Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

niblue · August 2017

KingstonGraham wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

I thought Martin's blog post was excellent for the most part but each to their own.

I agree with him that "our criminal justice system needs to recalibrate away from the prejudice that motoring is innocuous"

I also agree with that however in this context it seems to be a bit two wrongs don't make a right to me. Yes there are issues with the prosecution of motorists, but in this case I can't see any issue with the charges that were brought.

BTW: Apparently 94% of drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving get a custodial sentence, with the most common sentence being in the 3 to 5 year range. Where drugs/drink was an aggravating factor then the custodial rate was slightly higher (95%) and sentences were quite a bit higher (average sentence was 53.5 months).

Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (which could be seen as the closest to this case) then 27% got a custodial sentence (average of 14 months) with the vast majority of the rest getting either community service or a suspended sentence.

There seems to be a common assumption that motorists convicted for these offences generally get off with a slap on the wrists but those stats would seem to disprove that.

niblue · August 2017

Semantik wrote:

So if he'd had a working front brake and said sorry would he have been acquitted of all charges?.

Better than that - I don't think there is any chance there would even have been a prosecution. It'd have been seen as an unfortunate accident precipitated by the pedestrian choosing to cross the road when it wasn't safe to do so.

bendertherobot · August 2017

niblue wrote:

The press coverage does seem pretty poor but it's not really a surprise - quite a few of them were leading with the "mowed down" even before the trial. It's interesting that none of them make the point that the primary reason for her death, no matter what the cyclist did, was choosing to cross the road when it wasn't safe to do so. Her family are also ignoring that with their stated intention to campaign for stronger cycling laws - even though if nothing else this case has already proved they aren't needed. The police could even choose to stop and prosecute any and every brakeless fixie riders under the existing danger or careless cycling laws if they wanted.

I suspect the defence will appeal if there is a custodial sentence but not if there isn't one. Normally I'd expect a non custodial sentence but his lack of remorse could see him get a short stint inside.

The only 'precedent' is a 7 month sentence for a cyclist who was moving at considerable speed and jumped onto the pavement. That was a guilty plea with remorse. This took place on the road. I'd be surprised if it exceeded 7 months on that basis but he could well get the max. Or, I suspect, a suspended sentence of about 18 months. He needs to start to show remorse now.

niblue · August 2017

bendertherobot wrote:

The only 'precedent' is a 7 month sentence for a cyclist who was moving at considerable speed and jumped onto the pavement. That was a guilty plea with remorse. This took place on the road. I'd be surprised if it exceeded 7 months on that basis but he could well get the max. Or, I suspect, a suspended sentence of about 18 months. He needs to start to show remorse now.

Barring the guilty plea and the remorse that case was a lot worse than this one IMHO, and if anything the sentence seemed pretty light.

I wonder if it might be too late for the remorse thing now though as it'll just smack of trying to avoid jail rather than being genuine. I'll still be slightly surprised if he sees the inside of a jail though.

kingstongraham · August 2017

niblue wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

I thought Martin's blog post was excellent for the most part but each to their own.

I agree with him that "our criminal justice system needs to recalibrate away from the prejudice that motoring is innocuous"

I also agree with that however in this context it seems to be a bit two wrongs don't make a right to me. Yes there are issues with the prosecution of motorists, but in this case I can't see any issue with the charges that were brought.

BTW: Apparently 94% of drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving get a custodial sentence, with the most common sentence being in the 3 to 5 year range. Where drugs/drink was an aggravating factor then the custodial rate was slightly higher (95%) and sentences were quite a bit higher (average sentence was 53.5 months).

Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (which could be seen as the closest to this case) then 27% got a custodial sentence (average of 14 months) with the vast majority of the rest getting either community service or a suspended sentence.

There seems to be a common assumption that motorists convicted for these offences generally get off with a slap on the wrists but those stats would seem to disprove that.

Agreed - like I said, neither verdict seems at all outrageous.

