Alliston case

StillGoing

mamba80 wrote:

when you call me a w@nker, its pretty certain you lost the argument

cyclists can be their own worst enemy, that much is true but being stupid on a bike should nt be punishable by death and collision of a cyclist/horse rider/ pedestrian with a car or lorry will result in no injury to driver and 100% certainty of serious injury or death to the other party, you seem totally oblivious to this.

why do you think almost all of europe have a presumed liability law in RTA's ? and almost everyone who has cycled in euope will tell you that most drivers on the continent behave slightly better toward cyclists and other vulnerable road users?

I just maintain that if we wish to reduce the tragedy of road traffic deaths, then we should concentrate on the biggest causes.
when my daughter or GF go out cycling, my fear for them isnt that a crazy on a bicycle with no brakes will run them down, its that some tw@t in a car/van or lorry will over take to closely with on coming traffic or will just run them down and drive off, both types of "accident" are relatively common.

alliston was a bizzare incident and not something knee jerk legislation should be written for, we should look at the bigger picture and focus on what really ends 100's of lives each year.

If you really were a Police traffic officer and are a cyclist, i m very surprised you are so anti bike and do not see any issue with lorries, driver training and their accident rates.

Firstly, I didn't call you a w4nker. I stated that playing the cyclist victim card over everyone else only makes others see cyclists as such, in just the same way as the idiots that go through red lights, ride in pedestrianized areas etc.

Where has anyone said that being stupid on a bike should be punishable by death? Equally, nowhere have I said that injury cannot be sustained between a soft object and a hard object. It will not however result 100% (your words) in serious injury or death. You come across as some paranoid recluse.

Presumed guilt is plainly stupid. The courts are where proportional blame is decided and not at the scene of an RTC. We should concentrate on the cause of all road deaths and not be selective because we don't want to upset prissy cyclists who think they're being picked on. Bless them. Alliston isn't a knee jerk reaction. HE KILLED SOMEONE AS A DIRECT RESULT OH HIS CHOSEN ACTIONS AT THAT TIME! He was tried for manslaughter simply because causing death by dangerous cycling presently does not exist. If it had, he wouldn't have been charged with manslaughter. The only other option was wanton and furious cycling.

And please, where have I said I am anti bike? I'm anti sections of any group that try and play the victim when there is obvious accountability.

StillGoing

PBlakeney wrote:

Wasn't he cleared of the manslaughter charge anyway?

Yes he was, which left wanton and furious cycling as the only other charge for the circumstances and wholly too lenient.

Lookyhere

philthy3 wrote:

Presumed guilt is plainly stupid. The courts are where proportional blame is decided and not at the scene of an RTC. We should concentrate on the cause of all road deaths and not be selective because we don't want to upset prissy cyclists who think they're being picked on. Bless them. Alliston isn't a knee jerk reaction. HE KILLED SOMEONE AS A DIRECT RESULT OH HIS CHOSEN ACTIONS AT THAT TIME!

No its not, guilt or not is decided at the scene of an accident in anycase, without going anywhere nr court. how many cases of careless driving end up at a magistrates?

Presumed liability is the way accidents are assessed in most of Europe, the car driver can still go to court, present his/her case and be found not guilty but its the change of emphasis that changes behavior.

You are also wrong about Alliston, it is entirely conjecture as to what the result of the accident would have been if he had full disks, he might well have decided to still swerve around her, with exactly the same result.
If it were as clear cut as you are claiming, he would have been found guilty of manslaughter, tbh you are the one sounding slightly paranoid :?:

As Mambi said, we should focus on the majority cause of deaths in the UK and thats cars hitting each other/ Peds/Cyclists, once that comes down, we can look at other causes.

DeVlaeminck

philthy3 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Wasn't he cleared of the manslaughter charge anyway?

Yes he was, which left wanton and furious cycling as the only other charge for the circumstances and wholly too lenient.

Is it really too lenient? What he has actually done in riding a fixed without a front brake is what (apparently) many other people do and there has been no real effort to clamp down on it because rightly or wrongly it hasn't been seen as hugely dangerous except perhaps for the person on the bike.

