My source is the sentencing guide for bereaved families produced by Road Peace earlier this year, which can be found at: RoadPeace sentencing guide

Surprising figures – I wonder how the breakdown compares for incidents where a pedestrian or cyclist is killed and the driving is the sort of thing which is normalised. Are the majority of those cases where people in cars are killed (the one being driven dangerously, or another car) and the driving is more obviously reckless? It’s a lot easier to kill a pedestrian or a cyclist, so the level of recklessness might seem less – would Helen Measures have got off if she had killed the driver of an oncoming car?

Relevance? Charlie wouldn’t have killed the occupant of a car by riding in that way.

The conviction rate for causing death by dangerous is only 65% – apparently it’s low due to the number that get downgraded to death by careless during the case. The conviction rate for death by dangerous aggravated by drugs/drink is 91% and for death by careless it’s 88%.

Don’t forget for context on those figures that the “Death by..” offences were introduced in large part because juries were unwilling to convict for manslaughter, as they should have been, with the strong suggestion that jurors’ were heavily influenced by thoughts of “there but for the grace of God..”

The jury system really isn’t as good as many people would like to think it is.

The stats seem simply to tell us that the CPS are reasonably good at getting a conviction for something if theory decide to try. Tells us nothing about all the cases where they or the Police decide not to, which is surely more interesting.

The jury system would work, and work well but for one important factor… it is the GENERAL PUBLIC who sit as jurors. And as I have said before the general public is stupid. They are also biased to some degree due to being human.
Having read all 14 pages of this thread, there are very good arguments and counter arguments throughout. From people who have at least a basic understanding of what is happening. Joe blogs, who doesn’t cycle, and drives everywhere in his Mondeo won’t think this far in depth. Even if this level of information IS given in court, it would be highly unlikely that they could all agree on who is at fault and by how much.

The jury system really isn’t as good as many people would like to think it is.

It’s probably quite fine if you look like a “respectable” person doing things the jury members see as normal, such as driving a car too fast while texting. Probably a bit crap if you’re a young fixie rider with no front brake and an attitude.

In the first case an almost certain killing gets you less severely penalised than we might expect given other ways of killing, in the second I fear that a very unlucky death may see you hammered.

In the first case an almost certain killing gets you less severely penalised than we might expect given other ways of killing, in the second I fear that a very unlucky death may see you hammered.

The jury doesn’t do the sentencing.

I think those stats on sentencing do something to bust the myth of convicted drivers getting off scot free constantly. The reality is that the statutory driving offences relating to deaths requiring “beyond reasonable doubt” judgements on whether the driving “fell far below” or just “fell below” acceptable standards of a competent or careful driver. And whilst the judge can (and will) direct the jury on this (if it gets to a jury trial, as opposed to a magistrates trial) then the jury are ultimately making judgements on all of those factors. And all the research shows that the majority of drivers believe that their approach to driving is better than average.

Once the jury has made its decision on the guilt or otherwise, its then back in the judges hands as to the sentencing, and sentencing guidelines are generally well adhered to.

Surprising figures

I suspect we’re as much the victims of tabloid journalism as anyone else, with only the low end sentencing getting reported and causing some outrage. Certainly the sentencing seemed a lot heavier than I’d expected.

I’ve been mulling this over yet more…

It’s ultimately all about the assessment of risk and what is “Reasonably foreseeable”. Those of us who ride bicycles on the roads tend to fit brakes on the basis of what might be considered an “undocumented personal risk assessment” but what risks are we actually considering? I would contend the primary consideration is normally the rider’s own safety, being able to control speed and stop in order to avoid collisions that might cause your own injury or death and perhaps a secondary consideration being to avoid liability for any damage to other peoples property, riding into and damaging cars and other items, for want of a brake could end up incurring unwanted bills.
I don’t actually believe many cyclists really consider the hazard they pose to pedestrians on a par with their own safety. Self preservation tends to be most peoples beginning and end point…