But for driving, more attention should be given to the actions rather than the consequences. If you are guilty of careless/dangerous driving, then it is pure luck that you are not guilty of causing death by careless/dangerous driving.

Semantik · August 2017

niblue wrote:

Semantik wrote:

So if he'd had a working front brake and said sorry would he have been acquitted of all charges?.

Better than that - I don't think there is any chance there would even have been a prosecution. It'd have been seen as an unfortunate accident precipitated by the pedestrian choosing to cross the road when it wasn't safe to do so.

Be nice to think that would be the only outcome but I'm not confident of that. The prosecution went all out to get this young guy, who was only 18 at the time of the accident. I don't believe it was merely his 'attitude' and the front brake issue that led to his prosecution. Some of the impetus for it has to come from the widespread and irrational public intolerance of all cyclists ,as shared by many non-cyclists of all different social strata.

niblue · August 2017

Semantik wrote:

Be nice to think that would be the only outcome but I'm not confident of that. The prosecution went all out to get this young guy, who was only 18 at the time of the accident. I don't believe it was merely his 'attitude' and the front brake issue that led to his prosecution. Some of the impetus for it has to come from the widespread and irrational public intolerance of all cyclists ,as shared by many non-cyclists of all different social strata.

The prosecution's case was entirely based on the deliberate lack of a front brake depriving him of the means to avoid the accident, so if they still wanted to prosecute him they'd have had to find some other grounds. Maybe they'd have tried for gross negligence manslaughter (e.g. if they thought he'd deliberately tried to clip her or do a close flyby) but there is zero chance of proving that so doubt they'd have gone for it. The only law he appears to have been braking was to do with the missing front brake, so struggling to see what other grounds there would have been for a prosecution.

Semantik · August 2017

niblue wrote:

Semantik wrote:

Be nice to think that would be the only outcome but I'm not confident of that. The prosecution went all out to get this young guy, who was only 18 at the time of the accident. I don't believe it was merely his 'attitude' and the front brake issue that led to his prosecution. Some of the impetus for it has to come from the widespread and irrational public intolerance of all cyclists ,as shared by many non-cyclists of all different social strata.

The prosecution's case was entirely based on the deliberate lack of a front brake depriving him of the means to avoid the accident, so if they still wanted to prosecute him they'd have had to find some other grounds. Maybe they'd have tried for gross negligence manslaughter (e.g. if they thought he'd deliberately tried to clip her or do a close flyby) but there is zero chance of proving that so doubt they'd have gone for it. The only law he appears to have been braking was to do with the missing front brake, so struggling to see what other grounds there would have been for a prosecution.

The lack of a front brake is not a factor in deciding to prosecute the offence for which he was convicted. That offence was all to do with the manner of his riding which was alleged to be wanton or furious. the condition of his bike has no bearing on that particular charge. They have obviously found fault with the manner of his riding, irrespective of the front brake issue.

niblue · August 2017

Semantik wrote:

The lack of a front brake is not a factor in deciding to prosecute the offence for which he was convicted. That offence was all to do with the manner of his riding which was alleged to be wanton or furious. the condition of his bike has no bearing on that particular charge. They have obviously found fault with the manner of his riding, irrespective of the front brake issue.

It's a misconception that "wanton and furious" has to relate to riding style at all - "wilful neglect" is also a factor and I expect it'd be the one applied here.

"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 ..."

Semantik · August 2017

niblue wrote:

Semantik wrote:

The lack of a front brake is not a factor in deciding to prosecute the offence for which he was convicted. That offence was all to do with the manner of his riding which was alleged to be wanton or furious. the condition of his bike has no bearing on that particular charge. They have obviously found fault with the manner of his riding, irrespective of the front brake issue.

It's a misconception that "wanton and furious" has to relate to riding style at all - "wilful neglect" is also a factor and I expect it'd be the one applied here.

"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 ..."