He is facing a possible jail term of up to 2 years, I can't see how him going to jail for longer would be justified or who it would benefit.

frisbee

philthy3 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Wasn't he cleared of the manslaughter charge anyway?

Yes he was, which left wanton and furious cycling as the only other charge for the circumstances and wholly too lenient.

Except if a car driver had mounted 6 ft long spikes on the front of their car they would have got a suspended 6 month sentence and a pat on the back from the judge...

If they had shown any remorse.

vinnymarsden

I do think the thing about leniency given to car drivers is being stretched to silly proportions now isn't it.
The laws re deaths on our roads really do need a complete overhaul, they are way too lenient across the board, but the last comment really does highlight the us/them attitude. I mean, mounting spikes and killing people, really? Do you GENUINELY really believe that would go unpunished, if it were ever to happen anyway!!
There will NEVER be a healthy debate about it with people's entrenched ideas about who "gets away with it" etc etc.The law really doesn't protect the deceased party at all, be they pedestrians, other motorists, cyclists, whatever. There's always some lame pathetic "excuse" used by the defendant that the defence team plays out in court and the sentence is reduced or even found not guilty.
The use of lifetime driving bans is very limited in the UK, don't know why, maybe the motoring industry needs the business, even from convicted drivers!!
The standards of driving in the UK are through the floor, and ask the Police and the reply is the same, across the country...no resources, and that isn't a lie..lowest number of officers for 30yrs, crime on the up, and it's obvious that motoring/offences/policing of driving etc is not a priority anymore, even though it ought to be. The demand on the police is ridiculous, fuelled by social media "crime" while the real stuff goes begging, and driving skills and road diplomacy have simply vanished from our roads. GoPro footage of a near miss? Most police stations don't even have an enquiry desk, let alone some method of reporting it, and any belief it will be followed up.

Lookyhere

VinnyMarsden wrote:

I do think the thing about leniency given to car drivers is being stretched to silly proportions now isn't it.
The laws re deaths on our roads really do need a complete overhaul, they are way too lenient across the board, but the last comment really does highlight the us/them attitude. I mean, mounting spikes and killing people, really? Do you GENUINELY really believe that would go unpunished, if it were ever to happen anyway!!
There will NEVER be a healthy debate about it with people's entrenched ideas about who "gets away with it" etc etc.The law really doesn't protect the deceased party at all, be they pedestrians, other motorists, cyclists, whatever. There's always some lame pathetic "excuse" used by the defendant that the defence team plays out in court and the sentence is reduced or even found not guilty.
The use of lifetime driving bans is very limited in the UK, don't know why, maybe the motoring industry needs the business, even from convicted drivers!!
The standards of driving in the UK are through the floor, and ask the Police and the reply is the same, across the country...no resources, and that isn't a lie..lowest number of officers for 30yrs, crime on the up, and it's obvious that motoring/offences/policing of driving etc is not a priority anymore, even though it ought to be. The demand on the police is ridiculous, fuelled by social media "crime" while the real stuff goes begging, and driving skills and road diplomacy have simply vanished from our roads. GoPro footage of a near miss? Most police stations don't even have an enquiry desk, let alone some method of reporting it, and any belief it will be followed up.

The average sentence given to a car driver who kills a cyclist is 2 years, across all other motoring deaths, it is 3 years jail, judges come from society and society appears to despise cyclists.

Ref Driving standards, the problem isn't with the Police, no matter how many extra, they cant be everywhere.
we ve had a ridiculously easy driving test for decades, it hasn't kept up with car technology or ever reducing road space.

redvision

Lookyhere wrote:

we ve had a ridiculously easy driving test for decades, it hasn't kept up with car technology or ever reducing road space.

Don't you understand the irony with this statement though? This accident was caused by a road user whose mode of transport was not subject to any test. It was not only illegal for use on the road, it was being ridden by someone seemingly unaware of road safety and the highway code.

Sentences for causing death by dangerous road travel are definitely too lenient, but that goes for all cases including deaths caused by cyclists.

trivial_poursuivant

redvision wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

we ve had a ridiculously easy driving test for decades, it hasn't kept up with car technology or ever reducing road space.

