Alliston case

andyh01

The wording of S35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58), s. 1(2)) is as follows: “35. Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”

- What is the 19th cenry literal meaning of the word driving" and "carriage" to me it springs to mind horse drawn 4 wheel carriages?

Also it appears yyou can only be charged with this offence... if you cause injury...?

"You can be charged under many arcane laws for all sorts of things. Unfortunately your average copper today lacks sufficient knowledge. Happily it's still legal to shoot any Welchman (sic) found within the Walls of Chester after the curfew bell - though you must use a crossbow.
Legal note: this may no longer be the ca"

bendertherobot

Carriages include bicycles and have done since Taylor v Goodwin. And, yes, you can only be charged with this if you cause an injury. Other charges under the RTA are available where there is no injury.

It's nice to be questioning of matters but, really, section 35 applies to cyclists.

andyh01

Thank-you for citing that case and clarifying that point ...

Do you concur that the "only" offence committed, was the omission of the front brake? ie wopuld nhe be guilty opf any other crime.. other than the missing brake?

bendertherobot

AndyH01 wrote:

Thank-you for citing that case and clarifying that point ...

Do you concur that the "only" offence committed, was the omission of the front brake? ie wopuld nhe be guilty opf any other crime.. other than the missing brake?

I've no idea as I didn't listen to all the available evidence.

andyh01

Fair point... if I may rephrased and I'm honestly not trying pick an argument with you, but just suppose the facts are as reported in the media;
The bike was illegal, due to no front brake - agreed?Carries up to 2 years for the criminal act, correct? State v individual person as so serious, correct?

What other "crime" could Mr Alliston be guilty of (other than manslaughter)?

Then comes the "civil case" individual V individual - not as serious and doesn't carry any custodial sentence, but could incur unlimited fine and injunctions etc correct?

My current understanding is as everything else is circumstantial, which either mitigated or contributed to the accident and is therefore more concerned with apportioning blame which is for the civil wrong opposed to criminal, would you agree?

surrey_commuter

I saw a fixie being ridden on the pavement today but the pilot had made the absence of any brakes irrelevant as he was riding no hands

tangled_metal

I don't know what the answer you are looking for but simply put the jury, after hearing /seeing all evidence and arguments, has passed a judgement. That is manslaughter is not guilty but the arcane law was a guilty decision. As much as you want to argue legal points the jury will have more information on this than you have. The judge will have made sure they understood the arguments and the finer points of the law.

It was a criminal case. If there is any civil case then I guess that would possibly mean the family would have to proceed with that. If that happens it is their business.

Criminal cases are in the public interest. It is good that this case was heard and good it has raised traffic law related to deaths. It is long time for all laws relating to use of carriageways to be reviewed. With luck it will be rationalized and equalized between different modes of transport as appropriate. I don't hold my breath.

andyh01

The judge will have made sure they understood the arguments and the finer points of the law.

It was a criminal case. If there is any civil case then I guess that would possibly mean the family would have to proceed with that. If that happens it is their business.

Criminal cases are in the public interest. It is good that this case was heard and good it has raised traffic law related to deaths. It is long time for all laws relating to use of carriageways to be reviewed. With luck it will be rationalized and equalized between different modes of transport as appropriate....

In some ways I agree, in others I don't.... Was it death of or the omission of a front brake that is the "illegal" part? The precedent I can see arising is say, an inefficient /defective front brake... or the braking skills of a person on bike were that, for the fear of their own safety (of being worried of going over handle bars) panicked and used a rear brake as well as trying to swerve, collided and caused the death of someone...

As I understand, the family of the deceased are considering legal action in a civil case, once sentencing has passed. albeit I'm not sure who be liable for any awards? It's not as though third party liability insurance is compulsory for cyclists.... under the RTA .....

The Law should remain Equitable... not equal to the perceived risk/hazard measured in frequency and severity.

Its interesting to note, from stats I've seen posted here approx. 55% of all those drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous drivers serve time behind bars, yet the 3 cases I'm aware of where cyclists have killed, has depending on this sentence, resulted in 100% custodial sentences been handed down.

andyh01

Laws/primary legislation is amended... as our understanding (tested in the Courts) progresses and interprets the meaning meant by statute.

tangled_metal

That might seem like cyclists get a raw deal, but what if the only cyclists cases are all equivalent to the most serious car cases and highly provable. What I'm saying is for cyclists to kill it takes a lot more than a car driver to kill. This means it might not be directly comparable to motorist's cases.

pblakeney

Meanwhile, we are on the brink of thermonuclear war.
#perspective.

redvision

Tangled Metal wrote:

What I'm saying is for cyclists to kill it takes a lot more than a car driver to kill.

