Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[jefmcg]

Are they implying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to step out into the road without looking?

Um, yes, unless you have just landed in London from another planet (or indeed another country). It's reasonable to expect something that happens. Pedestrians do this all the time. On old street. She probably wasn't the first pedestrian on that journey to step out in front of him without looking. I don't think I have ever cycled through a busy part of London without having to avoid a pedestrian. And all the other riders do this too, or the streets would be littered with bodies.

Edit: Not dramatically avoid, mostly, just plan my ride on the basis that someone will step out, and usually someone does.

 

[mjr]

Especially a Pelican crossing that has a green light as some drivers and cyclists will actually speed up to get through before it turns red.

Before??? Not for a long time. RLJ cameras required ASAP.

 

[fossyant]

Riding fixed at speed without two brakes in areas of high traffic/pedestrians is the height of stupidity. I've ridden fixed for 7 years (would be 9 had I not stopped cycle commuting) and two brakes in addition to leg braking was needed.

It won't go well for him

 

[User6179]

Before??? Not for a long time. RLJ cameras required ASAP.

I nearly got squashed by a City Link bus once that floored it to go through the lights as they turned red, by the time it caught up with me it must of been doing 50 mph on a S bend with a railing , I had about 6 inches to railing and 6 inches to the bus, this was in a town and a 30mph limit.

 

[stiffknees]

....more so than a licensed motorist...

How do you work that out?

"..All users of the Queens highway, and that covers everything from public footpaths to M roads have the right to pass and repass without let or hindrance..."

is more or less how the law stands. It says nothing about riding on pavements for instance, neither cars nor bikes have that penmission.
and pedestrians have no claim at all to the "carriageway".

and no, other than knowing that the roads of london are becoming overloaded with aggressive bolshie types many of whom I am convinced are riding bikes more as a political statement than a love of cycling per se I am not up to date with the cycling boom up there; but down here where I am there are bike shops springing up everywhere and Sunday mornings are major lycra events. Thankfully the mankini fad has gone from here.

In my youth I used to ride my bike in all weathers, from Lewisham to Fulham and back, a lot of working men had a bike [or bus] as their only transport, I don't recall any of all this back then, but nothing would induce me to ride a cycle in London ever again.

So jealousy of fixie riders as well

Look here you, I'm a 3 speed Sturmey guy through and through.

Yeah, that's probably the hope of whoever's manufacturing that conflict.

now there's a thought?

 

[jefmcg]

"..All users of the Queens highway, and that covers everything from public footpaths to M roads have the right to pass and repass without let or hindrance..."

What is this? It looks like a quote of a law, but

It's very confusing if you put quotes around phrases you just made up.

and no, other than knowing that the roads of london are becoming overloaded with aggressive bolshie types many of whom I am convinced are riding bikes more as a political statement than a love of cycling per se

Neither. Almost everyone cycling in London is doing it as transport.

 

[srw]

Hmm let's see what sentence this chap gets and let's compare it to a typical motorist. I bet the chap gets a far more severe sentance.

His comments haven't helped him.

First, let's see what verdict the court returns. And let's hope he gets a fair trial rather than one coloured by ill-informed speculation online.

 

[Drago]

Yes. Let's give him a fair trial before we find him guilty and lock him up.

 

[mjr]

How do you work that out?

Walkers, driven and ridden animals, cyclists and probably some other stuff uses the road by right. Motorists are only allowed to use it by licence.

"..All users of the Queens highway, and that covers everything from public footpaths to M roads have the right to pass and repass without let or hindrance..." is more or less how the law stands. It says nothing about riding on pavements for instance, neither cars nor bikes have that penmission.
and pedestrians have no claim at all to the "carriageway".

That quote is pretty bogus. The law does indeed say that cycling or driving on the footway (which is part of a highway) is an offence, as well as motoring on mandatory cycleways being an offence. However, the opposite isn't true: pedestrians and cyclists aren't normally prohibited from the carriageway even where a footway or cycleway exists, except for special roads, motorways and a few others.