Don't you understand the irony with this statement though? This accident was caused by a road user whose mode of transport was not subject to any test. It was not only illegal for use on the road, it was being ridden by someone seemingly unaware of road safety and the highway code.

Sentences for causing death by dangerous road travel are definitely too lenient, but that goes for all cases including deaths caused by cyclists.

If you go on the continent, school children get taught cycling safety. Lots of countries like Holland especially have shared paths or at least pedestrian and cycle paths side by side. Although not really a test as such they are at least getting educated in road safety on a bike. In Germany if there is a cycle path you are obliged to use it but on many roads in built up areas there are roads you can cycle on. I remember seeing big groups of kids out on bikes being taught how to ride safely on the roads. This is something we really should be doing more of. If we want to encourage more people to cycle we need to do more to educate them on road etiquette and safety. If we are going to make it legal for people to use roads without having a license (not suggesting we should go down that avenue) then we should at least be making sure they know what they are doing.

Lookyhere

redvision wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

we ve had a ridiculously easy driving test for decades, it hasn't kept up with car technology or ever reducing road space.

Don't you understand the irony with this statement though? This accident was caused by a road user whose mode of transport was not subject to any test. It was not only illegal for use on the road, it was being ridden by someone seemingly unaware of road safety and the highway code.

Sentences for causing death by dangerous road travel are definitely too lenient, but that goes for all cases including deaths caused by cyclists.

Context! in regard to driving standards raised by another poster and obviously not in connection with Alliston.

As i said, kill a cyclist and on avg you ll get a 2 year sentence, other road deaths attract a higher sentence of 3 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitne ... -cyclists/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 34187.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-e ... e-22397918

Multiple offender escapes jail "a momentary lapse of concentration" :roll:

stueys

Not often I get irritated at what I read on a forum but this is doing it for me. FFS, why are we talking about lorries and car driving standards?? Irrelevant to this case. What's with the cyclists against the world crap that gets dragged up every time.

He was in charge of an unroadworthy and, hence, illegal vehicle that hit and killed someone. The police have evidenced that a roadworthy vehicle would have been more likely to avoid the impact. So he's culpable through his actions. There isn't adequate legislation for cyclist accidents so the judge has used the closest available recourse to attempt to apply some justice.

We can all find cases where the legal process has failed, sadly that involves car drivers more than cyclists because of the numbers involved. That doesn't, and shouldn't, influence the outcome of this case one iota.

paul_onabike

A further article in The Guardian shows a more balanced view of the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

DeVlaeminck

Stueys wrote:

Not often I get irritated at what I read on a forum but this is doing it for me. FFS, why are we talking about lorries and car driving standards?? Irrelevant to this case. What's with the cyclists against the world crap that gets dragged up every time.

He was in charge of an unroadworthy and, hence, illegal vehicle that hit and killed someone. The police have evidenced that a roadworthy vehicle would have been more likely to avoid the impact. So he's culpable through his actions. There isn't adequate legislation for cyclist accidents so the judge has used the closest available recourse to attempt to apply some justice.

We can all find cases where the legal process has failed, sadly that involves car drivers more than cyclists because of the numbers involved. That doesn't, and shouldn't, influence the outcome of this case one iota.

But there was a charge suited to his offence and that is what he has been convicted of.

There was no need to look for a more serious charge - manslaughter - because while the outcome has been tragic the offence itself is not equivalent to the most serious driving offences which attract dangerous driving charges.

Basically this guy was doing what lots of people do on BMXs, fixeds and unroadworthy cycles - their actions aren't right but neither are they equivalent to racing a car at speed on a public road or somesuch. If a rear brake cable snapped I suggest all of us would feel ok about riding on with just a front even if we'd be committing an offence which just might end in a fatality. I doubt we'd all or even many of us would feel ok driving like a maniac.

bendertherobot

Paul Onabike wrote:

A further article in The Guardian shows a more balanced view of the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

Ignoring the fact that there are suitable offences to charge a motorist with and that a charge under section 35 would be unnecessary.

bendertherobot

In relation to sentencing, it's fun to guesstimate how a motorist would be treated in a similar case but it may be an idea to wait until he's sentenced to draw any real comparison.