But this incident shows this is not the case.
A cyclist colliding with a pedestrian is just as likely to kill as a car hitting a pedestrian - if travelling at a similar speed. If the head suffers an impact from a car windscreen or concrete the injuries are often severe.

I think too many people on this thread are being overly protective of the cyclist. At the end of the day he was responsible for the death of someone by using a defective bicycle (for use on the public highway). No point in arguing about the law and ifs and buts, no point comparing the case to a motorised vehicle collision. He has been found guilty in a court of law. Sadly whatever sentence he receives will never bring the victim back.

tangled_metal

It took a wanton and furious cyclist to result in the death. With cars it only needs a slight distraction and you're seeing a pedestrians head smashing your windscreen. I'd say that's a big difference in what it takes to kill between the two transport modes.

BTW I'm relieved Alliston was found guilty. I think there's been a few benefits from this case.

thomasmorris

redvision wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

What I'm saying is for cyclists to kill it takes a lot more than a car driver to kill.

But this incident shows this is not the case.
A cyclist colliding with a pedestrian is just as likely to kill as a car hitting a pedestrian - if travelling at a similar speed. If the head suffers an impact from a car windscreen or concrete the injuries are often severe.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion about likelihood from one incident? This is just the type of flat earth thinking that the media is pumping out.

If you want a demonstration, drop a pebble on your foot, then drop a rock. Both travel at the same speed, but the heavier object will cause more harm. You may get terribly unlucky and the pebble may hit your foot at just the right angle to break a bone... but in all likelihood the rock will cause more damage.

redvision

thomasmorris wrote:

How on earth did you come to that conclusion about likelihood from one incident? This is just the type of flat earth thinking that the media is pumping out.

If you want a demonstration, drop a pebble on your foot, then drop a rock. Both travel at the same speed, but the heavier object will cause more harm. You may get terribly unlucky and the pebble may hit your foot at just the right angle to break a bone... but in all likelihood the rock will cause more damage.

Because it's fact.
A woman was killed after being hit by a cyclist.
If she was hit by a vehicle then obviously the chances are she would also have suffered severe injuries. But she wasn't. She was hit by a bicycle which was not in a road worthy condition.

All this crap about trying to somehow defend the cyclist, all this comparison to car collisions with cyclists, it's complete nonsense.

The cyclist was riding a defective bicycle. He collided with the pedestrian and she lost her life from the injuries sustained.

andyh01

I'm not sure what the benefits of this case is yet?... or why it was in the public s best interest...

For me as I said previously it raises some questions and particularly whether a "technical" illegal bike should see the cyclists been sentence for up to 2 years.

It is a double edged sward....

Take the case re the driver who skidded on black ice killed and received £800 and 6points or whatever... as the Law makes clear that having an un-roadworthy vehicle, is a civil rather than criminal offence and the penalty is fine and endorsements... not 2 years imprisonment... The car driver could of been pulled over and have been found to be guilty of the offence and he doesn't need to have caused harm/injury...

Argument sake prior to this incident occurring, Mr Alliston is routinely stopped by the police and they "discover" no front brake, yet as he hasn't killed/injured anyone no "offence" has been committed.

If equitable laws were introduced to legislate for bicycles due to the increased perception of risk as a society we'd need to agree, what the "penalty" should be max fine of £800 argument sake? regardless of any injury be caused. Thus in the case in point the max criminal charge he'd be facing would be £800 and not a custodial sentence...?

Again it comes down to the fact his bike was illegal AND he caused injury/death. If you take his argument that he didn't know and cycles aren't perceived to be a risk and therefore don't require MOTs/licencing/insurance etc (and ignorance of the law isn't a defence in law), the question then becomes how negligent was he and how contributory negligent was Mrs. Briggs
Cyclist within speed limit head down peddling has right of way and someone steps out, cyclist didn't see them as head down... is that riding wanton and furiously?

