Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

slowbike

meursault wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Charlie-Alliston-21031-1.law

Well - that'll draw a whole load of discussion as to whether 18 months is enough for killing someone. The difficulty I can see is that it won't be seen as anywhere near enough time for taking the life of another, however, he didn't intentionally set out to do that and the only things he did wrong was ride without a front brake, hit someone and get caught for it - oh, and not accept that he had done anything wrong.

The sentence is for being found guilty of wanton and furious driving. Nothing to do with a person being killed. The maximum sentence for that offence is two years. He was acquitted of manslaughter.

Remorse is a mitigating factor used in sentencing and not during the trial.

From this preliminary view of the appropriate sentence the magistrates would then look at the offender to see if there is any mitigation eg cooperation with the police, full admissions, remorse.

https://www.magistrates-association.org ... -offenders

Nobody looks at what he was charged with - they'll look at "Cyclist kills pedestrian and gets 18 months" ... same way as just a few posts after mine, people are trying to compare what drivers get.

It's fair enough to say that the law should sentence in regard to the offence rather than the outcome of the offence. But that doesn't alter the fact that people get killed all to often - usually through no fault of their own (although probably not in this instance) and there's very little done about it.

Will the outcome of this case mean that fixie cyclists ensure they have front brakes now? I doubt it. The outcome of all the driving cases where people have been killed doesn't seem to have much impact on the quality of driving we see on the roads. But then do people drive around thinking "I could get x years for doing this" - or are they just being impatient and believing that their driving is better than everyone elses so they don't have to stop using their mobile.

<continued rant ....>
Someone I know who I'd consider reasonably intelligent thought it appropriate to fix a mobile phone holder to the windscreen that sat inline with the shoulder ... of the driver ... marginally forward of the steering wheel ... ffs! I held my hand in front of me roughly where it would've been - no way could I drive like that - they'd driven 000's of miles like that and didn't think anything of it. With nothing else wrong with the car I wonder what charges may have been brought if there'd been an accident ...

bendertherobot

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... liston.pdf

Judge's comments. Ignore the helmet misstep. Look at the description of what happened.

cld531c

"All cyclists are a danger to everyone else and there should be more drastic penalisation for them in my opinion. 18 Months for him and he shows no remorse yet mrs briggs children have to grow up without a mother because of this monster. it reiterates my theory that all cysclists MUST hold a cucling licence, valid bicycle MOT, insurance for the vehicle and MUST abide by ALL road limits and rules. These idiots are casusing more and more chaos on the roads/pavements because they do not follow speed limits and dont belong on either surfaces. Roads are for motor vehicles and pavements are for pedestrians. Cyclists have no place and should get off the roads and pavements"


Example comment on the article (quoted)

niblue

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

Judge's comments. Ignore the helmet misstep. Look at the description of what happened.

Key point is probably 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 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. "

So sounds like the CCTV is pretty damning.

cld531c

niblue wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

Judge's comments. Ignore the helmet misstep. Look at the description of what happened.

Key point is probably 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 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. "

So sounds like the CCTV is pretty damning.

Perhaps it should be released?

gabriel959

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

Judge's comments. Ignore the helmet misstep. Look at the description of what happened.

There is a lot of waffle in those comments. Seems that he got done by the lack of a brake. If he had had a brake, he might have got away with it.

gabriel959

BigMat wrote:

So its no longer a valid option to ride round a pedestrian who steps out in front of you, in case they suddenly change direction and launch themselves under your front wheel. Emergency stops for the win - look forward to a few more trips over the handlebars. Presumably the following drivers that then wipe us out will be considered to have been driving dangerously and held to account? :roll:

But if you are in a car, it doesn't matter.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/paren ... d-10887368

veronese68

Combining Gabriel's post and those above it sounds like if she was stuck between a stationary lorry in one lane and moving traffic in the opposite lane he also would have had nowhere to go. In that case not having a brake makes a lot of difference as his only course of action was to brake. Maybe the CCTV is that damning but unless we see it we won't know.

Ranty comment cld quoted about cyclists not obeying speed limits, isn't that cars?

TheBigBean

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

Judge's comments. Ignore the helmet misstep. Look at the description of what happened.

A traffic misstep as well - traffic was only on the other side of the road.

I have stated my position upthread that cyclists should take actions to avoid pedestrians; however, this isn't the law. The judge's statement is slightly contradictory. She states that he did not try to slow any further because he believed that the pedestrian should move out of the way, but then goes to say that his bike was not equipped to brake sufficiently quickly.