StillGoing

Clearly a fair few prissy cyclists on here who just don't get the law.

thomasmorris

Stueys wrote:

He was in charge of an unroadworthy and, hence, illegal vehicle that hit and killed someone. The police have evidenced that a roadworthy vehicle would have been more likely to avoid the impact. So he's culpable through his actions.

Didn't the police estimate his stopping distance on a fixie as 12m? Which is a shorter distance than a car doing 20 mph?

Plenty of kids ride around with one brake. It's illegal, but i guess people rightly or wrongly believe they're only putting themselves at risk, like pedal reflectors... and its hardly as if the police are cracking down on it.

His bike was illegal, but, the lady stepped out, he swerved to avoid her, then she stepped back in to his path. (watch this video which shows a incident similar to this case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEHUEUDl4Dw&feature=youtu.be&t=48s
He claimed the illegality of the brake wasn't directly the reason for the death, as he had no chance to brake (when she stepped back in to his path). And as a result he I think rightly he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter.

Here is a illegal unroadworthy car which hit a group of cyclists. http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/cycling-tragedy-driver-fined-180-2889948. However, as it was icy he got off causing death by dangerous driving, as it's said deeper tread wouldn't have helped. Instead he was just fined and given points for the bald tyres.

However, the court probably felt riding around without a front brake, and weaving through pedestrians who step out was 'wanton and furious'. I'm not sure of the definition of 'wanton and furious' but I do believe cycling without a brake is a accident waiting to happen, even if it wasn't the sole cause of this accident (which would have been needed for manslaughter).

The most difficult thing about this case is how things we view as 'less serious crimes' are charged according to consequence. The Alliston case and the linked car with bald tyres are similar in that they were both involved in fatal accidents whilst in charge of a vehicle with was illegal and unroadworthy.

We're yet to see how Alliston's sentencing with compare to the drivers points and fine for his tyres.

vinnymarsden

I tend to agree with Stuey on this one...everyone trying to make comparisons...there are none to be made.The merits of the case against him are for his case alone.He is guilty, and quite truthfully, I think he dodged a bullet only being found on the lesser charge.He should in my personal opinion get the full 2 years.Forget he's a cyclist etc etc, and the car drivers get less boll ..cks..at the end of the day, his actions led to loss of life.His total lack of remorse will see him the wrong side of a cell door, and quite frankly, if that's what it takes to make people realise they need to shoulder their responsibilities then he deserves to learn a harsh lesson.We live in a society that seems unable to accept fault/blame etc when it is clearly staring you in the face.He has been judged at fault by a jury of his peers, now he must face the consequences of his lack of humility.

StillGoing

thomasmorris wrote:

He claimed the illegality of the brake wasn't directly the reason for the death, as he had no chance to brake (when she stepped back in to his path). And as a result he I think rightly he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter.
.

He wasn't found guilty of manslaughter simply because it was an inappropriate charge and impossible to prove.

For involuntary manslaughter the CPS would have to prove a duty of care to the deceased. A chance meeting between a pedestrian and a road user is not a duty of care in the essence of the intended meaning. Where the duty of care is established, the breach of that duty of care has to be significant. The breach has to be the act that caused the deceased's death. The accused's actions need to have been intentional. They'd have a hard job convincing a jury of that.

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

This is where the killing is the result of:

the defendant's unlawful act (not omission);
where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183;
whether or not the defendant realised this.
The act need not be directed against a person (e.g. arson) - see R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880.

The knowledge attributed to the sober and reasonable person is that which such a person would acquire as an observer of the whole course of the defendant's conduct throughout the unlawful act: R v Watson (1989) 2 All ER 865, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, R v Carey and others (2006) EWCA Crim 17.

In manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused's state of mind is relevant only to establish that the act was committed intentionally and that it was an unlawful act.

