Alliston case

debeli

The collision in Old Street was an avoidable tragedy and a terrible tragedy.
I do not know the parties involved but know and have known many cycle couriers, fixedgear enthusiasts and keen cyclists.

I have never met or heard of an urban rider with any experience who was unaware that a front brake is a legal requirement on a fixie. Never.

I use front and rear brakes on mine, as I live in hilly country.... but I know no cyclists who are unaware of the legal requirement for a front brake on a fixie.

dj58

He strikes me as an arrogant young man, and as the judge said “I have not seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all at any stage.” And yes I think he probably knew it was a legal requirement to have a front brake fitted to the bike.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... track-bike

trivial_poursuivant

There are about 4 threads on this subject scattered all over, can we just consolidate this subject into the one?

webboo

DJ58 wrote:

He strikes me as an arrogant young man, and as the judge said “I have not seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all at any stage.” And yes I think he probably knew it was a legal requirement to have a front brake fitted to the bike.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... track-bike

Riding a fixed wheel bike is choice/ statement so claiming not to know that you need a front brake is clearly not credible. Which the judge believed was the case.

Dorset_Boy

Knowing nothing about the case until this morning's anti-cycling frenzy on R5, I found this an interesting read:
https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html?spref=fb

Sounds like the only offence was no front brake.
Alliston might not be a particularly nice person, but it does seem like the prosecution have come in with a sledgehammer.

tangled_metal

Not really. They've come in with a selection of offences that allow the man to be tried in a county court as opposed to a magistrates court due to serious result of his actions (and that of the pedestrian /victim). All options were viable and were options to the prosecution. It's a serious matter when your decisions are a key factor in someone's death. Serious to warrant a court trial not a magistrates trial IMHO and the opinion of the prosecution.

This cycling silk is an interesting character but personally I don't see his view as unbiased. There's another legal blogger that I've seen quoted on a forum over a different legal case whose opinions are seriously worth seeking out. It's just that I can't remember the name / site he blogs on. The guy focuses calmly on the legal aspects of the case using court transcripts not media reports. If anyone knows the blogger I'm thinking of please try to find a link to anything he's written on this case. It'll be worth reading no matter what your view on this case is.

Dorset_Boy

Of the 400 pedestrians hit by cars, how many of those drivers will have faced manslaughter charges?
How many drivers who have killed cyclists have faced manslaughter charges?

The stopping distance issue is an interesting one. I get the impression the prosecution accept that he could not have stopped in time even with a front brake, or am I mis-reading that?

He was at fault for riding an illegal bike.
She was at fault for stepping into the path of an oncoming road user.

I think it is fair and right to throw the force of the law against him for riding a bike that is illegal on the road.
However these charges were brought in order to put Alliston behind bars, and not for him to receive a fine.
Now let's see a level playing field for drivers too.

kingstongraham

Dorset Boy wrote:

Now let's see a level playing field for drivers too.

A level playing field would have seen the law allowing him to prosecuted for an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling rather than manslaughter. Which he may well have been more likely to have been convicted of, and if comparable to the equivalent driving offence generally would carry a custodial sentence.

bendertherobot

KingstonGraham wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Now let's see a level playing field for drivers too.

A level playing field would have seen the law allowing him to prosecuted for an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling rather than manslaughter. Which he may well have been more likely to have been convicted of, and if comparable to the equivalent driving offence generally would carry a custodial sentence.

That's the crucial missing point in much of these discussions. Not that no motorist would be charged under section 35, it's that there are only 2 potential offences here.

fat daddy

With so many threads on this now .. I think I can safely sit on the fence and have a different opinion on each thread.

I can have the cyclists view, the families view, the pedestrians view and the car drivers view.

cld531c

fat daddy wrote:

With so many threads on this now .. I think I can safely sit on the fence and have a different opinion on each thread.

I can have the cyclists view, the families view, the pedestrians view and the car drivers view.

Where are the other threads? Id be interested to see others views. Seems to me he has been punished more for his personality than actions. I do not condone riding without a front brake but nor do I condone jaywalking.

timothyw

The biggest one is the one I started on the day the story first broke:
viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=13083807

But it is in the apparently 'London Biased' commuting forum

cld531c

TimothyW wrote:

The biggest one is the one I started on the day the story first broke:
viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=13083807

But it is in the apparently 'London Biased' commuting forum

Cheers - being a Northerner I never read that one :-)

StillGoing

Dorset Boy wrote:

Of the 400 pedestrians hit by cars, how many of those drivers will have faced manslaughter charges?
How many drivers who have killed cyclists have faced manslaughter charges?

