Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

The judge did confirm that he wasn't traffic.

Where's that bit in the judgment?

My comment wasn't meant to be interpreted literally. Clearly, he is traffic, but the judge's comments contain a few cycling missteps.

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 don't see that as being a distinction between him and traffic. You could easily say the same about a car driver and moving traffic in the opposite lane.

bobbygloss

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.

Useless hypothetical question, but if the victim had jumped the other way to avoid the cyclist, and been hit by the moving traffic instead, would anyone have been blamed?

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

The judge did confirm that he wasn't traffic.

Where's that bit in the judgment?

My comment wasn't meant to be interpreted literally. Clearly, he is traffic, but the judge's comments contain a few cycling missteps.

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 don't see that as being a distinction between him and traffic. You could easily say the same about a car driver and moving traffic in the opposite lane.

I don't think someone would though. I think the phrasing would be different. To me, the implication and emphasis is that there was moving traffic with a right to be there and to be moving, and then there was him.

cld531c

Bobbygloss wrote:

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.

Useless hypothetical question, but if the victim had jumped the other way to avoid the cyclist, and been hit by the moving traffic instead, would anyone have been blamed?

I suspect not. I also suspect if he had swerved into either the moving or stationary vehicles to avoid her and died no one would be blamed.

jamesco

kleinstroker wrote:

Er no it isn't. There isn't a single 20mph sign anywhere on Old St. I ride it every day, all of the side streets are 20mph and rightly so, but not Old St. Just checked on google maps & I can't see a single one either.

Can you point out where they are?

Yes.

slowbike

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

The judge did confirm that he wasn't traffic.

Where's that bit in the judgment?

My comment wasn't meant to be interpreted literally. Clearly, he is traffic, but the judge's comments contain a few cycling missteps.

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 don't see that as being a distinction between him and traffic. You could easily say the same about a car driver and moving traffic in the opposite lane.

Phew - I thought I'd missed something there ... no - I read it the same as you ... earlier in the judgement she references a rider "constantly breaking road traffic laws" - which would've been irrelevant if the judge didn't consider the cyclist "traffic".

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't think someone would though. I think the phrasing would be different. To me, the implication and emphasis is that there was moving traffic with a right to be there and to be moving, and then there was him.

That's your interpretation. I can imagine saying "I drove in today and there was lots of traffic going the other way."

Don't think we should take this as an attack on all cyclists, just those who ride like idiots on bikes without brakes.

slowbike

Bobbygloss wrote:

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.

Useless hypothetical question, but if the victim had jumped the other way to avoid the cyclist, and been hit by the moving traffic instead, would anyone have been blamed?

Depends if the moving traffic could've anticipated the event and not been able to stop due to defects on their vehicle or distractions such as using a mobile phone.
I do wonder if any charge would've still be made against Mr Alliston as he did too little to help the situation.

kleinstroker

jamesco wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Er no it isn't. There isn't a single 20mph sign anywhere on Old St. I ride it every day, all of the side streets are 20mph and rightly so, but not Old St. Just checked on google maps & I can't see a single one either.

Can you point out where they are?

Yes.

I wonder when they went up? They haven't been there very long if that is the case, certainly weren't there last week when I was at work

PS thanks for the photos

Ben6899

kleinstroker wrote:

jamesco wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Er no it isn't. There isn't a single 20mph sign anywhere on Old St. I ride it every day, all of the side streets are 20mph and rightly so, but not Old St. Just checked on google maps & I can't see a single one either.

Can you point out where they are?

Yes.

I wonder when they went up? They haven't been there very long if that is the case, certainly weren't there last week when I was at work

PS thanks for the photos

They're on Google Maps... which implies they didn't go up in the last week.

EDIT: for that section, they're actually not. My mistake. I still doubt they went up in the last week.

fat daddy

Bobbygloss wrote:

Useless hypothetical question, but if the victim had jumped the other way to avoid the cyclist, and been hit by the moving traffic instead, would anyone have been blamed?

definitely if the traffic at the time was breaking the law.

if a kid runs out from behind a parked car and you run over them, then you wont get done ..... but if you were speeding at the time .... then you get the book thrown at you

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't think someone would though. I think the phrasing would be different. To me, the implication and emphasis is that there was moving traffic with a right to be there and to be moving, and then there was him.

That's your interpretation. I can imagine saying "I drove in today and there was lots of traffic going the other way."

Don't think we should take this as an attack on all cyclists, just those who ride like idiots on bikes without brakes.

I agree he should have had brakes. He should ridden slower. He should have tried to stop. I have posted upthread that I am happy with a strict liability concept.

I'm also happy to concede that your interpretation may well have been how it was meant.