Once these points are established the question whether the act was dangerous is to be judged not by the appellant's appreciation but that of the sober and reasonable man and it is impossible to impute the mistaken belief of the defendant that what he was doing was not dangerous: R v Ball 1989 CLR 730.

Fact is though, that you are still trying to justify lenience on Alliston's behalf because you believe cyclists get a worse deal in RTCs. The us and them attitude has to stop. Cyclists can be just as big a moron as a vehicle driver. If someone kills somebody as a result of their actions on the road, the charging options should be equal no matter what the mode of transport or what section of the community you're from. Arguing otherwise is typical us and them and has no basis in law.

mamba80

VinnyMarsden wrote:

I tend to agree with Stuey on this one...everyone trying to make comparisons...there are none to be made.The merits of the case against him are for his case alone.He is guilty, and quite truthfully, I think he dodged a bullet only being found on the lesser charge.He should in my personal opinion get the full 2 years.Forget he's a cyclist etc etc, and the car drivers get less boll ..cks..at the end of the day, his actions led to loss of life.His total lack of remorse will see him the wrong side of a cell door, and quite frankly, if that's what it takes to make people realise they need to shoulder their responsibilities then he deserves to learn a harsh lesson.We live in a society that seems unable to accept fault/blame etc when it is clearly staring you in the face.He has been judged at fault by a jury of his peers, now he must face the consequences of his lack of humility.

I can see the merit in your argument, he should certainly shoulder his proportion of the blame here and his subsequent actions and be punished BUT and this is where we might differ, this woman crossed the road without checking all was clear, surely she must also be held responsible for her action?
In the vast majority of cases where a cyclist hits a pedestrian, its the cyclist who comes off far worse, the pedestrian will not be prosecuted, a recent case in Reading resulted in the riders death, he was 26.

thomasmorris

philthy3 you miss my point... the unlawful act needs to be the direct cause of the death. Which is why I compare it to the linked car with bald tyres... the bald tyres are unlawful but it as found didn't cause the death, hence not manslaughter.

You do not have to have a 'duty of care'. I think you're confusing yourself with involuntary manslaughter through gross negligence which is a different charge again.

I'm not defending him at all, either. I don't think cyclists come off unfavourably or anything, either.

I don't understand the wanton and furious cycling charge to comment on it. But I think it's useful to compare to the driver with bald tyres = illegal and unroadworthy, but not directly the cause of the death. He wasn't charged with manslaughter and was subsequently fined for tyres, you'd expect parity for the cyclist? I.e. charged for riding a illegal bike?

thomasmorris

VinnyMarsden wrote:

Forget he's a cyclist etc etc, and the car drivers get less boll ..cks..at the end of the day, his actions led to loss of life.

But... did they? did the lack of front brake cause the death? Obviously not otherwise he would have been found guilty of manslaughter. Seems like she stepped back in to his path after he swerved around her and a brake wouldn't have helped.

Instead he's been found guilty of wanton and furious cycling. I'm not sure really what that is... it seems very poorly defined. Does anyone else know? It seems the court thinks Alliston was, but what else would constitute it?

I don't like poorly defined laws as it's hard to know when you're on the right or wrong side of them. Could I be charged with wanton and furious cycling if I hit someone?

StillGoing

thomasmorris wrote:

philthy3 you miss my point... the unlawful act needs to be the direct cause of the death. Which is why I compare it to the linked car with bald tyres... the bald tyres are unlawful but it as found didn't cause the death, hence not manslaughter.

You do not have to have a 'duty of care'. I think you're confusing yourself with involuntary manslaughter through gross negligence which is a different charge again.

I'm not defending him at all, either. I don't think cyclists come off unfavourably or anything, either.

I don't understand the wanton and furious cycling charge to comment on it. But I think it's useful to compare to the driver with bald tyres = illegal and unroadworthy, but not directly the cause of the death. He wasn't charged with manslaughter and was subsequently fined for tyres, you'd expect parity for the cyclist? I.e. charged for riding a illegal bike?

Death by dangerous driving refers to either the manner of driving, or the condition of the vehicle. Driving a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition is dangerous and the case is proved. It is an objective test and not subjective.