The stopping distance issue is an interesting one. I get the impression the prosecution accept that he could not have stopped in time even with a front brake, or am I mis-reading that?

He was at fault for riding an illegal bike.
She was at fault for stepping into the path of an oncoming road user.

I think it is fair and right to throw the force of the law against him for riding a bike that is illegal on the road.
However these charges were brought in order to put Alliston behind bars, and not for him to receive a fine.
Now let's see a level playing field for drivers too.

Drivers do get prosecuted for manslaughter and some for causing death by dangerous driving, whilst intoxicated etc. The charge fits the individual circumstances. Getting prissy just because a cyclist has been charged with the appropriate offence is folly. It certainly isn't some kind of witch hunt against cyclists.
Alliston has lied, tried to apportion blame on the victim by claiming she was on her mobile phone, that he shouted a warning and saw him, yet still walked out in front of him. Having an ignorance of whether a front brake is required is not a defence. In fact, earlier transcripts have the seller of the bike telling him it wasn't road legal.
The prosecution evidence is that a front brake would have enabled him to stop in a much shorter stopping distance. Whether or not that means he would still have collided with the victim, isn't too much of an issue, as the reduced speed on impact may not have caused her to fall and suffer catastrophic injuries. Without it though, he showed a blatant disregard for anyone who might be unfortunate enough to be on a collision course with him. That through his disregard for anyone else, someone died as a direct result of his actions is manslaughter. He's lucky the courts found him not guilty.
Alliston is sort of idiot that attracts the attention of the public and who then generalise all cyclists as like him.

sloppyschleckonds

fat daddy wrote:

With so many threads on this now .. I think I can safely sit on the fence and have a different opinion on each thread.

I can have the cyclists view, the families view, the pedestrians view and the car drivers view.

Surely everyone in the world has expressed an opinion on this by now :?:

cld531c

Yep , mostly that we all deserve to be run off the road from what I've read!

Lookyhere

philthy3 wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Of the 400 pedestrians hit by cars, how many of those drivers will have faced manslaughter charges?
How many drivers who have killed cyclists have faced manslaughter charges?

The stopping distance issue is an interesting one. I get the impression the prosecution accept that he could not have stopped in time even with a front brake, or am I mis-reading that?

He was at fault for riding an illegal bike.
She was at fault for stepping into the path of an oncoming road user.

I think it is fair and right to throw the force of the law against him for riding a bike that is illegal on the road.
However these charges were brought in order to put Alliston behind bars, and not for him to receive a fine.
Now let's see a level playing field for drivers too.

Drivers do get prosecuted for manslaughter and some for causing death by dangerous driving, whilst intoxicated etc. The charge fits the individual circumstances. Getting prissy just because a cyclist has been charged with the appropriate offence is folly. It certainly isn't some kind of witch hunt against cyclists.
Alliston has lied, tried to apportion blame on the victim by claiming she was on her mobile phone, that he shouted a warning and saw him, yet still walked out in front of him. Having an ignorance of whether a front brake is required is not a defence. In fact, earlier transcripts have the seller of the bike telling him it wasn't road legal.
The prosecution evidence is that a front brake would have enabled him to stop in a much shorter stopping distance. Whether or not that means he would still have collided with the victim, isn't too much of an issue, as the reduced speed on impact may not have caused her to fall and suffer catastrophic injuries. Without it though, he showed a blatant disregard for anyone who might be unfortunate enough to be on a collision course with him. That through his disregard for anyone else, someone died as a direct result of his actions is manslaughter. He's lucky the courts found him not guilty.
Alliston is sort of idiot that attracts the attention of the public and who then generalise all cyclists as like him.

Ultimately, the only person to blame for this is the woman herself, she was the only one whose actions would have changed the outcome, every thing else is supposition,
she stepped out into the road, either without looking, in which case anything could have hit her or with the view "its only a cyclist, he can get out of my way"

The lack of Police/CPS action in other types of road collision is well documented, so perhaps this new found vigor will be demonstrated the next time a cyclist is killed in London.

StillGoing

Lookyhere wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Of the 400 pedestrians hit by cars, how many of those drivers will have faced manslaughter charges?
How many drivers who have killed cyclists have faced manslaughter charges?

The stopping distance issue is an interesting one. I get the impression the prosecution accept that he could not have stopped in time even with a front brake, or am I mis-reading that?

He was at fault for riding an illegal bike.
She was at fault for stepping into the path of an oncoming road user.

I think it is fair and right to throw the force of the law against him for riding a bike that is illegal on the road.
However these charges were brought in order to put Alliston behind bars, and not for him to receive a fine.
Now let's see a level playing field for drivers too.