However, I think that the judge's words could have been better in a number of places.

kleinstroker

Ben6899 wrote:

snip...

They're on Google Maps... which implies they didn't go up in the last week.

EDIT: for that section, they're actually not. My mistake. I still doubt they went up in the last week.

I reckon within the last month then. I 've had a week off & a week in Italy since late August, possible I didn't see them during my 10 days at work but unusual for me not to notice

fenix

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I don't think someone would though. I think the phrasing would be different. To me, the implication and emphasis is that there was moving traffic with a right to be there and to be moving, and then there was him.

That's your interpretation. I can imagine saying "I drove in today and there was lots of traffic going the other way."

Don't think we should take this as an attack on all cyclists, just those who ride like idiots on bikes without brakes.

I agree he should have had brakes. He should ridden slower. He should have tried to stop. I have posted upthread that I am happy with a strict liability concept.

I'm also happy to concede that your interpretation may well have been how it was meant.

However, I think that the judge's words could have been better in a number of places.

He did try to stop - I thought they collided at a speed of 10-14mph - so not the 18.

I'm not sure if the lack of brake made him unable to stop or slow more or if he didn't try too hard ?

If his bike was legal I don't think he'd be in an Institution now....

kleinstroker

The google maps street view currently active is from October 2016 and as noted there are no 20mph signs visible on the main road, so there were also none when accident occurred, in Feb 16

kingstongraham

Fenix wrote:

He did try to stop - I thought they collided at a speed of 10-14mph - so not the 18.

I'm not sure if the lack of brake made him unable to stop or slow more or if he didn't try too hard ?

If his bike was legal I don't think he'd be in an Institution now....

"It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into her. 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. You shouted at her twice to (in your own words) ‘get out of the fucking way’. She reached almost the centre of the road but could not go further because of on-coming traffic. On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’."

slowbike

KingstonGraham wrote:

"...... You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’."

The old "It's my right of way" bit ... as though a particular road user has more right to use the road than anyone else.

IIRC there's only one type of vehicle who has "Right of way" and everyone else is obliged to get out of their way - and that's an emergency vehicle - with blue lights - and probably sirens, although not always.

cld531c

I dont fancy risking it but Im pretty sure if we all decided to start jumping out in front of cars whilst on foot and telling drivers 'it is their responsibility as a road-user to ensure they did not run into us' they may not feel the same...

slowbike

cld531c wrote:

I dont fancy risking it but Im pretty sure if we all decided to start jumping out in front of cars whilst on foot and telling drivers 'it is their responsibility as a road-user to ensure they did not run into us' they may not feel the same...

If you're stood in the road then a car can't come and knock you over and the driver legitimately claim it was his right of way and you should've got out of his way.

The driver will be able to claim mitigating circumstances - like on a motorway - but for your average street - unless the pedestrian unexpectedly stepped out - then the driver should stop.

cld531c

Slowbike wrote:

cld531c wrote:

I dont fancy risking it but Im pretty sure if we all decided to start jumping out in front of cars whilst on foot and telling drivers 'it is their responsibility as a road-user to ensure they did not run into us' they may not feel the same...

If you're stood in the road then a car can't come and knock you over and the driver legitimately claim it was his right of way and you should've got out of his way.

The driver will be able to claim mitigating circumstances - like on a motorway - but for your average street - unless the pedestrian unexpectedly stepped out - then the driver should stop.

Im pretty sure it was reported she stepped back into his path which is not the same as standing there and being 'ploughed' into.
Perhaps every car (and cycle in a sidecar) needs a Hyacinth Bucket to warn of pedestrians on the path who may step out

kingstongraham

cld531c wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

cld531c wrote:

I dont fancy risking it but Im pretty sure if we all decided to start jumping out in front of cars whilst on foot and telling drivers 'it is their responsibility as a road-user to ensure they did not run into us' they may not feel the same...

If you're stood in the road then a car can't come and knock you over and the driver legitimately claim it was his right of way and you should've got out of his way.

The driver will be able to claim mitigating circumstances - like on a motorway - but for your average street - unless the pedestrian unexpectedly stepped out - then the driver should stop.

Im pretty sure it was reported she stepped back into his path which is not the same as standing there and being 'ploughed' into.
Perhaps every car (and cycle in a sidecar) needs a Hyacinth Bucket to warn of pedestrians on the path who may step out

"On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’. That meant threading a path between her in the middle of the road and a parked lorry on your left. We have together in this court-room watched those final seconds over and over on the CCTV footage that recorded them. When she realised her danger, in the shock of the moment, she clearly did not know what to do or which way to move for the best. The result was that you rode straight into her. If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not. On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way."

