Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

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.

We don't know if he would have been prosecuted without that fact to demonstrate general recklessness, but the judge seems clear that it was not the overriding factor in his culpability.

I'm surprised, as the reporting made such a big thing of the "no brakes".

niblue

I saw a brakeless fixie in London today - for the first time since the Alliston trial started and I began to pay attention.

TheBigBean

I'd forgotten about the bell. It's probably silly to complain about judges being judgemental, but I'd prefer if they stuck to the law / evidence as opposed to random conjecture.

kleinstroker

Just had a walk down Old St, where the accident happened, and there are 5 new shiny 20mph signs.
They look like they've put up since the guilty verdict, and don't really make sense.



Anybody know why Imgur link isn't working?

cooldad

kleinstroker wrote:

Just had a walk down Old St, where the accident happened, and there are 5 new shiny 20mph signs.
They look like they've put up since the guilty verdict, and don't really make sense.



Anybody know why Imgur link isn't working?

Because you're a bit dim?

kleinstroker

Thanks. I put link in img brackets, what was wrong?

cooldad

You link wasn't to the actual pic.

Needs to end in .jpg or similar.

kleinstroker

Wrong thread

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Maybe we should all fit Hornit bike horns to our two braked bikes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDPNvjbm5kk

ben@31

Keyser__Soze wrote:

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."

1. From what I're read about him (I appreciate media is biased) Alliston doesn't seem right in the head. Especially his lack of remorse.

2. I wish people would be more private and secure with their social media. Only the other day I was watching a BBC iPlayer documentary on road traffic collisions in Northern Ireland, there was a scene where the Police was using whatever was on the suspects Facebook account, out of context and against him... The suspect had posted a picture of some high performance racing car on Facebook, therefore the Police used it to portray his character as a reckless racer.
I've also seen my employer take an email joke out of context to screw someone over. Especially now its getting politically correct. To summarise, when you have no online privacy it can be used against you.

fenix

So you are fine with people sharing videos of racing cars on the public highway - just so long as they lock down their privacy settings ???

I believe I saw the same program - the kid who was racing his cousin, clipped his car and drove off leaving him to die in the wreck ? An innocent driver was killed in the head on crash too. A passenger was brain damaged and has a reduced mental age now. His mum and dad helped cover up the damage to the car hoping he'd get away with it.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 26251.html

And you're complaining about a guy being portrayed as a reckless racer ?

What's wrong with you ?

ben@31

Fenix wrote:

So you are fine with people sharing videos of racing cars on the public highway - just so long as they lock down their privacy settings ???

I believe I saw the same program - the kid who was racing his cousin, clipped his car and drove off leaving him to die in the wreck ? An innocent driver was killed in the head on crash too. A passenger was brain damaged and has a reduced mental age now. His mum and dad helped cover up the damage to the car hoping he'd get away with it.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 26251.html

And you're complaining about a guy being portrayed as a reckless racer ?

What's wrong with you ?

The Facebook photograph (not the video clips) was of a genuine racing car parked up and I don't think it was on a public highway. Thats why I'm surprised that photo, which had nothing to do with the incident, was being taken out of context.
Whats wrong with me?.... You jumping to conclusions by incorrectly assuming what footage I was talking about, getting it wrong and you thinking at I found his driving acceptable, did I say this? Your apology will be accepted. But thanks for proving my point on how social media can be totally taken out of context.

*Edit. If you watch episode 1, the photograph I'm talking about is at 46:52 . Which in my opinion, has nothing do to with the accident in question. I don't see how that one photograph in particular, maybe taken by someone else on a different date and location, would be admissible evidence in Court. Was the video footage you talk about, different people at a different time? If so, how does video footage of someone else prove the accused guilt?

If you watched the two part documentary, you'll notice the biggest challenge the Police and Northern Irelands version of the Crown Prosecution Service faced wasn't finding out what happened or who done it. But having the sufficient evidence that proved it beyond doubt.

I once watched a Lance Armstrong documentary a few years ago, therefore is that proof beyond reasonable doubt that I'm guilty of doping now? Is every single person who watched that video, automatically guilty ?

Interestingly in Scottish law, everything you have done in the past, prior to the case in question is not admissible evidence in a Court. For example, just because you were guilty of theft 5 years ago doesn't necessarily mean you are guilty of theft last week.

fenix

Was the guy guilty or not ?

At no point did the TV or police say that the footage was of him racing. Just that they are involved in the local car scene. Which they were. Boy racers basically.

I doubt they showed the racing video to the jury - it doesn't prove anything.

The crash, the running away, and the coverup convicted him of being a reckless racer. Not the facebook stuff.

Do you think he was hard done to by the Facebook stuff ? Did they portray him wrongly ? Was this a miscarriage of justice ?


For anyone who didnt see the show = this is the programme we are discussing - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... -episode-1

ben@31

Fenix wrote:

Was the guy guilty or not ?

At no point did the TV or police say that the footage was of him racing. Just that they are involved in the local car scene. Which they were. Boy racers basically.

I doubt they showed the racing video to the jury - it doesn't prove anything.

The crash, the running away, and the coverup convicted him of being a reckless racer. Not the facebook stuff.

Do you think he was hard done to by the Facebook stuff ? Did they portray him wrongly ? Was this a miscarriage of justice ?


For anyone who didnt see the show = this is the programme we are discussing - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... -episode-1

He admitted his guilt.

In my opinion they do portray him wrongly when using photo / video footage of someone else at a different time, location, etc. What he watched on Facebook a few month prior is totally irrelevant, because it doesn't prove the crash, the running away, and the coverup. That is the point Im trying to make and I'm not defending him or saying he's innocent.... I'm saying his social media profile was taken way out of context (even by you) and now as we discuss it further, in my opinion that scene was quite dodgy policing that was grasping at straws.

fenix

that reminds me - I've not seen Ep 2 yet.

I don't think there was any dodgy policing here - there was more than enough evidence about what he did.

ben@31

Fenix wrote:

that reminds me - I've not seen Ep 2 yet.

I don't think there was any dodgy policing here - there was more than enough evidence about what he did.

You do realise there's a standard that the evidence has to meet? Even if he definitely committed the crime.
ANY doubt and he' MUST be acquitted. 99.999% certain and 00.001% doubt and it must be an aquital. It was explained to me that the legal system accepts the problem with this and would rather have guilty people slip through the system than sending an innocent man to jail.


Enjoy the second episode.

cooldad

Nope beyond reasonable doubt. Not 99.9999999999999999% nor whatever.

There is always the .000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that aliens done it.

milemuncher1

cooldad wrote:

Nope beyond reasonable doubt. Not 99.9999999999999999% nor whatever.

There is always the .000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that aliens done it.

Quite right, beyond reasonable doubt, is the phrase that pays. It's beyond the doubt of any sane, rational thinking person. There are also 12 jury members, the judge doesn't always require a unanimous decision ( they usually prefer it, where possible ).