Riding a pedal cycle with no front brake is dangerous and unlawful. If the offence of riding a pedal cycle in a dangerous condition or causing death by dangerous cycling existed, Alliston would be guilty of them.

I am not confusing involuntary manslaughter with anything. Duty of care or an intention to do an unlawful act has to be present. The grossness of that act has to be taken into consideration for manslaughter and be the direct causation of the death. Allistons riding a bike with no front brake, wasn't directly the cause, so manslaughter wouldn't be proved on the sliding scale of balance of probability. The deceased walking into the road without looking was a contributing factor. Same rules apply with the majority of fatalities with vehicle RTCs. If causing death by dangerous (the unlawful condition of Alliston's bike) existed, it would be an entirely appropriate charge and easily proved at court. On conviction, he could easily receive a 2 - 5 year sentence, just the same as and car, lorry, bus, tractor etc etc driver.

StillGoing

thomasmorris wrote:

VinnyMarsden wrote:

Forget he's a cyclist etc etc, and the car drivers get less boll ..cks..at the end of the day, his actions led to loss of life.

But... did they? did the lack of front brake cause the death? Obviously not otherwise he would have been found guilty of manslaughter. Seems like she stepped back in to his path after he swerved around her and a brake wouldn't have helped.

Instead he's been found guilty of wanton and furious cycling. I'm not sure really what that is... it seems very poorly defined. Does anyone else know? It seems the court thinks Alliston was, but what else would constitute it?

I don't like poorly defined laws as it's hard to know when you're on the right or wrong side of them. Could I be charged with wanton and furious cycling if I hit someone?

Wanton or furious cycling is merely causing bodily harm to others.

Wanton and Furious Driving
The offence of wanton and furious driving under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is committed when bodily harm (i.e. injury) is caused to any person as a result of the manner of driving of a suspect and is not limited to motor vehicles but covers any kind of vehicle or carriage including bicycles.

It is an offence triable only on indictment (except when committed by a youth).

The offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Penalty points and discretionary disqualification can be imposed by the courts under section 28 of the Road Safety Act 2006.

The offence can only be committed if the driver has a degree of subjective recklessness so far as the foreseeabilty of causing injury is concerned. In other words, he or she must appreciate that harm was possible or probable as a result of the manner of driving: see R v Okosi [1996] CLR 666.

Charging Practice

Prosecutors should only prosecute this offence when it is not possible to prosecute for an offence under the RTA 1988, for example:

when the driving was not on a road or other public place;
when the vehicle used was not a mechanically propelled vehicle (such as a bicycle or horse drawn vehicle);
when a Notice of Intended Prosecution has not been given (unless such a course might be regarded by the courts as amounting to an abuse of process).
When a vehicle has been deliberately used as a weapon and has caused injury prosecutors should normally prosecute for the offence of dangerous driving or a specific assault under other provisions in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, subject to there being sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, for one of those offences.

StillGoing

mamba80 wrote:

In the vast majority of cases where a cyclist hits a pedestrian, its the cyclist who comes off far worse, the pedestrian will not be prosecuted, a recent case in Reading resulted in the riders death, he was 26.

What absolute poppycock. You're very hypocritical. On the one hand you claim 100% that cyclists and pedestrians will come off worse with serious or fatal injuries in an impact with a vehicle, yet cyclists will come off worse in an impact with a pedestrian. Get over yourself.

thomasmorris

philthy3 wrote:

thomasmorris wrote:

philthy3 you miss my point... the unlawful act needs to be the direct cause of the death. Which is why I compare it to the linked car with bald tyres... the bald tyres are unlawful but it as found didn't cause the death, hence not manslaughter.

Death by dangerous driving refers to either the manner of driving, or the condition of the vehicle. Driving a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition is dangerous and the case is proved. It is an objective test and not subjective.

Have you read the linked article? The drivers tyres were bald, i.e the condition of the vehicle was dangerous. But the driver was not charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Rather than copy and past references to cases can you explain how the above situation with bald car tyres is different to Alliston with no front brake?