As been questioned previously.. should pedestrians be liable for damage/injury caused to cyclist ? Pedestrian steps out and gets struck by passing cyclist and falls to ground, cyclist loses balance, also falls off, cracking CF bike and also sustained injures, both make full recoveries, should the cyclist be able to recoup his costs from the pedestrian? Neither party did criminal wrong... only a civil wrong... ie 50/50 in motor cases it'll be treated as "knock for knock" and both parties claim off insurance, not the same with pedestrians/cyclists....

tootsie323

redvision wrote:

thomasmorris wrote:

How on earth did you come to that conclusion about likelihood from one incident? This is just the type of flat earth thinking that the media is pumping out.

If you want a demonstration, drop a pebble on your foot, then drop a rock. Both travel at the same speed, but the heavier object will cause more harm. You may get terribly unlucky and the pebble may hit your foot at just the right angle to break a bone... but in all likelihood the rock will cause more damage.

Because it's fact.
A woman was killed after being hit by a cyclist.
If she was hit by a vehicle then obviously the chances are she would also have suffered severe injuries. But she wasn't. She was hit by a bicycle...

One incident does not make it a fact that a pedestrian is as likely to be killed by a cyclist than by a car driver. Firstly, we will not have enough data on collisions as (and I'm making a reasoned assumption here) many cyclist / pedestrian collisions are not reported. Secondly, simple physics (momentum), as demonstrated above with the pebble / rock scenario, dictates that a vehicle, as a heavier object, is likely to cause more damage than a bicycle.

StillGoing

AndyH01 wrote:

Thank-you for citing that case and clarifying that point ...

Do you concur that the "only" offence committed, was the omission of the front brake? ie wopuld nhe be guilty opf any other crime.. other than the missing brake?

The missing brake has nothing to do with wanton and furious cycling.

StillGoing

AndyH01 wrote:

I'm not sure what the benefits of this case is yet?... or why it was in the public s best interest...

For me as I said previously it raises some questions and particularly whether a "technical" illegal bike should see the cyclists been sentence for up to 2 years.

It is a double edged sward....

Take the case re the driver who skidded on black ice killed and received £800 and 6points or whatever... as the Law makes clear that having an un-roadworthy vehicle, is a civil rather than criminal offence and the penalty is fine and endorsements... not 2 years imprisonment... The car driver could have been pulled over and have been found to be guilty of the offence and he doesn't need to have caused harm/injury...

Argument sake prior to this incident occurring, Mr Alliston is routinely stopped by the police and they "discover" no front brake, yet as he hasn't killed/injured anyone no "offence" has been committed.

If equitable laws were introduced to legislate for bicycles due to the increased perception of risk as a society we'd need to agree, what the "penalty" should be max fine of £800 argument sake? regardless of any injury be caused. Thus in the case in point the max criminal charge he'd be facing would be £800 and not a custodial sentence...?

Again it comes down to the fact his bike was illegal AND he caused injury/death. If you take his argument that he didn't know and cycles aren't perceived to be a risk and therefore don't require MOTs/licencing/insurance etc (and ignorance of the law isn't a defence in law), the question then becomes how negligent was he and how contributory negligent was Mrs. Briggs
Cyclist within speed limit head down peddling has right of way and someone steps out, cyclist didn't see them as head down... is that riding wanton and furiously?

As been questioned previously.. should pedestrians be liable for damage/injury caused to cyclist ? Pedestrian steps out and gets struck by passing cyclist and falls to ground, cyclist loses balance, also falls off, cracking CF bike and also sustained injures, both make full recoveries, should the cyclist be able to recoup his costs from the pedestrian? Neither party did criminal wrong... only a civil wrong... ie 50/50 in motor cases it'll be treated as "knock for knock" and both parties claim off insurance, not the same with pedestrians/cyclists....

Why it was in the public interest? Of course it was in the public interest. Someone died as a result of somebody else's illegal actions.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/cod ... etest.html

Again you're assuming wanton and furious cycling relates to the lack of front brake. It doesn't. It relates to the fact he caused injury (killed them) to someone. The offence and available sentencing are inadequate and will hopefully in the future be death by dangerous cycling. Your example of wanton and furiously is indeed wanton and furiously.

If a pedestrian walks out in front of you leaving you no chance to react, you are perfectly entitled to claim against them for injury or damages. The crux will be whether you were travelling at a reasonable speed and had no opportunity to react to them stepping out in front of you.

Ignorance is no defence in law otherwise we'd all go on a rampage and claim "Ooh sorry officer, I didn't know I couldn't break the window and take the pretty things home with me".