Good point, though the Victorian legislators who created this offence would hardly have envisaged their wording to include any reference to a modern pedal cycle and/or its accoutrements .

TheStone · August 2017

He's cleared or guilty depending on the point each news outlet wants to make.

Lanterne_Rogue · August 2017

If the article I've just read in the Guardian is correct, and the police were able to - unchallenged - suggest that a working front brake would have allowed this chap to have stopped in 3m, then I think there's a serious risk that there has been a miscarriage of justice. For comparison, that's about half the thinking distance allowed in the highway code for a vehicle travelling at 20mph, let alone the braking beyond that.

Even beyond that, I doubt I could stop my commuting bike from 18mph in 3m even if I knew I was going to have to hit the brakes at a certain point, and that's equipped with disc brakes and a lot of rubber in contact with the road.

awavey · August 2017

niblue wrote:

Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (which could be seen as the closest to this case) then 27% got a custodial sentence (average of 14 months) with the vast majority of the rest getting either community service or a suspended sentence.

There seems to be a common assumption that motorists convicted for these offences generally get off with a slap on the wrists but those stats would seem to disprove that.

but what are the conviction rates though ?, Id totally expect anyone convicted of death by dangerous to end up in klink, and anyone convicted of careless to get a suspended sentence at the least.

but how many cases are brought ? how many cases dont even reach court.

I know one MP managed to get some stats in a debate from last year, but its probably hidden as a written answer somewhere, but I did find a Justice ministry response to why manslaughter for drivers is rarely pursued.

"However, for a manslaughter charge to be made, the prosecution needs to prove that there was some element of intent or recklessness regarding the death or injuries that were caused, or that the standard of driving was grossly negligent; in other words, exactly the situation that she is describing. However, in many driving cases, the offending behaviour—while highly irresponsible—does not necessarily include the state of mind required for a manslaughter charge to be made. That is why we have specific offences of causing death by careless or dangerous driving."

so death by dangerous driving does not in anyway replace the possibility of a manslaughter charge, as I think alot of people had been assuming in this case, the manslaughter was used because there was no equivalent of death by dangerous/careless driving for bicycles

niblue · August 2017

awavey wrote:

but what are the conviction rates though ?, Id totally expect anyone convicted of death by dangerous to end up in klink, and anyone convicted of careless to get a suspended sentence at the least.

65% for death by dangerous, due to the number that get downgraded to death by careless.
91% for death by dangerous aggravated by drugs or drink (with 95% get a custodial sentence, with the average being 53.5 months)
88% for death by careless, with 27% getting a custodial sentence, 32% a suspended sentence, 39% community service and 2% a fine.

My source is the Road Peace sentencing guide for bereaved families from earlier this year.

niblue · August 2017

awavey wrote:

so death by dangerous driving does not in anyway replace the possibility of a manslaughter charge, as I think alot of people had been assuming in this case, the manslaughter was used because there was no equivalent of death by dangerous/careless driving for bicycles

It was brought in due to juries being reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter but manslaughter charges can still be brought.

In this case I think the only reason that the charge wasn't "death by dangerous" was because it only applies to motorised vehicles. Might not be a bad idea to change the definition of that and "death by careless" to include non-motorised road users but suspect given the low rate it's not worth the trouble.

niblue · August 2017

underlayunderlay wrote:

If the article I've just read in the Guardian is correct, and the police were able to - unchallenged - suggest that a working front brake would have allowed this chap to have stopped in 3m, then I think there's a serious risk that there has been a miscarriage of justice. For comparison, that's about half the thinking distance allowed in the highway code for a vehicle travelling at 20mph, let alone the braking beyond that.

I think it's the reporting that was wrong and the 3m related to a lower speed - maybe 14mph.

Even beyond that, I doubt I could stop my commuting bike from 18mph in 3m even if I knew I was going to have to hit the brakes at a certain point, and that's equipped with disc brakes and a lot of rubber in contact with the road.

