Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

drhaggis

NitrousOxide wrote:

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)?

Only in a car (four sticky tyres, ABS, longer wheelbase and lower CoG) would you be granted the full distance given in the Highway Code. If you're on a bike, suck it up, you'd better brake on the limit of adhesion while risking flipping over the handlebar. Peter Sagan skills or bust.

Now, back to the case, I wonder what behaviour Alliston has had in the trial. I mean, is the judge really suggesting that he puts himself in harm's way, waving into the faster traffic? That somebody completely disregarding good practice for crossing the road is somehow unimpeachable and devoid of flaws? I found the phrasing on the track bike worrisome too. It seems to imply the bike would allow Alliston to ride at ludicrous speeds due to some magic fairy dust, as if he suddenly needn't his legs to produce ~300W to move at 24 mph. I doubt any sentence ever complains about the indicted using a racier "R" or "S" or, god forbid, "BMW M" car, even if those truly make you measurably faster.

The Rookie

cld531c 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....

Well it would never have happened as he was 3x the limit not 4x (3x OVER) the limit......

cld531c

The Rookie wrote:

cld531c 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....

Well it would never have happened as he was 3x the limit not 4x (3x OVER) the limit......

Fair enough. Apply the same level of nitpicking to the judges sentencing report on Alliston, you'll have a field day!

The Rookie

DrHaggis wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

That somebody completely disregarding good practice for crossing the road is somehow unimpeachable and devoid of flaws?

The behaviour of the pedestrian is irrelevant to whether or not Alliston was guilty of the offence, don't forget also that the offence can be committed just through negligence and riding a bike that was illegal and (obvious to a blind man) unable to stop as fast as one that was is probably enough for him to be guilty of the offence by itself.

kleinstroker

So the charges & offence have nothing to do with the actual accident itself? It's all about riding a bike in a crazy manner, I don't really understand that part at all.

Surely if a policeman stops someone on a bike now that has no front brake or even defective brakes they can be charged with this same offence?

tangled_metal

I did wonder why a dangerous action by the decreased pedestrian would be cause to let Alliston off his wanton charge. AFAIK they're independent. I guess I'm not a real cyclist or I'd be supporting the free Alliston campaign.

Thick Mike

Very interesting comments from the judge. None of us were in court and none of us saw the evidence. You can tell a lot about a person's attitude and approach by how they speak and answer questions. Perhaps he came across as an aggressive individual who showed little remorse. His girlfriend said he had a controlling character and he was manipulative. It's so hard to tell based on (anti cyclist biased) second hand reporting of the case. Maybe we are all guilty of projecting ourselves into his position, and therefore defend his actions as though he did what we would have done. But would we?

On the facts detailed, it sounds like she made a poor decision and got panicked by the shouting from the rider. He assumed she would get out of his way and so carried his momentum into the junction and beyond. He appears to have displayed the attitude that he was the king of the road. To me that's reckless, I would be braking well before assuming that in a collision, neither of us would come out of it well. But...I don't cycle in cities. I cycle mainly on country roads and through villages. I say hello to pedestrians I pass, partly to be polite and partly so they know I'm approaching. I'm sure that's not possible in a city!

cld531c

Tangled Metal wrote:

I did wonder why a dangerous action by the decreased pedestrian would be cause to let Alliston off his wanton charge. AFAIK they're independent. I guess I'm not a real cyclist or I'd be supporting the free Alliston campaign.

: "Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

I would have thought you could argue that the bodily harm was caused by the pedestrians actions, not the wanton or furious driving.

slowbike

Tangled Metal wrote:

I did wonder why a dangerous action by the decreased pedestrian would be cause to let Alliston off his wanton charge. AFAIK they're independent. I guess I'm not a real cyclist or I'd be supporting the free Alliston campaign.

I don't think it's all related to the lack of front brake - although that is a key point in the evidence against him. It's also his behaviour before, during and after the incident. It's fun riding without a (front) brake, it's all the pedestrians fault, I did nothing wrong, No remorse. All splashed about on social media.

However, I don't think the court is without critisism. The brake test was flawed, the comments on fixed wheel bikes only being for the track is incorrect as is the prosecutions assertion that track riders continue around the track for a long time after the finish because they can't stop.

IMHO, the whole thing would've been a much less of an issue had the rider shown a little bit of compasion for the deceased and acknowledged he'd got this one wrong - he may have had any sentence suspended had he done so.

kleinstroker

Slowbike wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I did wonder why a dangerous action by the decreased pedestrian would be cause to let Alliston off his wanton charge. AFAIK they're independent. I guess I'm not a real cyclist or I'd be supporting the free Alliston campaign.

I don't think it's all related to the lack of front brake - although that is a key point in the evidence against him. It's also his behaviour before, during and after the incident. It's fun riding without a (front) brake, it's all the pedestrians fault, I did nothing wrong, No remorse. All splashed about on social media.

