collision? I tend to do a lot of regular things automatically, such as swerving around wayward dogs, cars, pedestrians. I don't spend time thinking should I do this or what will happen if I do that? There again I don't shout or abuse others. But jail time for such?

 

[Milkfloat]

Hardly surprising... and actually, would it be that bad if bike shops stopped selling brakeless bikes?

To track cyclists yes, but to knobs with beards no.

 

[Alan O]

I thought an accident was a no blame event.

Nope, it just means it's not deliberate.

 

[Milkfloat]

And how many track cyclists buy their bikes from high street shops?

https://www.evanscycles.com/bikes/track-bikes_c

 

[youngoldbloke]

And how many track cyclists buy their bikes from high street shops?

His bike was alledgedly a Planet X TRACK bike, sold as such : "NB: The Pro carbon Track bike is designed for track racing only and should not be used on the road due to not having provision for front or rear brakes."
Not really a high street bike shop. So how do you prevent misuse, or sale to those who might misuse? Anyway it's easy enough to remove the front brake from a 'legal' bike if you wish to do so.

 

[KneesUp]

...on the other hand, I could totally see myself in the same situation.

Being able to envisage yourself in the same situation doesn't have any bearing on whether it is right or not. I suppose if it were a situation lots of people found themselves in all the time, and which was of little consequence, one might question if the law was valid or useful - for example if it were illegal to use ones phone whilst walking.

I can "see" myself in all sorts of situations. I've been done twice for speeding (in 25 years, I should add) so I suppose I can "see" myself in a car accident (touch wood I haven't) but that doesn't mean I was correct to do 4x mph in a 30, or 9x mph on the motorway (much as I might argue that the latter was totally safe as it was dry, clear and the three lanes were virtually empty) any more than it was correct that in my much younger days I did 1xx mph on the A832 and didn't get caught. Sometimes I miss a set of lights on my bike commute by hopping onto the pavement before them if I can see it's clear (it always is) and then hopping back into the road on the other side. It's not 'right' for me to do so, but it saves me time, and gets me out of being squeezed against the kerb at the lights (the road is split into two lanes, but is scarcely wide enough, so motorists don't allow any room) - so there is a good argument for doing it, but should a pedestrian appear from somewhere (the pavement goes past a car lot so I suppose a browser could appear) and I hit them, I know it would be my fault.

We all make judgement calls, and sometimes that judgement call is to break the law because we perceive it to be risk free (in terms of injuries, damage or being caught) but in doing so we must accept that if it goes wrong, we are culpable.

 

[Dan B]

Hardly surprising... and actually, would it be that bad if bike shops stopped selling brakeless bikes?

Now who's changed the subject away from "duty of care" and back to "should brakeless bikes be promoted?" ;-)

 

[bigjim]

I'm presuming you haven't been following the trial? The judge's sentencing remarks give a flavour...

I was referring to the sente

I'm presuming you haven't been following the trial? The judge's sentencing remarks give a flavour...

I did indeed read the remarks. "This must have been obvious to you, and you did indeed swerve and slow to
between 10-14 mph as you went through the yellow-box at the junction of Old St and
Charlotte Road."
He therefore tried to avoid her. 10mph is pretty slow. I can run at that speed.
His attitude comes across as dispicable and I wonder how his Barrister allowed that to be shown in court. Of course he needs to be punished but the criticism of his riding at the time of actual collision leaves me uncertain.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Exactly! So there's no need for them to be sold without.

For bikes intended solely for track use that would be ridiculous.

 

[KnackeredBike]

I have remembered a case which has some degree of similarity involving a car.
Nigel Gresham, who unintendedly killed four of his children He took to the road with mismatched brakes he had fitted, that didn't work properly. He lost control of his Land Rover, ended up in a river, and four of his children drowned.
Like Charlie, he didn't mean anyone to die but, as a foreseeable consequence of his stupid choices, lives were tragically lost.

I would suggest they are not the same.

Motoring offences tend to be split into two groups, driving offences where the manner of the driving is careless or dangerous, and construction and use offences where the condition of the vehicle is dangerous.

Gresham got convicted of death by dangerous driving because he was driving too fast. If he had been driving safely in an unsafe vehicle he would have got a much lower sentence as it would have just been a C&U offence.

In the CA case AFAIK no-one has suggested his cycling was dangerous in itself, the accident was primarily caused by the ped stepping out into the road and subsequently caused by not having a front brake. Basically, if the same standards applied CA would be done for a C&U offence.

Except bicycle brakes (along with tractors) are expressly excluded from the requirement for "good, efficient and ... properly adjusted brakes) under Sec 18 of the C&U regs 1986. So actually he has not even committed a C&U offence. Hence why he was prosecuted with some "creative" allegations.

It is only fair to compare motoring sentences with CA if the motorist has solely been prosecuted for a C&U offence.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Simple answer - prosecute those riding bikes without legal brakes fitted. It is pointless trying to ban track bikes from sale. It is easy enough to see that a bike has no front brake fitted.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

If he had been driving safely in an unsafe vehicle he would have got a much lower sentence as it would have just been a C&U offence.

That's not right. Driving a vehicle while knowing it has a dangerous fault is a specific example of dangerous driving, according to CPS guidance.

 

[srw]

But the reality is that those are a very small minority of the bikes sold and most of those are not from high street retailers but specialist shops.

...and because of the regulations that require bikes for road use to be sold with a bell and reflectors any track bike sold by a reputable retailer is already sold with a clear warning that it's not suitable for road use.

For instance, from Evans...
"The fork will take a brake if required for road use but this bike is strictly for closed-track use only as specified."
https://www.evanscycles.com/hoy-fiorenzuola-002-2015-track-bike-EV208869

from Wiggle...
"PLEASE NOTE
This bike is designed and setup for track use only, It is supplied with a fixed gear and no brakes are fitted. This bike is illegal for use on the public highway"
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/eddy-merckx-copenhagen-77-track-bike-2017/

from Planet X...
"NB: The Pro carbon Track bike is designed for track racing only and should not be used on the road due to not having provision for front or rear brakes."
https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXPCTB/planet-x-pro-carbon-track-sport-bike

I suspect that any retailer on the receiving end of a campaign to ban brakeless bikes from being sold will point to these warnings. And, frankly, I think they'll have a point.

 

[srw]

no-one has suggested his cycling was dangerous in itself

Other than the judge in her judgement.

"You were an accident waiting to happen "
"It was clear to you that she was in danger. It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into her "
"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 "
"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. "
"you chose to ride at a speed and on a bike when you could not stop, your attitude being that everyone else would just have to get out of your way "