I'm done with this now. Alliston was found guilty by a jury and tried by a Judge and Barristers with far greater knowledge of the law than anyone on here and with access to all the facts. Found guilty. The fact he was a cyclist is irrelevant. He killed someone and should face the full weight of the law for it. The travesty is, that he won't face the same potential sentencing as someone charged with death by dangerous driving and in the view of a good deal of people, should do.

bendertherobot

philthy3 wrote:

AndyH01 wrote:

Thank-you for citing that case and clarifying that point ...

Do you concur that the "only" offence committed, was the omission of the front brake? ie wopuld nhe be guilty opf any other crime.. other than the missing brake?

The missing brake has nothing to do with wanton and furious cycling.

Why not?

redvision

tootsie323 wrote:

One incident does not make it a fact that a pedestrian is as likely to be killed by a cyclist than by a car driver. Firstly, we will not have enough data on collisions as (and I'm making a reasoned assumption here) many cyclist / pedestrian collisions are not reported. Secondly, simple physics (momentum), as demonstrated above with the pebble / rock scenario, dictates that a vehicle, as a heavier object, is likely to cause more damage than a bicycle.

You are missing the point though. Granted a cyclist involved in such a collision will not carry the same force as a motorised vehicle travelling at the same speed, but it will still be enough to cause serious injuries, in this case it was enough to knock a pedestrian down and cause death. This is what a lot of people on this thread seem to be forgetting.

thomasmorris

redvision wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

One incident does not make it a fact that a pedestrian is as likely to be killed by a cyclist than by a car driver. Firstly, we will not have enough data on collisions as (and I'm making a reasoned assumption here) many cyclist / pedestrian collisions are not reported. Secondly, simple physics (momentum), as demonstrated above with the pebble / rock scenario, dictates that a vehicle, as a heavier object, is likely to cause more damage than a bicycle.

You are missing the point though. Granted a cyclist involved in such a collision will not carry the same force as a motorised vehicle travelling at the same speed, but it will still be enough to cause serious injuries, in this case it was enough to knock a pedestrian down and cause death. This is what a lot of people on this thread seem to be forgetting.

No really, you are missing the point.

One incident proves it is possible to kill someone riding a bike at similar speed to car. No one here is 'forgetting' or ignoring the fact that is possible to kill someone on your bike; that is plainly obvious. And I think everyone agree we should take proportionate measure to limit that risk (like fitting brakes). But it certainly does not mean it is as likely.

The way this case is reported is aimed to tell the story that bikes are deadly and need to be cracked down on in the the same theme as all those motorists calling for licences and taxation and insurance for cyclists.

Your 'fact' that this case 'proves' cyclists are just a likely to cause a death is exactly the conclusion the reporting is goading half-wits in to believing.

The truth is, whilst it's possible to kill someone whilst riding your bike, and you should always bear that in mind, is is nowhere near as likely as a car (and the wider stats will prove this). Therefore the legislation and law around riding a bike versus driving a car should be proportionate.

tangled_metal

Reviewing laws so such cases can be treated in a similar way to those involving cars isn't cracking down on cyclists it's just giving the police and prosecution options. In the rare case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian through his / her actions such that a serious prosecution is warranted I feel the option for a serious charge is needed. That charge needs to be updated to these modern times. Whilst manslaughter is available now it's been shown that motorists are less likely to be convicted with manslaughter but the other death relating driving charges have more success and result in similar sentencing to successful manslaughter cases I believe.

DeVlaeminck

philthy3 wrote:

Again you're assuming wanton and furious cycling relates to the lack of front brake. ......

.....


I'm done with this now. Alliston was found guilty by a jury and tried by a Judge and Barristers with far greater knowledge of the law than anyone on here and with access to all the facts. Found guilty. The fact he was a cyclist is irrelevant. He killed someone and should face the full weight of the law for it. The travesty is, that he won't face the same potential sentencing as someone charged with death by dangerous driving and in the view of a good deal of people, should do.

I thought we'd established earlier in this thread that the wording of the wanton and furious cycling law includes a line which covers things like no front brake. Had he had a front brake that charge would not have stood.


Secondly surely the fact he is a cyclist is very relevant. Riding without a front brake does not carry the same threat to the safety of others as the kind of driving that would attract a dangerous driving charge would. Yes this cyclist has committed an offence but we already have a law that carries up to two years inside to deal with it.

In short cyclists should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny and punishment as motorists because the potential to cause harm is that much less.

mamba80

DeVlaeminck wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Again you're assuming wanton and furious cycling relates to the lack of front brake. ......

.....