You say just proving the condition of the car proves the case, but this is not true, as you have to also prove that the condition directly lead to the death. The fact the driver was not charged with death by dangerous driving rather proves this, and is why it's comparable to the Alliston case.

Anyway, Alliston was found not guilty of manslaughter, so like I said, I think justice was done there.

What I don't, and despite your copy and paste, still do not understand is the causing wanton and furious cycling. This is what he's been found guilty of. Was it that he had no front brake which was 'wanton and furious'? Or trying to cut behind the lady / weave through rather than stop? Unlike manslaughter do you not have to prove that the wanton and furious driving was the cause of the injury for it to be proven?

Lookyhere

philthy3 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

In the vast majority of cases where a cyclist hits a pedestrian, its the cyclist who comes off far worse, the pedestrian will not be prosecuted, a recent case in Reading resulted in the riders death, he was 26.

What absolute poppycock. You're very hypocritical. On the one hand you claim 100% that cyclists and pedestrians will come off worse with serious or fatal injuries in an impact with a vehicle, yet cyclists will come off worse in an impact with a pedestrian. Get over yourself.

Check the stats, its also just Physics, he also said that in the majority of cases, not 100% you need to learn to read.

You also seem very angry, were you once hit by a bicycle as a child? did your over bearing mother beat you with a bicycle pump?

surrey_commuter

thomasmorris wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

thomasmorris wrote:

philthy3 you miss my point... the unlawful act needs to be the direct cause of the death. Which is why I compare it to the linked car with bald tyres... the bald tyres are unlawful but it as found didn't cause the death, hence not manslaughter.

Death by dangerous driving refers to either the manner of driving, or the condition of the vehicle. Driving a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition is dangerous and the case is proved. It is an objective test and not subjective.

Have you read the linked article? The drivers tyres were bald, i.e the condition of the vehicle was dangerous. But the driver was not charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Rather than copy and past references to cases can you explain how the above situation with bald car tyres is different to Alliston with no front brake?

You say just proving the condition of the car proves the case, but this is not true, as you have to also prove that the condition directly lead to the death. The fact the driver was not charged with death by dangerous driving rather proves this, and is why it's comparable to the Alliston case.

Anyway, Alliston was found not guilty of manslaughter, so like I said, I think justice was done there.

What I don't, and despite your copy and paste, still do not understand is the causing wanton and furious cycling. This is what he's been found guilty of. Was it that he had no front brake which was 'wanton and furious'? Or trying to cut behind the lady / weave through rather than stop? Unlike manslaughter do you not have to prove that the wanton and furious driving was the cause of the injury for it to be proven?

The bloke with bald tyres was on black ice so it was judged that the condition of the tyres had no impact on his ability to stop.

StillGoing

thomasmorris wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

thomasmorris wrote:

philthy3 you miss my point... the unlawful act needs to be the direct cause of the death. Which is why I compare it to the linked car with bald tyres... the bald tyres are unlawful but it as found didn't cause the death, hence not manslaughter.

Death by dangerous driving refers to either the manner of driving, or the condition of the vehicle. Driving a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition is dangerous and the case is proved. It is an objective test and not subjective.

Have you read the linked article? The drivers tyres were bald, i.e the condition of the vehicle was dangerous. But the driver was not charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Rather than copy and past references to cases can you explain how the above situation with bald car tyres is different to Alliston with no front brake?

You say just proving the condition of the car proves the case, but this is not true, as you have to also prove that the condition directly lead to the death. The fact the driver was not charged with death by dangerous driving rather proves this, and is why it's comparable to the Alliston case.

Anyway, Alliston was found not guilty of manslaughter, so like I said, I think justice was done there.

What I don't, and despite your copy and paste, still do not understand is the causing wanton and furious cycling. This is what he's been found guilty of. Was it that he had no front brake which was 'wanton and furious'? Or trying to cut behind the lady / weave through rather than stop? Unlike manslaughter do you not have to prove that the wanton and furious driving was the cause of the injury for it to be proven?

Why do you persist with an us and them attitude? Every day there are cases that appear before the courts with lesser charges than usually anticipated be that theft act, Road traffic act, offences against the person etc. Pleading mitigation for Alliston just because someone else got a lesser charge does not make him innocent.

