Alliston case

ugo.santalucia

Ultimately riding a bike without brakes is against the law and this equates to dangerous driving, so the consequences have to be the same.

There is an argument that nothing is currently done to prevent the sale of bicycles without brakes for road use. Track bikes and frames should come with sticker warnings, as I suspect many out there don't know they are not road legal. It also wouldn't take much to have an awareness week where coppers in central London stop folks with no brakes

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

Bald tyres will give more grip than treaded tyres in certain conditions.

veronese68

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Ultimately riding a bike without brakes is against the law and this equates to dangerous driving, so the consequences have to be the same.

I've read previously something along the lines of the punishment should fit the crime not the consequences. This is when a driver has done something illegal, but not uncommon, like using a phone. An unfortunate cyclist just happened to be in the way and was unfortunately left in a wheelchair. But the driver gets done for being on the phone, not for maiming someone. If a similar principle is applied here that would explain why manslaughter failed and the other charge was found guilty. So yes, the consequences should be the same. Maybe penalties for some driving offences should be increased.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

There is an argument that nothing is currently done to prevent the sale of bicycles without brakes for road use. Track bikes and frames should come with sticker warnings, as I suspect many out there don't know they are not road legal. It also wouldn't take much to have an awareness week where coppers in central London stop folks with no brakes

Very much so. I've seen exhausts fitted to motorbikes with "not for road use" stamped on them, something similar should be done. Looking at the PX website last week the track bikes section says they are built for indoor track racing, but does not clearly state they are not for use on roads.

Garry H

The manslaughter charge (Rejected by the Jury) related to the unlawful act of riding without a front brake. Negligence didn't even come into it, therefore proving a duty of care was completely irrelevant (Incidentally it's possible that a duty of care may not be owed to someone who steps out onto a highway in front of a vehicle. Which is probably why that charge was never applied in the first place). That was my understanding, though I'm not a lawyer. Then again, some of those above don't appear to be either...

thomasmorris

philthy3 wrote:

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.

Gosh, you're really cranky about this.

I'm not going on about a them and us. In fact I'm saying the opposite. They both seem to be treated similarly. There just aren't many examples similar to this case, and the bald tyres has many similarities.

Man drives with bald tyres = illegal
Man driving with bald tyres is involved in a fatal accident.
Bald tyres found not to be a contributing factor in the accident.
Man is not convicted of death by dangerous driving (equivalent of manslaughter).

Man cycles with no front brake = illegal
Man cycling with no front brake is involved in a fatal accident.
No brake not found to be sole contributing factor in the accident.
Man is not convicted of manslaughter.

What I am interested in is the wanton and furious cycling conviction. You've copied a load of text, but what is wanton and furious cycling? Was it just not having a brake, or were there other factors such as his speed and his reaction (swerving rather than stopping).

In this other case there are many things wrong with the bike all of which could be tied to the death. IMO this cyclist got off lightly not being sent down for manslaughter.

Anyway, riding without a front brake is stupid and you're asking for a accident on the roads. But from what i've read on this case I'd struggle to conclude that the lack of the brake sole contributing factor in the death; so I agree with the not guilty for manslaughter.

For wanton and furious cycling does the illegality of the bike only have to be contributing factor? Or is the whole picture of riding style considered? It's this I don't understand.

tangled_metal

Mambo made the point something along the lines that the pedestrian stepped back so should accept some of the blame. Can't be bothered reading back for exact words but it read something like Alliston took all the consequences. I'd just like to point out that if she'd still be alive I'm sure I'd be perfectly happy for her involvement to be investigated and a prosecution case made if appropriate. It's just a real shame she's not alive!

rpherts

I have cycled down this road, at rush hour, many times. You would have to be certifiable to ride down it with no brake other than tyre resistance. Very busy road, buses, taxis, vans, cars, lorries, other cyclists, pedestrians constantly walking into the road, poor road surface in places, junctions, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, taxis performing U-turns without notice, buses overtaking you and then pulling in sharply to a bus stop.

tangled_metal

The manslaughter charge wasn't rejected just found not guilty. Rejection of the charge would have been the judge throwing it out due to insufficient evidence. Not what happened, the jury heard the full case and gave a not guilty verdict. "Throwing out" implies something a bit more significant in that it is saying no case to answer. There was a case, it was made and found insufficient to secure a conviction.

thefd

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

Bald tyres will give more grip than treaded tyres in certain conditions.

I'm genuinely wondering what conditions?

thomasmorris

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

Yes I know. And it was found not to be a contributing factor in the deaths.

It's a similar situation to Alliston. I.e. illegal vehicle and fatal accident. The question then is how much of a factor was the illegality. In the case of the driver I guess the CPS (as it didn't go to court?) decided the tyres weren't at all a factor and he only got points and fine for the tyres.

In Allistons case I guess the brake was found not to be the sole contributing factor (hence not manslaughter); but my question is, how much is the brake a factor in the wanton and furious cycling charge. Or was it his more general riding style coupled with the lack of brake?

pblakeney

TheFD wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

Bald tyres will give more grip than treaded tyres in certain conditions.

