Alliston case
Comments
-
redvision wrote: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.
What law for "other road users" needs updating? Alliston is an exceptional case, the law cannot cover every single circumstance, he still faces a 2 year sentence, how much more do you want him to get and to what end?
What i see needs updating is sentencing guidelines and as well as prosecution, eg a cyclist was hit from a turning onto a main road, he suffered what is commonly classed as life changing injuries - no prosecution, this is the 2nd cyclist i know who has been severely injured by a driver not looking and then not being prosecuted by D&C Police.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:
What law for "other road users" needs updating? Alliston is an exceptional case, the law cannot cover every single circumstance, he still faces a 2 year sentence, how much more do you want him to get and to what end?
What i see needs updating is sentencing guidelines and as well as prosecution, eg a cyclist was hit from a turning onto a main road, he suffered what is commonly classed as life changing injuries - no prosecution, this is the 2nd cyclist i know who has been severely injured by a driver not looking and then not being prosecuted by D&C Police.
This case has highlighted an area of the law which perhaps needs clarity. There are more and more cyclists on the roads, active travel is only going to increase the number, there will be inevitably be an increase in the number of accidents.
I agree about motorists as well. The existing punishments are often too lenient in my opinion and need reviewing.0 -
cld531c wrote: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.
Having no brake meant he deliberately had no opportunity to use his brake. If he had a brake and didn't use it then he may still have been charged with the same offence, but probably much less likely as it would not have been so easy to show wilful neglect.0 -
redvision wrote: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.redvision wrote: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.
Read back your post. What I, and others are saying, is that travelling at the same speed, a cyclist is less likely to cause injury or death. That's because there is far less mass and therefore energy involved in the collision.
Obviously, it is possible to cause injury and death on a bike. And this case proves it's possible. But that doesn't mean it's as likely.
The anti cycling lobby want to jump on this for greater regulation of cyclists and bikes. Many people who back that will make similar statements to your's quoted above.
It's possible to kill someone with a spoon. However, you're far more likely to be able to kill someone with a gun. Guns are therefore far more heavily legislated against than spoons. Pointing to one instance where someone kills another with a spoon, doesn't mean that spoons are just as dangerous as guns.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:cld531c wrote: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.
Having no brake meant he deliberately had no opportunity to use his brake. If he had a brake and didn't use it then he may still have been charged with the same offence, but probably much less likely as it would not have been so easy to show wilful neglect.
I think that for the manslaughter charge to stick the illegality of the bike would have to directly cause the death. He was found not guilty, so presumably there were other contributing circumstances or doubt that the lack of brake contributed.
A couple of posters have said that the "wanton or furious driving" does not require a link between the "wanton and furious" cycling and the injury. I.e. you injure anyone whilst cycling irresponsibly, whether not that directly leads to their injury or death, then you are guilty.
However, the wording in the act says "injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving". 'By' I take to mean resulting from, so surely there must have been a link between his wanton and furious riding and the injury for him to be guilty.
The other aspect we don't know is whether not having a brake is wanton and furious, or whether the sum of his total riding was decided to be wanton and furious. I.e. speed + cutting swerving around rather than stopping for a pedestrian + n front brake + speed = wanton and furious.
I think the above is most likely to be true. They couldn't prove his illegal bike alone was the cause of the death, so he was found not guilty of manslaughter. However, they could proved that the general culmination of his cycling that day was wanton and furious (no brake, swerved and shouted rather than stopped, speed) did all together result in the injury, so he was found guilty. The key difference between this and man slaughter is the illegal act doesn't have to be sole cause.
It a very poorly defined law though. It's hard to tell if someone with a front brake, but reacting in the same way (swerved and shouted rather than stopped) would also be convicted of teh same charge.0 -
My guess is the jury made their decision based on the following:
- manslaughter is too harsh
- a wife and mother has died
- he had no front brake (and I suspect the jury or majority of it had limited experience of either using a fixed gear to slow down or that in the majority of cases trimming off speed and swerving is often safer on a bicycle) and most importantly
- he couldnt get off scott free hence the sticking of the wanton and furious charge
I would also guess that the prosecution never expected the manslaughter charge to stick but it was put forward to encourage the jury to accept the 'lesser' charge of wanton and furious that they may have rejected if that were the only potential charge.
Who knows.0 -
cld531c wrote:Who knows.
The people who were in court and heard all the evidence.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:cld531c wrote:Who knows.
The people who were in court and heard all the evidence.
If they are an accurate representation of the general population I wouldnt be so sure0 -
thomasmorris wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:cld531c wrote: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.
Having no brake meant he deliberately had no opportunity to use his brake. If he had a brake and didn't use it then he may still have been charged with the same offence, but probably much less likely as it would not have been so easy to show wilful neglect.
I think that for the manslaughter charge to stick the illegality of the bike would have to directly cause the death. He was found not guilty, so presumably there were other contributing circumstances or doubt that the lack of brake contributed.
A couple of posters have said that the "wanton or furious driving" does not require a link between the "wanton and furious" cycling and the injury. I.e. you injure anyone whilst cycling irresponsibly, whether not that directly leads to their injury or death, then you are guilty.
However, the wording in the act says "injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving". 'By' I take to mean resulting from, so surely there must have been a link between his wanton and furious riding and the injury for him to be guilty.
The other aspect we don't know is whether not having a brake is wanton and furious, or whether the sum of his total riding was decided to be wanton and furious. I.e. speed + cutting swerving around rather than stopping for a pedestrian + n front brake + speed = wanton and furious.