However, I don't think the court is without critisism. The brake test was flawed, the comments on fixed wheel bikes only being for the track is incorrect as is the prosecutions assertion that track riders continue around the track for a long time after the finish because they can't stop.

IMHO, the whole thing would've been a much less of an issue had the rider shown a little bit of compasion for the deceased and acknowledged he'd got this one wrong - he may have had any sentence suspended had he done so.

I don't think the character argument carries any legal weight or every yob who ended up in court would be locked up simply because they had a bad attitude or exhibited bad behaviour.

The only thing he could be punished for is the actual crime itself

slowbike

Whilst I agree with your last sentence, the character assessment is key both in the verdict and in sentencing.
With the verdict - his style of riding and reported agressiveness towards pedestrians showed a disregard for others - demonstrating his character went a long way to prove he was guilty of this.

A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

With the sentence - the judge takes into account any mitigating evidence and what effect the sentence will have. The rider still denied any wrongdoing, despite being found guilty - and apparently showed no remorse for the outcome of the incident.
So - in this case, I believe the character assessment did contribute significantly to the outcome.

roger_merriman

DrHaggis wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

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)?

Only in a car (four sticky tyres, ABS, longer wheelbase and lower CoG) would you be granted the full distance given in the Highway Code. If you're on a bike, suck it up, you'd better brake on the limit of adhesion while risking flipping over the handlebar. Peter Sagan skills or bust.

the police where testing braking distance not thinking distance, since Charlie Alliston was observed to have noticed and started to swerve/brake at over 6 meters away, in the police tests a fixed bike managed 19 meters, and the hybrid they used, managed 3 meters.

I have a CX with Cantis it is by far the worse braking bike I've had for a very long time, had a few runs between 15 and 30 mph on a wet 2% slope it still managed to stop in 6 meters, any of the road bikes I'd had would of managed a lot better.

The Rookie

cld531c wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I did wonder why a dangerous action by the decreased pedestrian would be cause to let Alliston off his wanton charge. AFAIK they're independent. I guess I'm not a real cyclist or I'd be supporting the free Alliston campaign.

: "Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

I would have thought you could argue that the bodily harm was caused by the pedestrians actions, not the wanton or furious driving.

As no bodily harm was required for the offence to be committed its clear you aren't reading the case properly. There also seems to be a factor in that once the pedestrian had made her mistake he didn't do all he could (ignoring for now the poor braking) to avoid the collision.

cld531c

"shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever."

How do you get from that 'no bodily harm was required for the offence to be committed' ???

Not being argumentative, but it looks pretty simple cause and effect wording to me

kingstongraham

cld531c wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I did wonder why a dangerous action by the decreased pedestrian would be cause to let Alliston off his wanton charge. AFAIK they're independent. I guess I'm not a real cyclist or I'd be supporting the free Alliston campaign.

: "Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

I would have thought you could argue that the bodily harm was caused by the pedestrians actions, not the wanton or furious driving.

That is what he argued wasn't it? And lost.

cld531c

They argued he could have stopped. Not sure If I agree with that but that seems to have been accepted.
On the other hand, she could have stayed on the pavement or not walked into his path.
If she had not stepped back into his path (to avoid being hit by a vehicle) they would not have collided.
How is that solely his fault?
Potentially he could have avoided it. So could she.

niblue

cld531c wrote:

They argued he could have stopped. Not sure If I agree with that but that seems to have been accepted.
On the other hand, she could have stayed on the pavement or not walked into his path.
If she had not stepped back into his path (to avoid being hit by a vehicle) they would not have collided.
How is that solely his fault?
Potentially he could have avoided it. So could she.

The judge took the pedestrians actions into account and mentioned them in several places during her sentencing commentary.

jds_1981

roger merriman wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

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)?

Only in a car (four sticky tyres, ABS, longer wheelbase and lower CoG) would you be granted the full distance given in the Highway Code. If you're on a bike, suck it up, you'd better brake on the limit of adhesion while risking flipping over the handlebar. Peter Sagan skills or bust.

the police where testing braking distance not thinking distance, since Charlie Alliston was observed to have noticed and started to swerve/brake at over 6 meters away, in the police tests a fixed bike managed 19 meters, and the hybrid they used, managed 3 meters.

I have a CX with Cantis it is by far the worse braking bike I've had for a very long time, had a few runs between 15 and 30 mph on a wet 2% slope it still managed to stop in 6 meters, any of the road bikes I'd had would have managed a lot better.

I linked to the video further up the thread. The criticism of it is they use different style bikes between the two, are only traveling at 16 mph on the braked video, in the braked video it appears as if the police man starts braking early and on the fixed bike doesn't appear to be making much of an attempt to brake (IMHO)

kingstongraham

cld531c wrote:

They argued he could have stopped. Not sure If I agree with that but that seems to have been accepted.
On the other hand, she could have stayed on the pavement or not walked into his path.
If she had not stepped back into his path (to avoid being hit by a vehicle) they would not have collided.
How is that solely his fault?
Potentially he could have avoided it. So could she.