Drivers do get prosecuted for manslaughter and some for causing death by dangerous driving, whilst intoxicated etc. The charge fits the individual circumstances. Getting prissy just because a cyclist has been charged with the appropriate offence is folly. It certainly isn't some kind of witch hunt against cyclists.
Alliston has lied, tried to apportion blame on the victim by claiming she was on her mobile phone, that he shouted a warning and saw him, yet still walked out in front of him. Having an ignorance of whether a front brake is required is not a defence. In fact, earlier transcripts have the seller of the bike telling him it wasn't road legal.
The prosecution evidence is that a front brake would have enabled him to stop in a much shorter stopping distance. Whether or not that means he would still have collided with the victim, isn't too much of an issue, as the reduced speed on impact may not have caused her to fall and suffer catastrophic injuries. Without it though, he showed a blatant disregard for anyone who might be unfortunate enough to be on a collision course with him. That through his disregard for anyone else, someone died as a direct result of his actions is manslaughter. He's lucky the courts found him not guilty.
Alliston is sort of idiot that attracts the attention of the public and who then generalise all cyclists as like him.

Ultimately, the only person to blame for this is the woman herself, she was the only one whose actions would have changed the outcome, every thing else is supposition,
she stepped out into the road, either without looking, in which case anything could have hit her or with the view "its only a cyclist, he can get out of my way"

The lack of Police/CPS action in other types of road collision is well documented, so perhaps this new found vigor will be demonstrated the next time a cyclist is killed in London.

It worries me that you actually believe that. Are you in fact Alliston.

tangled_metal

There's the other view that he was an accident waiting to happen. Get him off the road, in prison and hopefully having learnt a lesson he'll stop being such an idiot on a bike in future. Get a front brake if your bike doesn't have one and you want to ride on the roads.

svetty

Tangled Metal wrote:

There's the other view that he was an accident waiting to happen. Get him off the road, in prison and hopefully having learnt a lesson he'll stop being such an idiot on a bike in future. Get a front brake if your bike doesn't have one and you want to ride on the roads.

The two views aren't mutually exclusive.....

Somehow the cycling community - through spokespeople such as Chris Boardman - needs to use the publicity generated by this to push for equal treatment of all who cause death or serious injury through their actions on the roads, including cyclists.

chippyk

Tangled Metal wrote:

Not really. They've come in with a selection of offences that allow the man to be tried in a county court as opposed to a magistrates court due to serious result of his actions (and that of the pedestrian /victim). All options were viable and were options to the prosecution. It's a serious matter when your decisions are a key factor in someone's death. Serious to warrant a court trial not a magistrates trial IMHO and the opinion of the prosecution.

This cycling silk is an interesting character but personally I don't see his view as unbiased. There's another legal blogger that I've seen quoted on a forum over a different legal case whose opinions are seriously worth seeking out. It's just that I can't remember the name / site he blogs on. The guy focuses calmly on the legal aspects of the case using court transcripts not media reports. If anyone knows the blogger I'm thinking of please try to find a link to anything he's written on this case. It'll be worth reading no matter what your view on this case is.

The Secret Barrister? Always a good read that cuts through the media, traditional and social, froth that such a case generates.

cld531c

Svetty wrote:

The two views aren't mutually exclusive.....

Somehow the cycling community - through spokespeople such as Chris Boardman - needs to use the publicity generated by this to push for equal treatment of all who cause death or serious injury through their actions on the roads, including cyclists and pedestrians.

FTFY

StillGoing

cld531c wrote:

Svetty wrote:

The two views aren't mutually exclusive.....

Somehow the cycling community - through spokespeople such as Chris Boardman - needs to use the publicity generated by this to push for equal treatment of all who cause death or serious injury through their actions on the roads, including cyclists and pedestrians.

FTFY

They do. Seems a few are getting prissy because A cyclist has finally been threatened with a custodial for causing a death through wanton disregard for others. Plenty of motorists have been jailed for the same, yet its a hoohah because a dickhead has rightly been threatened with it.