The other point missing here is that a lot of cycling laws exist, but are widely ignored e.g. pedal reflectors. Such disregard for the law, because the law is impractical and not enforced means that people are more likely to ignore other cycling laws which may have relevance e.g. number of brakes. I don't think the judge could have considered this, but I do think that law makers (e.g. government) should.

Finally, I think the references to fixed-wheel being for track only is a bit over the top.

cld531c

Veronese68 wrote:

Combining Gabriel's post and those above it sounds like if she was stuck between a stationary lorry in one lane and moving traffic in the opposite lane he also would have had nowhere to go. In that case not having a brake makes a lot of difference as his only course of action was to brake. Maybe the CCTV is that damning but unless we see it we won't know.

Ranty comment cld quoted about cyclists not obeying speed limits, isn't that cars?

Unfortunately not. I fear that the coverage (which is in my opinion biased) on this case will serve only to make us fair game to drivers thinking we all deserve to be taught a lesson.

meursault

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.

Defence brief gets appeals binder from the library, and books Caribbean holiday...

niblue

meursault wrote:

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.

Defence brief gets appeals binder from the library, and books Caribbean holiday...

What do you think they're grounds for appeal would be?

meursault

niblue wrote:

meursault wrote:

Thus
I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole
manner of riding that caused thisaccident.

Defence brief gets appeals binder from the library, and books Caribbean holiday...

What do you think they're grounds for appeal would be?

Not sure.

cld531c

meursault wrote:

niblue wrote:

meursault wrote:

Thus
I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole
manner of riding that caused thisaccident.

Defence brief gets appeals binder from the library, and books Caribbean holiday...

What do you think they're grounds for appeal would be?

Not sure.

From the association of Personal Injury Lawyers....An accident is simply an incident which no-one could have reasonably foreseen and for which no-one should be held responsible. No-one will win a case against someone who they may think is responsible for an injury, if that injury has been caused by an accident.

niblue

cld531c wrote:

From the association of Personal Injury Lawyers....An accident is simply an incident which no-one could have reasonably foreseen and for which no-one should be held responsible. No-one will win a case against someone who they may think is responsible for an injury, if that injury has been caused by an accident.

It wasn't the judge who found him guilty though, and I don't think she directed the jury to find him guilty either. Relying on a single word in the judge's sentencing comments as grounds for appeal isn't going to get them very far I think, but it doesn't sound like there are any other grounds for appeal.

cld531c

niblue wrote:

cld531c wrote:

From the association of Personal Injury Lawyers....An accident is simply an incident which no-one could have reasonably foreseen and for which no-one should be held responsible. No-one will win a case against someone who they may think is responsible for an injury, if that injury has been caused by an accident.

It wasn't the judge who found him guilty though, and I don't think she directed the jury to find him guilty either. Relying on a single word in the judge's sentencing comments as grounds for appeal isn't going to get them very far I think, but it doesn't sound like there are any other grounds for appeal.

True, it is in there twice "But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident " and in a round about way it is also acknowledged that there was no need to step out rather than wait for the green light.

Id like to see the CCTV of the lead up. At the moment I feel he is being treated unfairly. If a mother of two had been in his position and him in hers I cant imagine the same amount of venom being spouted by the press, which is unlikley to help his attitude.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Is there not grounds for appeal based on that police report regarding brake distances, stopping from 18mph to a standstill in 3 metres (or something similar)?

Even riding down the road on my 4" Jumbo Jims doing 18mph (yes, it is possible, if I go all aero ), with a large contact patch with the road, it's going to take a lot longer than 3 metres for me to stop and not go over the bars.

niblue

cld531c wrote:

Id like to see the CCTV of the lead up. At the moment I feel he is being treated unfairly. If a mother of two had been in his position and him in hers I cant imagine the same amount of venom being spouted by the press, which is unlikley to help his attitude.

I'd like to see the CCTV of the incident as well, however the judge's comments seem to indicate it as being a lot more damning than anyone had mentioned during the case itself.

You're not wrong on the nature of the offender being a factor in the coverage - and in his sentencing. He really hasn't helped himself and the judge seems to think he was fibbing a fair bit during the trial as well.

The Rookie

18months custodial in a young offenders institution.

cld531c

niblue wrote:

I'd like to see the CCTV of the incident as well, however the judge's comments seem to indicate it as being a lot more damning than anyone had mentioned during the case itself.