I'm done with this now. Alliston was found guilty by a jury and tried by a Judge and Barristers with far greater knowledge of the law than anyone on here and with access to all the facts. Found guilty. The fact he was a cyclist is irrelevant. He killed someone and should face the full weight of the law for it. The travesty is, that he won't face the same potential sentencing as someone charged with death by dangerous driving and in the view of a good deal of people, should do.

I thought we'd established earlier in this thread that the wording of the wanton and furious cycling law includes a line which covers things like no front brake. Had he had a front brake that charge would not have stood.


Secondly surely the fact he is a cyclist is very relevant. Riding without a front brake does not carry the same threat to the safety of others as the kind of driving that would attract a dangerous driving charge would. Yes this cyclist has committed an offence but we already have a law that carries up to two years inside to deal with it.

In short cyclists should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny and punishment as motorists because the potential to cause harm is that much less.

wise words but wasted on him.

fwiw a friend was involved in a crash with car which pulled out into the side of him, from a side road, his injuries are, as they say life changing, no publicity, no prosecution (even though the driver admitted it was their fault)

redvision

thomasmorris wrote:

Your 'fact' that this case 'proves' cyclists are just a likely to cause a death is exactly the conclusion the reporting is goading half-wits in to believing.

The truth is, whilst it's possible to kill someone whilst riding your bike, and you should always bear that in mind, is is nowhere near as likely as a car (and the wider stats will prove this). Therefore the legislation and law around riding a bike versus driving a car should be proportionate.

Not once have i said that. What i said was if a cyclist is travelling at speed and collides with someone/something then injuries are likely and may be severe. If the cyclist is at fault for whatever reason - as has been proven in this case - he should be held responsible and punished accordingly in line with the law.

The law does need to be updated but this must be done for cyclists as well as other road users.

Dorset_Boy

No, you said death was just as likely if a cyclist hit a pedestrian as if a car hit a pedestrian at the same speed, which is clearly not correct.

There is a contributory factor in this tragic accident in that Mrs Briggs stepped out into the road having not looked properly. I get the impression that Alliston hasn't shown sufficient remorse because he feels the collision wasn't solely his fault, but is being portrayed that way. However sentencing may take that into account.

Also surely the Wanton verdict is due to riding an illegal bike, and there was evidence presented to prove Alliston knew it was illegal.

One other point - someone mentioned bald tyres having better grip than treaded tyres in some circumstances. that is also completely wrong, as a bald tyre is a worn tyre. That poster is confused between a tread with no pattern (eg F1 soft compound so very sticky) vs a bald tyre, no tread, hard rubber, not grippy.

pblakeney

Dorset Boy wrote:

One other point - someone mentioned bald tyres having better grip than treaded tyres in some circumstances. that is also completely wrong, as a bald tyre is a worn tyre. That poster is confused between a tread with no pattern (eg F1 soft compound so very sticky) vs a bald tyre, no tread, hard rubber, not grippy.

Bald is legally defined as having less than 1.6mm tread. Not necessarily worn to useless.
Not all road tyres are hard.

redvision

Dorset Boy wrote:

No, you said death was just as likely if a cyclist hit a pedestrian as if a car hit a pedestrian at the same speed, which is clearly not correct.

There is a contributory factor in this tragic accident in that Mrs Briggs stepped out into the road having not looked properly. I get the impression that Alliston hasn't shown sufficient remorse because he feels the collision wasn't solely his fault, but is being portrayed that way. However sentencing may take that into account.

Also surely the Wanton verdict is due to riding an illegal bike, and there was evidence presented to prove Alliston knew it was illegal.

One other point - someone mentioned bald tyres having better grip than treaded tyres in some circumstances. that is also completely wrong, as a bald tyre is a worn tyre. That poster is confused between a tread with no pattern (eg F1 soft compound so very sticky) vs a bald tyre, no tread, hard rubber, not grippy.

I said when the head suffers an impact.

When a cyclist travelling at speed collides with someone it is always going to cause an injury.

He was using a defective bicycle for use on the highway, he was not riding with consideration of others, he was not anticipating a pedestrian stepping in to the road (as the highway code states). His actions caused a death.

cld531c

Is the general consensus that if A had a front brake he would not have been charged with any offence?
If that is the case, presumably it must have been proven that the lack of front brake caused either the crash or the extent of her injuries. I find that hard to believe to be honest.

Whilst it is an awful accident it does appear from what has been reported that the cause of her death was her walking back into him rather than his speed or positioning and lack of braking.