TheBigBean

That's the bit that confuses me. I think the judge is saying that he didn't try to stop, but if he had tried, he wouldn't have been able to stop due to the brakes.

kleinstroker

It all comes down to this doesn't it?

"If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not."

So as others have said if he had had a front brake , the case probably would not have ended up the way it did.

slowbike

cld531c wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

cld531c wrote:

I dont fancy risking it but Im pretty sure if we all decided to start jumping out in front of cars whilst on foot and telling drivers 'it is their responsibility as a road-user to ensure they did not run into us' they may not feel the same...

If you're stood in the road then a car can't come and knock you over and the driver legitimately claim it was his right of way and you should've got out of his way.

The driver will be able to claim mitigating circumstances - like on a motorway - but for your average street - unless the pedestrian unexpectedly stepped out - then the driver should stop.

Im pretty sure it was reported she stepped back into his path which is not the same as standing there and being 'ploughed' into.
Perhaps every car (and cycle in a sidecar) needs a Hyacinth Bucket to warn of pedestrians on the path who may step out

Others have covered it - but yes - she was standing in "his lane" ... he slowed, shouted at her and in her confusion she stepped one way to avoid him - he turned that way. It's a classic footballer goallie moment - which way do you dive?
No, she shouldn't have been standing there - but he was foolhardy to assume he could go straight through.
The judge then said that after shouting he could've stopped - had he had a front brake - which he didn't - it's a pretty natural reaction to slam on the brakes when you can see collision is imminenet - so if you haven't got one then you can't.

ironically, had he not shouted, she may not have noticed him at all and he could've barrelled through at 18mph+ without collision.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

That's the bit that confuses me. I think the judge is saying that he didn't try to stop, but if he had tried, he wouldn't have been able to stop due to the brakes.

Yes - he was riding an illegal bike, but that wasn't the only reason for the accident. It was the way he was riding.

"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."

"...this was in no sense momentary misconduct by you. Quite the reverse. I am satisfied from your evidence in this court, that your entire course of cycling at that time amounted to callous disregard for the safety of other road users and that your culpability was very significant."

jamesco

KingstonGraham wrote:

Yes - he was riding an illegal bike, but that wasn't the only reason for the accident. It was the way he was riding.

Yep, that's one of the compounding factors. Alliston compared some of his own riding to that of Lucas Brunelle, and there are few more inconsiderate twunts than that guy to base one's riding on.

Add in his lack of evident remorse, lying, perjury and the fact he killed a sympathetic victim, and the case in no way rests on that missing front brake.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

That's the bit that confuses me. I think the judge is saying that he didn't try to stop, but if he had tried, he wouldn't have been able to stop due to the brakes.

Yes - he was riding an illegal bike, but that wasn't the only reason for the accident. It was the way he was riding.

"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."

"...this was in no sense momentary misconduct by you. Quite the reverse. I am satisfied from your evidence in this court, that your entire course of cycling at that time amounted to callous disregard for the safety of other road users and that your culpability was very significant."

But if he didn't try to stop then the lack of brake becomes irrelevant unless the only reason he didn't try to stop was because he knew he couldn't, but he can't be guilty of both. A cyclist with brakes may have used the same "manner of riding" and also not braked. I've seen plenty of cyclists do this (and not kill somone), so would they be prosecuted as well?

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

But if he didn't try to stop then the lack of brake becomes irrelevant unless the only reason he didn't try to stop was because he knew he couldn't, but he can't be guilty of both. A cyclist with brakes may have used the same "manner of riding" and also not braked.

Agreed.

TheBigBean wrote:

I've seen plenty of cyclists do this (and not kill somone), so would they be prosecuted as well?

The "not kill someone" part is pretty important. There are lots of dangerous things that happen on the road, and very few of them get prosecuted, and generally, it is luck that determines whether careless driving is just careless driving or causing death by careless driving.

keyser__soze

jamesco wrote:

Alliston compared some of his own riding to that of Lucas Brunelle, and there are few more inconsiderate twunts than that guy to base one's riding on.

He did so on an internet forum. Ever see people exaggerate or inflate their experiences or speed they ride on a forum before? The SCR thread is a perfect example - imagine if a judge took posts there as gospel fact? "You Mr Bikeradar Poster, did frequently state you did speeds of 30mph+ on crowded London roads, actively raced against other cyclists, bought aerodynamic racing machines more suited to the Tour de France than sit-up-and-beg London and compared your riding experience to categorized critierium races on closed courses. Moreso, you failed to have a bell on your bike."

TheBigBean

If we are saying that a cyclist with brakes would also have been prosecuted then we can ignore everything to do with brakes in this case except insofar as it demonstrates his general recklessness.