Agreed, probably why I am so intrigued, particularly given the ludicrous video evidence re stopping distances.
I do get the feeling that neither the judge or the majority of commentators realise (or care) that slowing down and swerving is generally a much safer option for all concerned when avoiding an obstacle on a bicycle (with or without brakes) and that slamming on the front brake is unlikely to be a natural (or safe) reaction for anyone.

IMHO his biggest downfall was shouting, not because it proves he had time to stop, but because it caused her to act unpredictably.

meursault

niblue wrote:

cld531c wrote:

From the association of Personal Injury Lawyers....An accident is simply an incident which no-one could have reasonably foreseen and for which no-one should be held responsible. No-one will win a case against someone who they may think is responsible for an injury, if that injury has been caused by an accident.

It wasn't the judge who found him guilty though, and I don't think she directed the jury to find him guilty either. Relying on a single word in the judge's sentencing comments as grounds for appeal isn't going to get them very far I think, but it doesn't sound like there are any other grounds for appeal.

It could depend on how much he wanted to clear his name, and how likely such a course of action would be successful. Also what the defence team might feel about Alliston doing the time, as in, it isn't that much, just get it done.

'Accident' seems an odd choice of (two, as pointed out) word, when it implies no blame to an individual. Given the judge waffled on for ages how it was his fault.

fenix

Being able to shout twice and still hit her makes it sound like the CCTV is more damning than the situation first sounded.

cld531c

Does make you wonder what would have happened if a pedestrian has walked out and been killed in front of Rooney whilst 3x over the limit....

niblue

Does make you wonder what would have happened if a pedestrian has walked out and been killed in front of Rooney whilst 3x over the limit....

Average custodial sentence for that (causing death by dangerous driving aggravated by drugs/drink) is about 4 to 5 years I think.

gabriel959

niblue wrote:

Does make you wonder what would have happened if a pedestrian has walked out and been killed in front of Rooney whilst 3x over the limit....

Average custodial sentence for that (causing death by dangerous driving aggravated by drugs/drink) is about 4 to 5 years I think.

Some examples showing that what you say rarely happens

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 15316.html
http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/16/driver-sp ... e-6383282/
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... ee-3539967

It is a fucking joke basically.

dodgy

gabriel959 wrote:

niblue wrote:

Does make you wonder what would have happened if a pedestrian has walked out and been killed in front of Rooney whilst 3x over the limit....

Average custodial sentence for that (causing death by dangerous driving aggravated by drugs/drink) is about 4 to 5 years I think.

Some examples showing that what you say rarely happens

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 15316.html
http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/16/driver-sp ... e-6383282/
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... ee-3539967

It is a ******* joke basically.

Just read that headline "Family of graduate hit by BMW".

That says so much.

niblue

gabriel959 wrote:

niblue wrote:

Does make you wonder what would have happened if a pedestrian has walked out and been killed in front of Rooney whilst 3x over the limit....

Average custodial sentence for that (causing death by dangerous driving aggravated by drugs/drink) is about 4 to 5 years I think.

Some examples showing that what you say rarely happens

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 15316.html
http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/16/driver-sp ... e-6383282/
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... ee-3539967

It is a ******* joke basically.

Worth reading the details though:
1st case - wasn't charged with anything relating to the death - i.e. might mean the drink driving wasn't a factor in the death.
2nd case - the driver was under the drink drive limit and was given a suspended sentence - probably for causing death by careless.
3rd case - the driver was cleared of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink

So not really a very good set of examples.

mtb-idle

Just seen this on Twatter

Drivers have a 1 in 10 chance of being sent to jail for killing a cyclist

FWIW I feel the sentence for Charlie Alliston was correct but I also feel that it isn't a level playing field when it comes to drivers

EDIT: sorry, just noticed this is 'old news' dates 2014.

kleinstroker

^ It's still relevant & still a piss take.

Personally I think the judge went way overboard with this her summary was complete & utter bollocks

kleinstroker

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

Judge's comments. Ignore the helmet misstep. Look at the description of what happened.

Well at last the whole truth has come out about how the accident happened. I find it amazing to be honest that we now find the accident was 100% caused by Miss Briggs reckless disregard for her own safety.
All the events that followed were a result of her walking out from behind a parked lorry and not looking down the road towards Alliston

What a crazy judgement