I think the above is most likely to be true. They couldn't prove his illegal bike alone was the cause of the death, so he was found not guilty of manslaughter. However, they could proved that the general culmination of his cycling that day was wanton and furious (no brake, swerved and shouted rather than stopped, speed) did all together result in the injury, so he was found guilty. The key difference between this and man slaughter is the illegal act doesn't have to be sole cause.
It a very poorly defined law though. It's hard to tell if someone with a front brake, but reacting in the same way (swerved and shouted rather than stopped) would also be convicted of the same charge.
I broadly agree, good post! My understanding is - illegal no front brake AND injury/death occurred, brings the charge of "wanton & furiously"?
I hope If he had had a front brake, then no criminal charges would have been brought?
Unless there is other evidence that shows some other recklessness act that we're not aware of, eg RLJ. One would assume a reasoned cyclist would also try and avoid any collision, knowing they too are vulnerable and therefore WOULD adjust speed, (slowing, I believe he did slow) direction (swerving to avoid) AND give warning of their presence if felt necessary, either by ringing a bell or voice (shouted). I would therefore question in those circumstances and context how it could be contrived to be riding wanton and furiously? Surley it be more concerning if he did nothing and carried on regardless?
As it stands as I understand, this "wanton & furious" seems to make it "easy" to convict as there is ambiguity in defining a "safe riding" simply not enough case law to define wanton and furious. I'm thinking for example, is filtering in traffic riding "wanton and furiously" if a pedestrian is crossing one line of traffic and is attempting to wait in the middle before proceeding as a cyclist who is on the right to that line of traffic and collides with the pedestrian?
Is riding with head down trying to get out of wind/slanting rain riding watton and furiously IF a pedestrian steps out into the path of a cyclist?
Dangerous driving, at times isn't prosecuted (therefore a crime) for, as it is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driving standard at the time was below the minimum standard that is expected by a reasonable person, especially when taking into other contributing factors.
"If" a car had pulled out, from a side road, to get in front of a cyclist, but misjudged the gap and owing to a missing front brake, a collision occurred and resulted in the cyclist death. Should the driver be prosecuted? Before bringing to Court I guess the prosecutors would have to consider whether there is enough evidence, that is would there have been enough stopping distance on an legal bike for the rider to have been able to stop in time? Or would it be seen as a contributory factor? However under Tort law of negligent, you cannot be 100%contributory negligent, ie otherwise the "fault" would lie 100% with the cyclist.
I'm still not sure whether a change in Law is a good idea or required. If for example, there was a specific Law relating to bicycles that said riding a bike without a front brake is a max fine of £1000.... then that's all Mr. Aliston should be facing right? Or would the Law be if riding around on a bike with no front brake, its life in prison regardless? Or would it be combination of the two... If where no accident is involved you are "caught" by police with no front brake £1000 however this shell be increased to life imprisonment,,, where an accident is involved (regardless of fault or extent of accident)...?0 -
AndyH01 wrote:I'm still not sure whether a change in Law is a good idea or required. If for example, there was a specific Law relating to bicycles that said riding a bike without a front brake is a max fine of £1000.... then that's all Mr. Aliston should be facing right? Or would the Law be if riding around on a bike with no front brake, its life in prison regardless? Or would it be combination of the two... If where no accident is involved you are "caught" by police with no front brake £1000 however this shell be increased to life imprisonment,,, where an accident is involved (regardless of fault or extent of accident)...?
There already is an offence of careless cycling (max penalty £1000), and one of dangerous cycling (max penalty £2500) as well as not meeting Pedal Cycles construction and use (max penalty £1000) which covers not having a front brake.
The equivalent for drivers has what you say - there is driving a defective vehicle, dangerous driving, and causing death by dangerous driving.0 -
Although having reconsidered, to me it appears a "technicality" under the construction of use making it a "Legal" requirement to have fitted a front brake - is the part where I find him guilty, regardless of other stopping methods, "technically" to be legal you need a front brake and therefore one could argue the bike involved should never of been on the road. Instead he should of being riding another bike with a front brake, and all else being equal from what I've read in the media, no other crime has been committed.
"Technically," you also need a bell and pedal reflectors, however, this is for cyclist own safety and whilst the reflectors may be missing, other lights will no doubt increase visibility more so and therefore reflectors are nowadays generally irrelevant. Yes good safety back up to have and needs light to reflect. If a proximate cause were that of missing reflectors with a pedestrian , I guess this could also be classed as wanton and furious, but as always it will depend on the specific circumstance.
However and this is where the "outcry" I suspect comes from, as I understand, there is NO prescribed penalties for riding without a front brake offence alone, UNLESS injury/death occurs .... in which case combing the two (no front brake & accident) makes it wanton and furious.... Regardless of any contributory factors or outcome.... Yes these then may be get taken into account when considering sentencing
The other outcry taking into account the TWO FACTS - No front brake & DEATH then the max 2 years in many peoples eyes doesn't seem enough ..... especially then when compared to car drivers sentencing guidelines of max up to 14 years ....0 -
There already is an offence of careless cycling (max penalty £1000), and one of dangerous cycling (max penalty £2500) as well as not meeting Pedal Cycles construction and use (max penalty £1000) which covers not having a front brake.
The equivalent for drivers has what you say - there is driving a defective vehicle, dangerous driving, and causing death by dangerous driving.[/quote]
Ah thank you, I wasn't aware of that, just shows again in this particular case how "easy" the wanton and furious thing appears to be to convict on. Do we know why he wasn't charged with dangerous cycling instead of W&F? Or as he as well as the other two charges?0 -
thomasmorris wrote: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.
I would just have to wonder - what about the automobile who "accidentally" hits a cyclist because "the sun was in my eyes" and is not prosecuted for manslaughter or gross negligence for choosing to drive when they can't see?0