I'm yet to read of a vehicle hitting a pedestrian and the pedestrian walking away unscathed, but the driver deceased. A road is a highway and any other road to which the public have access (on payment or otherwise) and includes bridges over which a road passes. The public includes pedestrians. Road users should drive to what they can see and be able to safely stop in the distance that they can see. There is an archaic law that prioritises who has right of way on the roads (its actually driven horses, followed by ridden horses, driven cattle, pedestrians etc etc cars come way down the list) prioritising on original use and at the lower end, vehicles on the road by licence. If a pedestrian has started to cross a highway, they have automatic priority on the road against all users lower on the scale than them. That includes mechanically propelled vehicles and cyclists. That doesn't mean pedestrians can blindly leap out in front of traffic, but equally, we should all be driving or riding ready to respond to the unexpected event, particularly in built up areas with lots of pedestrians around on their mobile phones.

tangled_metal

Hah! Not another cyclist who applies the motoring principle of driving to what you can see?!! Don't be so responsible! You're on a bike, everyone hates you so you can do what you like. Don't worry there's fewer laws to touch you and you'll have an indignant, self righteous cycling lobby behind you.

mamba80

philthy3 wrote:

cld531c wrote:

Svetty wrote:

The two views aren't mutually exclusive.....

Somehow the cycling community - through spokespeople such as Chris Boardman - needs to use the publicity generated by this to push for equal treatment of all who cause death or serious injury through their actions on the roads, including cyclists and pedestrians.

FTFY

They do. Seems a few are getting prissy because A cyclist has finally been threatened with a custodial for causing a death through wanton disregard for others. Plenty of motorists have been jailed for the same, yet its a hoohah because a dickhead has rightly been threatened with it.

I'm yet to read of a vehicle hitting a pedestrian and the pedestrian walking away unscathed, but the driver deceased. A road is a highway and any other road to which the public have access (on payment or otherwise) and includes bridges over which a road passes. The public includes pedestrians. Road users should drive to what they can see and be able to safely stop in the distance that they can see. There is an archaic law that prioritises who has right of way on the roads (its actually driven horses, followed by ridden horses, driven cattle, pedestrians etc etc cars come way down the list) prioritising on original use and at the lower end, vehicles on the road by licence. If a pedestrian has started to cross a highway, they have automatic priority on the road against all users lower on the scale than them. That includes mechanically propelled vehicles and cyclists. That doesn't mean pedestrians can blindly leap out in front of traffic, but equally, we should all be driving or riding ready to respond to the unexpected event, particularly in built up areas with lots of pedestrians around on their mobile phones.

But that is exactly what she did, i am not against this guy being pursued through the courts or even going to jail, he broke the law and a woman is dead... however there is a crossing 30m away and she stepped out into the road, why does she not share the responsibility for the consequence?

300 cyclists were killed on the roads last year, 2 pedestrians died as a result of collisions with cyclists, yet now there is a campaign to change the law to make it easier to prosecute cyclists.... maybe thats a good thing but perhaps a concerted effort to reduce the 300 might be a better place to start? as said earlier, Presumed liability would protect ALL vulnerable road users.

StillGoing

mamba80 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

cld531c wrote:

Svetty wrote:

The two views aren't mutually exclusive.....

Somehow the cycling community - through spokespeople such as Chris Boardman - needs to use the publicity generated by this to push for equal treatment of all who cause death or serious injury through their actions on the roads, including cyclists and pedestrians.

FTFY

They do. Seems a few are getting prissy because A cyclist has finally been threatened with a custodial for causing a death through wanton disregard for others. Plenty of motorists have been jailed for the same, yet its a hoohah because a dickhead has rightly been threatened with it.

I'm yet to read of a vehicle hitting a pedestrian and the pedestrian walking away unscathed, but the driver deceased. A road is a highway and any other road to which the public have access (on payment or otherwise) and includes bridges over which a road passes. The public includes pedestrians. Road users should drive to what they can see and be able to safely stop in the distance that they can see. There is an archaic law that prioritises who has right of way on the roads (its actually driven horses, followed by ridden horses, driven cattle, pedestrians etc etc cars come way down the list) prioritising on original use and at the lower end, vehicles on the road by licence. If a pedestrian has started to cross a highway, they have automatic priority on the road against all users lower on the scale than them. That includes mechanically propelled vehicles and cyclists. That doesn't mean pedestrians can blindly leap out in front of traffic, but equally, we should all be driving or riding ready to respond to the unexpected event, particularly in built up areas with lots of pedestrians around on their mobile phones.

But that is exactly what she did, i am not against this guy being pursued through the courts or even going to jail, he broke the law and a woman is dead... however there is a crossing 30m away and she stepped out into the road, why does she not share the responsibility for the consequence?

300 cyclists were killed on the roads last year, 2 pedestrians died as a result of collisions with cyclists, yet now there is a campaign to change the law to make it easier to prosecute cyclists.... maybe thats a good thing but perhaps a concerted effort to reduce the 300 might be a better place to start? as said earlier, Presumed liability would protect ALL vulnerable road users.