The trial is there to decide things like that with all the available information.

niblue

jds_1981 wrote:

I linked to the video further up the thread. The criticism of it is they use different style bikes between the two, are only traveling at 16 mph on the braked video, in the braked video it appears as if the police man starts braking early and on the fixed bike doesn't appear to be making much of an attempt to brake (IMHO)

While there were definitely issues with the police tests as published the main reason the defence didn't contest them is probably because the conclusions are accurate i.e. a brakeless fixie couldn't be stopped or slowed significantly in the available space, whereas a legally braked bike could. That's certainly backed up by my own unscientific testing - I could even stop my carbon wheeled TT bike from 18mph in the space available.

The claim that it should be possible to stop in 3m from 18mph is definitely wrong (I tried it and needed to be down to around 12-13mph to stop in 3m even on a disc braked road bike) however I'm not sure such a claim was made in court or in any way relevant.

niblue

cld531c wrote:

They argued he could have stopped. Not sure If I agree with that but that seems to have been accepted.
On the other hand, she could have stayed on the pavement or not walked into his path.
If she had not stepped back into his path (to avoid being hit by a vehicle) they would not have collided.
How is that solely his fault?
Potentially he could have avoided it. So could she.

From the judge:

"You have throughout sought to put your blame on her. Perhaps one of the most shocking things about this case is that you could not and apparently cannot still see any fault in your cycling or judgement. You began by posting messages on line saying she was using her mobile phone, but have retracted that assertion. You have criticised her for crossing in front of you. True it is that she could have walked a little further up the road and waited for the lights to change. 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."

cld531c

Or you could rearrange that to say the reason for her being stranded in the middle of the road was that she put herself there by not walking a little further up the road and waiting to cross.
IMHO it was an accident with tragic consequences, not a result of reckless behaviour.

bendertherobot

So, now being investigated for perjury too.

cld531c

bendertherobot wrote:

So, now being investigated for perjury too.

Is that normal?

veronese68

cld531c wrote:

IMHO it was an accident with tragic consequences, not a result of reckless behaviour.

I would say it was exacerbated by reckless behaviour. It wasn't the sole factor but it seems to have made matters worse.

bendertherobot

cld531c wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

So, now being investigated for perjury too.

Is that normal?

No. Perjury is a funny old business, it's easy to think that anyone convicted whose story isn't believed, was lying and therefore also guilty of that.

But in Alliston's case this is about the evidence he gave of his ability to operate the bike by extensively working for courier companies. That appears now to be untrue.

rhodrich

cld531c wrote:

Or you could rearrange that to say the reason for her being stranded in the middle of the road was that she put herself there by not walking a little further up the road and waiting to cross.
IMHO it was an accident with tragic consequences, not a result of reckless behaviour.

Reckless? Roads (with the exception of motorways) are there for everyone, not just for those piloting vehicles, and it was her absolute right to cross where she liked. Fundamentally, it is the responsibility of other road users to look out for pedestrians, wherever they might be. The trouble with your line of argument is that it could be extended to other road users:
'The cyclist was behaving recklessly by cycling in the road (with no cycle helmet!), when there was a cycle lane available to them'

cld531c

Looks like he has single-handedly made the world a harder place for cyclists....

cld531c

Rhodrich wrote:

cld531c wrote:

Or you could rearrange that to say the reason for her being stranded in the middle of the road was that she put herself there by not walking a little further up the road and waiting to cross.
IMHO it was an accident with tragic consequences, not a result of reckless behaviour.

Reckless? Roads (with the exception of motorways) are there for everyone, not just for those piloting vehicles, and it was her absolute right to cross where she liked. Fundamentally, it is the responsibility of other road users to look out for pedestrians, wherever they might be. The trouble with your line of argument is that it could be extended to other road users:
'The cyclist was behaving recklessly by cycling in the road (with no cycle helmet!), when there was a cycle lane available to them'

rhodrich

cld531c wrote:

Rhodrich wrote:

cld531c wrote:

Or you could rearrange that to say the reason for her being stranded in the middle of the road was that she put herself there by not walking a little further up the road and waiting to cross.
IMHO it was an accident with tragic consequences, not a result of reckless behaviour.

Reckless? Roads (with the exception of motorways) are there for everyone, not just for those piloting vehicles, and it was her absolute right to cross where she liked. Fundamentally, it is the responsibility of other road users to look out for pedestrians, wherever they might be. The trouble with your line of argument is that it could be extended to other road users:
'The cyclist was behaving recklessly by cycling in the road (with no cycle helmet!), when there was a cycle lane available to them'

My apologies for the misread!