Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

cld531c

apology accepted :-)

fat daddy

cld531c wrote:

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

how ..... I cant say I have noticed any difference in my daily commute ... other than now being more aware about the manor in which I ride, how its perceived and how it would affect certain situations should they arise

cld531c

fat daddy wrote:

cld531c wrote:

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

how ..... I cant say I have noticed any difference in my daily commute ... other than now being more aware about the manor in which I ride, how its perceived and how it would affect certain situations should they arise

If you read the comments on the articles that are not on cycling forums/pages there appears to be a lot of anti-cyclist hatred out there. I wouldnt be surprised if there are more punishment passes to 'teach us all a lesson'. Sales of helmet cams are also on the up I believe....

kleinstroker

This will inevitably lead to other convictions using the same basis in law, every days commute 1000's of cyclists ride in a similar manner, it's the only way to stay safe in the gauntlet that is the morning rush hour.
It's a terrible precedent that will affect a lot of cyclist, and anybody not understanding the implications of that is seriously deluded.

fenix

If they're riding with two brakes though - I'm sure they'll be better treated in court ?

niblue

kleinstroker wrote:

This will inevitably lead to other convictions using the same basis in law, every days commute 1000's of cyclists ride in a similar manner

No we don't thankfully. I work in London and have been looking to see how many brakeless fixies I spot and so far I haven't seen any in the last month or so, not even when I was in Shoreditch at the weekend. The only big I've seen lacking a brake was a singlespeed that only had a front brake.

Yes there are some folks that jump lights or ride on the pavement or the like and if one of them killed or seriously injured someone when doing that then they'd have to expect to be prosecuted - and quite rightly so.

tangled_metal

cld531c wrote:

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

You place too much importance on this case. In the general public it'll be forgotten very quickly.

As an example I gauge news by his much they're discussed in the canteen at work. This story was talked about briefly during the trial. I expected it to come up again after sentencing. I had one person come up to me as the only "serious" cyclist. A 20 second conversation.

Nope this story is only important to cyclists with a chip on their shoulder. Drivers and general public will treat cyclists exactly as they did before. No better and no worse. It'll be kicked into the long grass release looking at cycling legislation too.

So to all those indignant defenders of cycling rights discuss away. Hot air won't do much harm.

kingstongraham

kleinstroker wrote:

This will inevitably lead to other convictions using the same basis in law, every days commute 1000's of cyclists ride in a similar manner, it's the only way to stay safe in the gauntlet that is the morning rush hour.
It's a terrible precedent that will affect a lot of cyclist, and anybody not understanding the implications of that is seriously deluded.

That's not true. You don't need to ride aggressively and recklessly in the rush hour.

bigmat

Tangled Metal wrote:

cld531c wrote:

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

You place too much importance on this case. In the general public it'll be forgotten very quickly.

As an example I gauge news by his much they're discussed in the canteen at work. This story was talked about briefly during the trial. I expected it to come up again after sentencing. I had one person come up to me as the only "serious" cyclist. A 20 second conversation.

Nope this story is only important to cyclists with a chip on their shoulder. Drivers and general public will treat cyclists exactly as they did before. No better and no worse. It'll be kicked into the long grass release looking at cycling legislation too.

So to all those indignant defenders of cycling rights discuss away. Hot air won't do much harm.

Yeah but - there's now judicial precedent about what a cyclist can reasonably be expected to do to avoid hitting a pedestrian, as well as the appropriate charge / sentence if they are involved in an accident. Likely to encourage the police / CPS to go after prosecutions. Its bad news. I honestly couldn't give a **** what people are discussing in your canteen!

niblue

BigMat wrote:

Yeah but - there's now judicial precedent about what a cyclist can reasonably be expected to do to avoid hitting a pedestrian, as well as the appropriate charge / sentence if they are involved in an accident. Likely to encourage the police / CPS to go after prosecutions. Its bad news.

Well we should know soon as there was a pedestrian killed in a collision with a cyclist last week on Oxford Street in London, also while crossing the road. From the photo's available it looked like the bike had disc brakes, although given by the youtube vid of the cyclist being arrested (unrelated to the accident - he was wanted on an unrelated charge) he might also be somewhat of a "character".,

Mad_Malx

Current advert for Planet X On-One:

The frame can be run fixed gear with or without brakes depending on your preference (and how good you are at skidding), or singlespeed.

https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBOOPOMPK ... urban-bike

cld531c

Mad_Malx wrote:

Current advert for Planet X On-One:

The frame can be run fixed gear with or without brakes depending on your preference (and how good you are at skidding), or singlespeed.

https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBOOPOMPK ... urban-bike

Thats absurd

Thick Mike

Mad_Malx wrote:

Current advert for Planet X On-One:

The frame can be run fixed gear with or without brakes depending on your preference (and how good you are at skidding), or singlespeed.

https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBOOPOMPK ... urban-bike

Feck me, what a bunch of idiots!

awavey

cld531c wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

cld531c wrote:

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

how ..... I cant say I have noticed any difference in my daily commute ... other than now being more aware about the manor in which I ride, how its perceived and how it would affect certain situations should they arise

If you read the comments on the articles that are not on cycling forums/pages there appears to be a lot of anti-cyclist hatred out there. I wouldnt be surprised if there are more punishment passes to 'teach us all a lesson'. Sales of helmet cams are also on the up I believe....