 

[Drago]

That was one thing that concerned me about urban America, where the motor car reigned so thoroughly supreme that mere humans could only cross where they were told to.

 

[rliu]

Has anyone been reading or following this trial?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...outed-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded
Basically the facts seem to be the victim crossed the road ahead of the pedestrian crossing, while the light was green for the cyclist, who crash investigators say was riding at 18mph and would have had a braking distance of 12m (had he had functioning brakes). The cyclist was riding a Planet X track frame with no brakes fitted at all, he shouted at the pedestrian, who did not react in time, they clashed and the pedestrian fell to the ground sustaining brain injuries that she died from.
The CPS have charged the cyclist with manslaughter, and I think it's more than likely he will be convicted, especially given his lack of immediate remorse and aggressive attitude to the pedestrian.
I'm hoping that this case may actually in future lead to more bold charging by the CPS for dangerous road users of all modes. If the cyclist here can be charged for manslaughter for not having a road legal bike despite the light being green for him and him ostensibly having the right of way, shouldn't drivers who kill cyclists in some of the recent cases we have seen such as overtaking a line of 3 vehicles, overtaking past the central white line etc. also be charged with manslaughter?

 

[jefmcg]

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/an-unusual-case.207295

 

[rliu]

Ah fair enough I'll comment in that existing thread, cheers

 

[Drago]

Good heavens above, this is news to me!!!

 

[booze and cake]

......Are they implying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to step out into the road without looking?

Um, yes, unless you have just landed in London from another planet (or indeed another country). It's reasonable to expect something that happens. Pedestrians do this all the time. On old street. She probably wasn't the first pedestrian on that journey to step out in front of him without looking. I don't think I have ever cycled through a busy part of London without having to avoid a pedestrian. And all the other riders do this too, or the streets would be littered with bodies.

Edit: Not dramatically avoid, mostly, just plan my ride on the basis that someone will step out, and usually someone does.

Wahey well done for getting completely the wrong end of the stick and nicely misrepresenting what I said, I'll put it down to the fact you're new in town or to the UK, right?

Here's what I said:

What is striking to me is all the focus seems to be on blaming the cyclist (and I'm not defending him for a second), and hardly any focus seems to be on the fact the lady seems to have stepped out into the road while looking at her phone. Is stepping out into the highway while not looking not contributory to the accident in any way? Are they implying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to step out into the road without looking? If yes, I'm struggling to see that logic applied to car drivers on the same roads, if it is reasonable to expect peds to step out without looking, why are'nt all cars everywhere being driven at 12mph just in case a ped steps out.....cos that's happening isn't it.....

I agree with you, it is reasonable to expect peds to step out into the road, not acceptable, but reasonable to assume it may happen. My point was that if it is reasonable to expect peds to step out without looking, and for cyclists to be accountable for any accidents that may occur as a result of this not happening, why is this same rule not applying to drivers? Where are all the convictions for the drivers killing pedestrians and cyclists? It just smacks of double standards.

I thought the original reason for the 20mph speed limit was the greatly increased chances of survival for pedestrians in an impact with a car at 20mph compared to 30mph. So why is all of London not 20mph limit or less then? It could be easily implemented. A few years ago the police stated they were'nt even going to enforce the 20mph limit, that does'nt give an impression of concern for safety for vulnerable road users, rather there isn't the will to pursue it to the letter, as travelling around town faster is clearly more important.

I am just surprised that all the focus has been on his lack of brakes and braking distances, and how there is seemingly no mention of the fact the pedestrian being on the phone has contributed to the accident. If he had a front brake and she just stepped out in front of him a bit later, so reducing his reaction times and braking distances, would the outcome have been any different? As you say pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking in London is a daily occurrence, I just think more should be done to highlight this as an issue as its not going to go away.