It is arguable that the condition of Alliston's bike in having no brakes, was a contributing factor to the collision along with his inappropriate speed for the location. With brakes and reduced speed, he may have been able to stop or have been able to take avoiding action.

I suggest you take it up with the CPS if you want to argue why A was charged with this and B was charged with that.

Dangerous Driving
Prosecutors should note the following relevant factors:

Both parts of the definition must be satisfied for the driving to be "dangerous" within the meaning of the Act - Section 2A(1) of the RTA 1988.
There is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but "dangerous" must refer to danger of personal injury or of serious damage to property - Section 2A(3) of the RTA 1988.
Section 2A(2) of the RTA 1988 provides that a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.When considering the state of the vehicle, regard may be had to anything carried by of attached to the vehicle - Section 2A(4) of the RTA 1988.
Skill (or indeed lack of skill) of a driver is an irrelevant circumstance when considering whether the driving is dangerous. R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571

Causing death by dangerous driving
The offence of causing death by dangerous driving is committed under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) when the suspect's driving is a cause or factor in the death of another person and the driving was dangerous. By "dangerous" we mean within the meaning of section 2A of the RTA 1988, i.e. the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

The examples given in relation to dangerous driving also apply to this offence. See examples listed under the Dangerous Driving section.

It is an offence triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment, by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and/or an unlimited fine.

The court must disqualify the driver from driving for at least 2 years, unless special reasons are found for not disqualifying (in which case it must endorse the driver's licence with 3 - 11 penalty points, again, unless there are special reasons not to do so). An extended retest is also mandatory.

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:

racing or competitive driving;
failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home;
speed, which is particularly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;
aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;
disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;
disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;
overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;
driving when knowingly suffering from a medical or physical condition that significantly and dangerously impairs the offender's driving skills such as having an arm or leg in plaster, or impaired eyesight. It can include the failure to take prescribed medication;
driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest;
driving a vehicle knowing it has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously loaded;
using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment whether as a phone or to compose or read text messages when the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that use; R v Browning (2001) EWCA Crim 1831, R v Payne [2007] EWCA Crim 157;
driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment such as a radio, hands-free mobile phone or satellite navigation equipment;
a brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre. This covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be dangerous even for only a short time. Cases that illustrate this principle include:
Att.Gens' Reference No 32 of 2001 (2002) 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 121 (offender failed to stop at a junction where there was a give way sign, failing to see a taxi that was being driven across the junction perfectly properly and colliding with it);
Att.Gen's Reference No 4 of 2000 2000]) EWCA Crim 780 (offender unintentionally pressed the accelerator instead of the brake);
Att.Gen's Reference No.76 of 2002 (Hodges) (2003) 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 100 (offender drove across a junction marked by a give way sign and collided with a car that was being driven along the major road and had no explanation for his failure to see the other car) "this was a single misjudgement. It was a bad misjudgement but nevertheless a single one" (p.423).
It is not necessary to consider what the driver thought about the possible consequences of his actions: simply whether or not a competent and careful driver would have observed, appreciated and guarded against obvious and material dangers.

In the case of a vehicle in such a state of disrepair as to be dangerous, consideration should be given to whether the vehicle should have been driven at all, as well as to how it was driven in the particular circumstances.

StillGoing

Lookyhere wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

In the vast majority of cases where a cyclist hits a pedestrian, its the cyclist who comes off far worse, the pedestrian will not be prosecuted, a recent case in Reading resulted in the riders death, he was 26.

What absolute poppycock. You're very hypocritical. On the one hand you claim 100% that cyclists and pedestrians will come off worse with serious or fatal injuries in an impact with a vehicle, yet cyclists will come off worse in an impact with a pedestrian. Get over yourself.

Check the stats, its also just Physics, he also said that in the majority of cases, not 100% you need to learn to read.

You also seem very angry, were you once hit by a bicycle as a child? did your over bearing mother beat you with a bicycle pump?

Oh another prissy cyclist who thinks they're only ever the victims.