Im convinced its already happening, the week after the conviction was announced was one of the most fraught weeks Ive had riding a bike on the road this year, it calmed down a bit in the following weeks, but when someone close passes you feel very much they are of the punishment pass variety not the usual just clueless sort, Ive not been out on my bike this week yet, tbh Im slightly dreading it when I do

awavey

niblue wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

This will inevitably lead to other convictions using the same basis in law, every days commute 1000's of cyclists ride in a similar manner

No we don't thankfully. I work in London and have been looking to see how many brakeless fixies I spot and so far I haven't seen any in the last month or so, not even when I was in Shoreditch at the weekend. The only big I've seen lacking a brake was a singlespeed that only had a front brake.

Yes there are some folks that jump lights or ride on the pavement or the like and if one of them killed or seriously injured someone when doing that then they'd have to expect to be prosecuted - and quite rightly so.

the Sun, I know I know, but bear in mind even if you dont read it or believe they can publish stuff that suggests fixies pedal backwards to brake, but if those that do read it believe it and there are 1.5million of them apparently...and they undoubtedly spotted some in their no doubt totally scientific wandering around London, but I wouldnt want to claim on oath there werent any brakeless fixies around Shoreditch for sure.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4330123/c ... ing-bikes/

whether other convictions will follow as a result of this, who knows, but it has to be accepted as a possibility.

tangled_metal

BigMat wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

cld531c wrote:

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

You place too much importance on this case. In the general public it'll be forgotten very quickly.

As an example I gauge news by his much they're discussed in the canteen at work. This story was talked about briefly during the trial. I expected it to come up again after sentencing. I had one person come up to me as the only "serious" cyclist. A 20 second conversation.

Nope this story is only important to cyclists with a chip on their shoulder. Drivers and general public will treat cyclists exactly as they did before. No better and no worse. It'll be kicked into the long grass release looking at cycling legislation too.

So to all those indignant defenders of cycling rights discuss away. Hot air won't do much harm.

Yeah but - there's now judicial precedent about what a cyclist can reasonably be expected to do to avoid hitting a pedestrian, as well as the appropriate charge / sentence if they are involved in an accident. Likely to encourage the police / CPS to go after prosecutions. Its bad news. I honestly couldn't give a **** what people are discussing in your canteen!

Seriously?! Where's the enforcement going to come from? Do the police enforce much right now? Is this really going to lead to hundreds of cyclists facing prosecution? BTW does one conviction necessarily lead to the opening up of an existing law that they could always have used anyway?

The canteen comment was really a comment about what ordinary ppl are interested in and unless you're a cyclist this conviction is barely noticed. I even know one of my work colleagues is a really keen cyclist but he didn't know about the conviction and barely knew much about the trial. Whatever you think I would bet most ppl in the UK will not give a 4x about this conviction.

meursault

there's now judicial precedent about what a cyclist can reasonably be expected to do to avoid hitting a pedestrian

I don't think there is. The verdict and sentencing was all about his attitude and bike legality or suitability.

kleinstroker

KingstonGraham wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

This will inevitably lead to other convictions using the same basis in law, every days commute 1000's of cyclists ride in a similar manner, it's the only way to stay safe in the gauntlet that is the morning rush hour.
It's a terrible precedent that will affect a lot of cyclist, and anybody not understanding the implications of that is seriously deluded.

That's not true. You don't need to ride aggressively and recklessly in the rush hour.

Maybe aggressively is the wrong word, but I think it depends on your viewpoint. Pedestrians think all cyclists always ride aggressively, when all they are doing is not cycling like an old lady at 5mph. And this is the problem, Charlie Alliston was doing 18mph, that is not that fast. He swerved to avoid her, which doesn't seem aggressive.

The whole thing is just so wrong

kleinstroker

meursault wrote:

there's now judicial precedent about what a cyclist can reasonably be expected to do to avoid hitting a pedestrian

I don't think there is. The verdict and sentencing was all about his attitude and bike legality or suitability.

Watch this space!

We will see

kleinstroker

This is the attitude of some journos in London. Even when cyclists are forced to cycle next to parked vehicles, it is our fault for hurtling past..

That judgement was very wrong & has now empowered the whole anti-cycling brigade into thinking they were right all along

Cyclists slaloming down pavements, cyclists ignoring red lights or cyclists hurtling from behind high-sided motor vehicles when people on foot are trying to cross roads have become a routine, sometimes forgivable, sometimes annoying and sometimes nerve-wracking part of getting round the capital. Passengers on 254 buses in Whitechapel are now warned to watch out for the “superhighway” track as they alight at floating bus stops. What is convenient for speedy cycling can be an unexpected hazard for others.

http://www.onlondon.co.uk/london-cycling-campaigners-must-learn-from-the-charlie-alliston-case/

niblue

Advising people to be careful when alighting buses then having to cross a cycling superhighway is a reasonable point, as not everyone is aware that they're two way so might look in both directions before crossing. Of course it's not spun that way in the article though!