I'm genuinely wondering what conditions?

Dry for one. Why do you think race teams use slicks?
Not sure the grip differential on ice. Can't imagine treads make a difference.

Lookyhere

philthy3 wrote:

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.

Alliston has been found guilty of the relevant charge and will be sentenced in accordance with the law and the judges discretion, that is correct and proper, i dont think anyone has argued he is innocent and i ve not argued for lenient treatment for him and harsher punishment for a car driver, again no one else has either.

What you are incapable of seeing is the log that is the 100's of cyclists killed on our roads each year, continually pointing out the speck that is Alliston, focus on the bigger picture and campaign against all road deaths and the inconsistencies that exist in our justice system.

also, seek therapy for your anger too.

thefd

PBlakeney wrote:

TheFD wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

Bald tyres will give more grip than treaded tyres in certain conditions.

I'm genuinely wondering what conditions?

Dry for one. Why do you think race teams use slicks?
Not sure the grip differential on ice. Can't imagine treads make a difference.

Yep that makes sense.

andyh01

I've drafted so many reply's and essay style responses to this, then not posted, I now feel the need to comment.

Quote from above discussion;
"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?"

I believe, it is the fact of having no front brake, which is the "only" illegal act that was committed. Alliston's bike didn't meet the construction requirements... of being more than 635mm? tall and having no front brake (not a secondary stopping method, as he had THREE STOPPING methods; rear brake, back peddling & feet) which I understand he was found guilty of... no front brake...which appears to come under the "wanton and furious" charge.

I have moraley questioned this myself for too long.... I end up back at the same questions;

Should cycling come under the same laborious litigation as prescribed under the Road Traffic Act? A question I have longed asked myself; If on a bike, do I want to be"classed" as a mechanically propelled vehicle"?

Should the "outcome" of any failure/omission be taken into account, when considering criminal conviction; opposed to that of a "civil wrong?

When does the Law stop being Criminal Law and becomes Civil Law; Are the two mutually exclusive or are they, as appears in this case intertwined?

tangled_metal

By your measure 2 brakes, back pedaling and feet. Although not possible at the same time so really only the one brake. You do know there wasn't a back brake other than resisting the pedals rotation don't you?

StillGoing

Lookyhere wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

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.

Alliston has been found guilty of the relevant charge and will be sentenced in accordance with the law and the judges discretion, that is correct and proper, i dont think anyone has argued he is innocent and i ve not argued for lenient treatment for him and harsher punishment for a car driver, again no one else has either.

What you are incapable of seeing is the log that is the 100's of cyclists killed on our roads each year, continually pointing out the speck that is Alliston, focus on the bigger picture and campaign against all road deaths and the inconsistencies that exist in our justice system.

also, seek therapy for your anger too.

Enough with the attitude already. I'm not the one losing their rag here. Maybe a mirror is what you ought to be considering.

Nobody agreeing Alliston should face a similar charge to that of a MPV driver in similar circumstances, has made any mention of cyclists deaths being any less important than any other deaths on the roads. What he has been found guilty of is a lesser charge and will not allow the sentencing Judge to prefer a custodial anywhere near as stern as a death by dangerous one. All people are IMO rightly calling for, is for cyclists to be treated equally when it comes to road traffic offences, particularly causing death by dangerous or inconsiderate.

StillGoing

thomasmorris wrote:

but my question is, how much is the brake a factor in the wanton and furious cycling charge. Or was it his more general riding style coupled with the lack of brake?

The brake makes no difference. Ride a perfectly serviceable and road legal bike in a manner that causes injury (or in Alliston's case death) and the offence is committed. It is such an archaic offence it is rarely used a) because cyclists rarely stop and if they do, don't provide a name and address to any non-Police demanding one and b) the majority of General Duties police don't know it exists half the time. I'm not sure how prevalent deaths from cycling collisions were at the time of the offence introduction, but I doubt it was many if any. It is long overdue change.

bendertherobot

philthy3 wrote:

thomasmorris wrote:

but my question is, how much is the brake a factor in the wanton and furious cycling charge. Or was it his more general riding style coupled with the lack of brake?

The brake makes no difference. Ride a perfectly serviceable and road legal bike in a manner that causes injury (or in Alliston's case death) and the offence is committed. It is such an archaic offence it is rarely used a) because cyclists rarely stop and if they do, don't provide a name and address to any non-Police demanding one and b) the majority of General Duties police don't know it exists half the time. I'm not sure how prevalent deaths from cycling collisions were at the time of the offence introduction, but I doubt it was many if any. It is long overdue change.

In the absence of having heard the whole case and being able to question the jury as to why they convicted we have absolutely no idea why they convicted him under section 35.

andyh01

Tangled Metal wrote:

By your measure 2 brakes, back pedaling and feet. Although not possible at the same time so really only the one brake. You do know there wasn't a back brake other than resisting the pedals rotation don't you?

Fair point.. feet and back peddling, can't be done at same time....

No, another ambiguity by the conflicting reports I have read, as to whether there was a "traditional" type lever operated brake on the rear .... as well as back peddling.....