You definitely couldn't. I've got a roadbike with Ultegra hydro's and was stopping that from 18mph in a bit under 6m, but that had the back wheel well off the ground by the end. No chance I could get anywhere close to 3m. 6m was quite comfortable on that bike. Took a little bit longer on my rim braked road bike - same for a hydro disc braked mountain bike.

mrb123 · August 2017

Really balanced set of comments just been read out on BBC breakfast. They were:
1) cycles should be registered and have annual test and insurance
2) a cyclist (!) saying there should be licences
3) it's about time idiots on bikes got the same punishment as motorists. If this was a car they'd be calling for 10 years behind bars.
4) cyclists use cycle path as a racetrack. They always think they're in the right.

I fear this case will be used as a big stick to beat us all, yet the fact that the case has been so newsworthy is an indication of the massive rarity of these types of incident.

DJFish · August 2017

I acknowledge the fact that the outcome of the accident, the illegality of the bike and the lack of remorse had a lot to do with the sentence.

And as much as I have sympathy for the family of the deceased I also have some sympathy for the cyclist involved as I commute in London and have to deal with peds stepping out on a regular basis.

The last instance saw me on my arse on the tarmac next to the wheels of a bus with suspected cracked ribs when someone exercised their legal right to walk into the road without looking.

If I need to carry a license & numberplate then so be it, in some ways it might be a good thing but it won't stop londoners from walking in front of vehicles, and with the rise of quiet EVs & cyclists in the capital its only going to happen more often.

timothyw · August 2017

MrB123 wrote:

Really balanced set of comments just been read out on BBC breakfast. They were:
1) cycles should be registered and have annual test and insurance
2) a cyclist (!) saying there should be licences
3) it's about time idiots on bikes got the same punishment as motorists. If this was a car they'd be calling for 10 years behind bars.
4) cyclists use cycle path as a racetrack. They always think they're in the right.

I fear this case will be used as a big stick to beat us all, yet the fact that the case has been so newsworthy is an indication of the massive rarity of these types of incident.

Interesting that the BBC chose to lead the paper review with the Metro's front cover, despite it being a London paper:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41032528

Something darkly ironic about it all on a day when one of the major stories is 'a laziness epidemic' in which they're encouraging the over 40s to take a brisk walk.

mrb123 · August 2017

TimothyW wrote:

MrB123 wrote:

Really balanced set of comments just been read out on BBC breakfast. They were:
1) cycles should be registered and have annual test and insurance
2) a cyclist (!) saying there should be licences
3) it's about time idiots on bikes got the same punishment as motorists. If this was a car they'd be calling for 10 years behind bars.
4) cyclists use cycle path as a racetrack. They always think they're in the right.

I fear this case will be used as a big stick to beat us all, yet the fact that the case has been so newsworthy is an indication of the massive rarity of these types of incident.

Interesting that the BBC chose to lead the paper review with the Metro's front cover, despite it being a London paper:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41032528

Something darkly ironic about it all on a day when one of the major stories is 'a laziness epidemic' in which they're encouraging the over 40s to take a brisk walk.

The thought experiment proposed by defence counsel is an interesting one: what would the reaction be in a similar case (perhaps assuming the cyclist was on a road legal bike) if the pedestrian had survived and the cyclist had died?

My guess is that we wouldn't have a comparable outpouring of vitriol towards pedestrians in general. We wouldn't be hearing calls for changes in the law to punish irresponsible pedestrians. We wouldn't be discussing whether all road users should have licences and insurance.

More likely, the case would barely have mentioned in the press, unless of course the cyclist hadn't been wearing a helmet in which case he'd have still been blamed.

Licensing of bikes, mandatory insurance or changes in the criminal law would not have prevented the tragedy that occurred in this case.

mattsaw · August 2017

MrB123 wrote:

The thought experiment proposed by defence counsel is an interesting one: what would the reaction be in a similar case (perhaps assuming the cyclist was on a road legal bike) if the pedestrian had survived and the cyclist had died?