You presume none of those 300 cyclists didn't contribute to their own deaths. No helmets, poor road skills, ignoring red lights, riding across junctions from the pavement etc. Motorists regularly get charged with causing death by dangerous driving, all that is being asked for is the power to charge cyclists with causing death by dangerous cycling and a greater term of custodial. Wanton or furious cycling only carries a maximum of 2 years. Causing death by dangerous cycling would increase that. Courts award reduced sentencing based on mitigation; a genuine temporary error, previous good character, genuine remorse, early guilty plea, pillar of the community, would cause severe hardship for dependants etc. Alliston has none of that.

stevie63

In reality though would he not have only been found guilty of causing death by careless driving which would carry a similar sentence to the Wanton and Furious charge? He had the right of way, he wasn't speeding (though again if he was that would come under the furious charge again), he tried warning her and he took evasive action. In reality his sentence seems to stem mainly from the fact that he wasn't riding a road worthy vehicle and his attitude and actions since the accident have left a lot to be desired.

In fact I struggle to see under what circumstances a cyclist could be found guilty of Death by Dangerous. Perhaps some of the legal bods could enlighten us. The only case I can see for that is if a cyclist had gone out with the strict intention of riding into people.

StillGoing

stevie63 wrote:

In reality though would he not have only been found guilty of causing death by careless driving which would carry a similar sentence to the Wanton and Furious charge? He had the right of way, he wasn't speeding (though again if he was that would come under the furious charge again), he tried warning her and he took evasive action. In reality his sentence seems to stem mainly from the fact that he wasn't riding a road worthy vehicle and his attitude and actions since the accident have left a lot to be desired.

In fact I struggle to see under what circumstances a cyclist could be found guilty of Death by Dangerous. Perhaps some of the legal bods could enlighten us. The only case I can see for that is if a cyclist had gone out with the strict intention of riding into people.

No, simply because his transport didn't conform to construction and use legislation and was therefore in a dangerous condition. No brakes, which are a requirement for use on the road, makes the bike in a dangerous condition. Dangerous refers to the manner of use or the roadworthyness of the transport.

stevie63

Would the same happen to a car driver? For example being intoxicated should lead to a death by dangerous driving charge and yet from the news yesterday:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/man-pleads-guilty-causing-death-375037

Guilty of death by careless driving whilst almost twice the legal limit.

In this case the driver didn't even attempt to slow. He pressed the horn for the pedestrian to get out of the road. Was not given a custodial sentence:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/motorist-found-guilty-causing-death-8051608

StillGoing

stevie63 wrote:

Would the same happen to a car driver? For example being intoxicated should lead to a death by dangerous driving charge and yet from the news yesterday:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/man-pleads-guilty-causing-death-375037

Guilty of death by careless driving whilst almost twice the legal limit.

In this case the driver didn't even attempt to slow. He pressed the horn for the pedestrian to get out of the road. Was not given a custodial sentence:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/motorist-found-guilty-causing-death-8051608

The same happens to the majority of vehicle drivers. Bringing out odd examples of excessive leniency by the courts to car drivers doesn't diminish the fact that there needs to be accountability from cyclists with more sterner sentencing via dangerous cycling charges where it involves a fatality and dangerous applies.

mamba80

philthy3 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

300 cyclists were killed on the roads last year, 2 pedestrians died as a result of collisions with cyclists, yet now there is a campaign to change the law to make it easier to prosecute cyclists.... maybe thats a good thing but perhaps a concerted effort to reduce the 300 might be a better place to start? as said earlier, Presumed liability would protect ALL vulnerable road users.

You presume none of those 300 cyclists didn't contribute to their own deaths. No helmets, poor road skills, ignoring red lights, riding across junctions from the pavement etc. Motorists regularly get charged with causing death by dangerous driving, all that is being asked for is the power to charge cyclists with causing death by dangerous cycling and a greater term of custodial. Wanton or furious cycling only carries a maximum of 2 years. Causing death by dangerous cycling would increase that. Courts award reduced sentencing based on mitigation; a genuine temporary error, previous good character, genuine remorse, early guilty plea, pillar of the community, would cause severe hardship for dependants etc. Alliston has none of that.

i didnt presume anything of the sort, you did, which ime is a trait of the Police, which is why they get it wrong so often, the latest of a long line is the S Wales force, oh and since when was the wearing of helmet or not of relevance at all?

you should know full well that cyclists are far an away more likely to injured or killed in any road collision with anything at all inc when they rarely hit pedestrians.

If we are to try and reduce this waste of life (and get more people commuting and getting fit on bikes) then the emphasis should be on the big numbers ie cyclists and pedestrians in collision with cars/lorries etc.