As for police stopping and fining anyone riding a brakeless fixie - I've no issue with that, however based on my observations over the last month or so - there really aren't that many of them (didn't even see one in Shoreditch on Saturday) so they won't catch many. Possibly doing it once, with high profile coverage, might be enough to discourage anyone thinking about it though - and certainly make any claims about not knowing the law even less believable.

On the Charlie Alliston case itself I find myself agreeing with his mother that the guilty verdict and sentence both appear to be reasonable - especially having read the judges comments.

jamesco

kleinstroker wrote:

Charlie Alliston was doing 18mph, that is not that fast.

What's considered "too fast" depends on the location and conditions. As it happens, the intersection where they collided is 50m from where I'm sitting now and I can tell you it's a nightmare location which I always avoid. Single-lane roads, turning traffic, poor sight-lines, lots of pedestrians and parked vans. 18mph is too fast, let alone on a brakeless fixie in winter.

kleinstroker wrote:

He swerved to avoid her, which doesn't seem aggressive.

Not braking and riding a brakeless bike is very aggressive.

kleinstroker

So you're actually saying 18mph is too fast on a bicycle but assuming it's a 30mph zone, it's ok for taxis, cars, vans & motorbikes to go even faster?

Ben6899

kleinstroker wrote:

So you're actually saying 18mph is too fast on a bicycle but assuming it's a 30mph zone, it's ok for taxis, cars, vans & motorbikes to go even faster?

You'd be an idiot, to do 30mph there in a car or on a motorbike too. And I dare say if something happened, you'd be reminded in court that the speed limit is exactly that and not a target.

Absolute sh1t show of a bit of road. It happened here, as far as I am aware: https://goo.gl/maps/7cLvWAGPxSo

kleinstroker

That is a main road, of course it is safe to cycle at 18mph. I cycle down that road almost every day, & I can tell you for sure if the lights are green cars, vans, motorbikes are all doing 25mph easily.

It is ridiculous to claim cyclists should not be cycling at a reasonable speed on a main road

veronese68

Ben6899 wrote:

Absolute sh1t show of a bit of road. It happened here, as far as I am aware: https://goo.gl/maps/7cLvWAGPxSo

Wow, it's a ghost town in that image. Think what it's like at any normal time, you wouldn't be able to see most of the tarmac.

Ben6899

kleinstroker wrote:

That is a main road, of course it is safe to cycle at 18mph. I cycle down that road almost every day, & I can tell you for sure if the lights are green cars, vans, motorbikes are all doing 25mph easily.

It is ridiculous to claim cyclists should not be cycling at a reasonable speed on a main road

You're being obtuse and you know full well that you are.

If the lights are green and cars are moving at 25mph, then no one is going to step into the road and dance among the traffic. If you cycle this road regularly, then you'll know what the deal is at rush hour(s) and at lunchtime... lights may well be green, but traffic is pretty heavy and moving pretty slowly.

Would you still consider 18/20mph to be a suitable speed to ride at? I wouldn't.

EDIT: Veronese's comment basically sums up what I'm getting at.

kleinstroker

No I don't think I am at all. That is a main road, the speed limit is 30mph. We do not know the exact road conditions of when the accident occurred as video has not been released.
All that is besides the point, it is safe to cycle on that road or any main road at 18mph if there is room to do so ie no traffic or very little traffic. I wouldn't try it if roads were full as it would be foolhardy, you simply could not travel at that speed with traffic impeding you.
We should not be put in a situation where you or any other person gets to decide what is a safe speed, as the GovT have already done that by making it a 30mph zone.
On a bike you constantly change your speed to suit the conditions, I don't always ride with a computer but I would imagine hitting 18mph through central London whilst commuting is not very difficult

TheBigBean

Ben6899 wrote:

If the lights are green and cars are moving at 25mph, then no one is going to step into the road and dance among the traffic.

The judge did confirm that he wasn't traffic.

Separately, I agree, 18 mph on that stretch of Old St at lunch time is a bit quick. The pavements are very narrow and there are people everywhere.

gabriel959

niblue wrote:

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.

They are a great set of examples, it shows that killing with a vehicle is blameless. How can't drink driving not be a factor when you drive and kill somebody and then wander off? Why are these drivers charged with careless driving when it should clearly be dangerous driving? So in the 3rd case, he hits somebody leaves him for dead on the floor, goes home and he walks scott free and you think it is ok?

There are more though:

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/1422 ... r/?ref=arc
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... xi-1544299
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -fine.html
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... t-12782437

I think Charlie Alliston has been made an example, I don't condone riding without a brake but until I see the CCTV I will reserve judgement. The comments from the judge are just pure sensationalist waffle where facts are hard to come by.