My guess is that we wouldn't have a comparable outpouring of vitriol towards pedestrians in general. We wouldn't be hearing calls for changes in the law to punish irresponsible pedestrians. We wouldn't be discussing whether all road users should have licences and insurance.

More likely, the case would barely have mentioned in the press, unless of course the cyclist hadn't been wearing a helmet in which case he'd have still been blamed.

Licensing of bikes, mandatory insurance or changes in the criminal law would not have prevented the tragedy that occurred in this case.

Noticed this posted in one of the London cycling groups this morning

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... n-12785475

niblue · August 2017

Don't think this has been posted yet:

http://news.met.police.uk/videos/comparitive-stopping-distance-test-between-cycles-30256

bendertherobot · August 2017

niblue wrote:

Don't think this has been posted yet:

http://news.met.police.uk/videos/comparitive-stopping-distance-test-between-cycles-30256

Crappy reporting again. The mountain bike is, in fact, a flat bar fixie.

niblue · August 2017

MrB123 wrote:

[Licensing of bikes, mandatory insurance or changes in the criminal law would not have prevented the tragedy that occurred in this case.

The family do seem to be glossing over the main cause of the accident, which was the pedestrian stepping out into the road. If anything this case has proved that there are laws available to cover the cyclist in these situations. Using the current laws you could stop anyone and everyone riding a brakeless fixie and do them for either dangerous or careless cycling, if you wanted to crackdown.

niblue · August 2017

bendertherobot wrote:

niblue wrote:

Don't think this has been posted yet:

http://news.met.police.uk/videos/comparitive-stopping-distance-test-between-cycles-30256

Crappy reporting again. The mountain bike is, in fact, a flat bar fixie.

The did some earlier testing a the Hogg Hill circuit and did use police mountain bikes for that - some of my clubmates where there at the time. They also asked a more experienced rider (one of the folks from the centre) to do the same tests to see if it validated their results. The club guys thought those were just preliminary tests though - not the sort of thing that'd be used in court.

fenix · August 2017

To me that seems to show a mountain bike stopping in 3 meters and the fixie much much further.

Isn't there a flaw ? They've taken out reaction time as they know when to brake ?

It still shows that the fixie takes longer. We knew that - but a better comparison would have been the same bike with the front brake making it legal.

navt · August 2017

I have a real problem with the "ground-breaking" prosecution. As a daily commuter, I'm often faced with pedestrians stepping out in front of me. Even with a road legal bike and cycling with due care and consideration, there is precious little I can do to avoid collision and actual bodily harm. The same can be said about cyclist who "cut" into my path. Do I now run the risk of possible jail time?

This is a tragic and unfortunate event. My heart pours for the husband left without his wife and kids without their mum.

There is nothing I have seen to prove that the outcome would have been any different had the defendant been riding a road legal bike. Martin Porter sums is up nicely in his article.

niblue · August 2017

Isn't there a flaw ? They've taken out reaction time as they know when to brake ?

The available distance quoted was from when he shouted so I think the view was that there is therefore no need to take reaction time into account.

niblue · August 2017

There is nothing I have seen to prove that the outcome would have been any different had the defendant been riding a road legal bike.

I'd like to see the CCTV before I took a view on that. With a bike with proper brakes I think it's possible he could have stopped, but I've nothing to determine whether the defences case that the action he did take would have been reasonable on a bike with or without brakes is true.

niblue · August 2017

navt wrote:

Martin Porter sums is up nicely in his article.

His comment "The charge of wanton and furious driving is also puzzling. Although the archaic 1861 wording could encompass more, it generally relates to speed" is deliberately misleading as he knows full well that the charge encompasses "wilful neglect" which would apply to the lack of effective braking and there was no need for the riding style or speed to be a factor. I'd expect better from a lawyer when discussing a point of law.

Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

Comments

Categories