The focus has very much centered on the differential braking performance between front and rear braking, which, again I have considerable concerns about future precedent.

Again it comes down to the question of whether it was illegal and therefore criminal under the constructions of use... of not having a FRONT brake (criminal) ... or contributory tort of negligent (Civil wrong against the person) .. not having a front brake contributed....

andyh01

The brake makes no difference. Ride a perfectly serviceable and road legal bike in a manner that causes injury (or in Alliston's case death) and the offence is committed.

Are you suggesting Sir, other than for the omission of a front brake, Mr Alliston, would otherwise still have faced charges?On what charges please

tangled_metal

AndyH01 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

By your measure 2 brakes, back pedaling and feet. Although not possible at the same time so really only the one brake. You do know there wasn't a back brake other than resisting the pedals rotation don't you?

Fair point.. feet and back peddling, can't be done at same time....

No, another ambiguity by the conflicting reports I have read, as to whether there was a "traditional" type lever operated brake on the rear .... as well as back peddling....

http://www.planetx.co.uk/c/q/bikes/track-bikes/pro-carbon-track-bike
This is the bike according to all reports that gave the bike brand and model. No mounting points for any brakes if you look at the photographs and no mention on the write up.

No ambiguity if you go to the brand's website.

bendertherobot

There were no brakes. That much is absolutely clear from the reporting. Alliston's only mechanism of braking, which contravened the Construction and Use Regs, was his fixed wheel.

tangled_metal

BTW the height of seat means BMX bikes without brakes are unlikely to contravene the con and use regs AFAIK. Same with kids coaster braked bikes.

Lookyhere

philthy3 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

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.

Alliston has been found guilty of the relevant charge and will be sentenced in accordance with the law and the judges discretion, that is correct and proper, i dont think anyone has argued he is innocent and i ve not argued for lenient treatment for him and harsher punishment for a car driver, again no one else has either.

What you are incapable of seeing is the log that is the 100's of cyclists killed on our roads each year, continually pointing out the speck that is Alliston, focus on the bigger picture and campaign against all road deaths and the inconsistencies that exist in our justice system.

also, seek therapy for your anger too.

Enough with the attitude already. I'm not the one losing their rag here. Maybe a mirror is what you ought to be considering.

Nobody agreeing Alliston should face a similar charge to that of a MPV driver in similar circumstances, has made any mention of cyclists deaths being any less important than any other deaths on the roads. What he has been found guilty of is a lesser charge and will not allow the sentencing Judge to prefer a custodial anywhere near as stern as a death by dangerous one. All people are IMO rightly calling for, is for cyclists to be treated equally when it comes to road traffic offences, particularly causing death by dangerous or inconsiderate.

Sorry but you are the one popping up with Prissy and such remarks... to anyone who you dont agree with.... intolerant i d say too lol!
i on the other hand respect your opinion, even if i dont agree with it.

If only cyclists were treated equally in the eyes of the law, the evidence on the length of jail terms given to drivers who kill a cyclist shows it not the case at all.

The only reason Alliston has generated such debate is because it is an extremely rare type of accident, a change in the law is not necessary, legislation cannot be there for every eventuality, he faces a 2 year jail term, the average sentence given to a car driver who kills a cyclist or do you think he should receive a higher term?

pblakeney

Why not simply wait for the sentencing before getting all uppity?

andyh01

Quote;
http://www.planetx.co.uk/c/q/bikes/track-bikes/pro-carbon-track-bike
This is the bike according to all reports that gave the bike brand and model. No mounting points for any brakes if you look at the photographs and no mention on the write up.

No ambiguity if you go to the brand's website.[/quote]

We're getting hung up on semantics here;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983 ... 176_en.pdf

suggests cycles with four or more wheels needs;

7. - (1) (b) (i) if it is so constructed that one or more of the wheels is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with a braking system operating on the front wheel or, if it has more than one front wheel, on at least two front wheels....

As been accepted, a "FRONT" brake seams pivotal on a cycle, given the difference in stopping distance. One can only assume, a back brake only is equivalent to that of "back peddling"?

Again it comes down to;
When does the Law stop being Criminal Law and becomes Civil Law; Are the two mutually exclusive or are they, as appears in this case intertwined?

And

Should the "outcome" of any failure/omission be taken into account, when considering criminal conviction; opposed to that of a "civil wrong?

As well as
Should cycling come under the same laborious litigation as prescribed under the Road Traffic Act? A question I have longed asked myself; If on a bike, do I want to be"classed" as a mechanically propelled vehicle"?

andyh01

In fact. Having read this and understanding the literal meaning of the word "carriage" meaning " horse drawn carriage" that typically would have four wheels, should the "wanton and furious" charge stand? Or should the meaning take into account those " carriages" with two wheels...? Hmm need to cjeck back on wording of wanton furious....

bendertherobot

There is no legal doubt whatsoever that section 35 applies to pedal cycles.

andyh01

Sorry S35 of what... the RTA 1983 as amended 1994? part Vi..?

bendertherobot

AndyH01 wrote:

Sorry S35 of what... the RTA 1983 as amended 1994? part Vi..?

The wanton charge is section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.