I think what needs to be considered in all of this is what is “reasonably foreseeable” for any cyclist when it comes to potential interactions with pedestrians…

It is reasonably foreseeable (especially if you are and “experienced courier”) that there will be inattention from ped’s, this may well be, in part, due to distraction by mobiles or earphones preventing them from hearing bells or shouted warnings, but it’s not outside the realms of possibility and common experience…

Setting aside the legal compulsion to have brakes on either wheel it is quite reasonable to expect someone cycling in such an environment to have two working brakes fitted as a mitigation against collisions in general including those with inattentive pedestrians or any other road user… In making that statement you’ve sort of defined the minimum standard or expectations of a “reasonable person” to avoid collisions I think, and that’s where he fall short, so there is some charge to answer…

The grey area comes when you try and determine a level of risk taken, and equate it to a degree of culpability. So the statistics nerds roll out an analysis of national accident figures, focussing on a rather broad spread look at likelihood) and others jump straight to comparing the potential Death toll for a brakeless bicycle Vs a brakeless Range rover (focussing on comparative consequences), but you have to focus on the details of the incident really.

Risk is best assessed by looking at potential consequences and the likelihood of those consequences being realised in a specific situation.
The potential for some sort of negative consequence is quite high i.e. significant injury to others is likely and a single death is possible, though it might be considered less likely due to the lower mass and speed of a bicycle Vs a motor vehicle (also a present hazard), you are always going to compare the different hazards present in the environment to one another, and it’s fair to say motorised vehicles present more potential to cause pedestrian deaths.

It’s worth noting that context/location plays a significant part in the estimation of likelihood, it’s not just that he was riding a brakeless fixie, it’s where he was riding a brakeless fixie: In an area with a significant number of pedestrians, many of whom were likely to not have their full attention on their surroundings and any traffic hazards. Had he been cycling in the countryside with fewer/no pedestrians present, but faster moving motorised traffic then the balance of risk would have been further towards the cyclist being injured/killed, but he wasn’t, the environment placed him in the position of posing a greater hazard to another group.

IMO He undertook a degree of risk on the basis of an assessment of the hazards that applied to himself, but failed to consider the reasonably foreseeable hazard he posed to others.
In terms of the reasonably foreseeable consequences that risk posed to others, causing a pedestrian injury was likely, but I would hesitate to say that causing a pedestrian death is something anyone would typically expect and hence you could argue most people would perhaps fail to foresee that particular outcome.

Therefore in terms of culpability I don’t believe he’s right at the top of the scale, Assuming he’s found guilty of the manslaughter charge, I would hope the Judge considers this when sentencing…

This case ably demonstrates practical reasons for complying with the law and having legal braking capability because if he had a front brake fitted it’s very, very unlikely he’d be in court at the moment. Not having the front brake has led to the speculation about whether he didn’t stop or slow significantly because he didn’t have the capability, or whether the nature of the situation meant that braking capability wasn’t a factor.

There’s two bikes in the bike shed at work where the brake lever literally pulls to the bar without effectively operating the brake. These bikes aren’t owned by bike enthusiasts (obviously).

I’d bet good money a fixie without a front brake could stop more quickly.

99% sure the owners of these bikes aren’t even aware of the implications of the above case, so not sure what difference it’ll make.

There’s two bikes in the bike shed at work where the brake lever literally pulls to the bar without effectively operating the brake. These bikes aren’t owned by bike enthusiasts (obviously).

I’d bet good money a fixie without a front brake could stop more quickly.

99% sure the owners of these bikes aren’t even aware of the implications of the above case, so not sure what difference it’ll make.

Don’t think it would make any difference – they’d be just as liable to those charges as he was. They’d probably argue the brakes worked before the crash though, plus it might not be as obvious that the brakes weren’t effective as not having one.

The grey area comes when you try and determine a level of risk taken, and equate it to a degree of culpability.

…because it’s entirely subjective. Otherwise, a great deal of this current case would be concerning the missing element which would almost certainly have been a central feature had the outcomes been reversed, and by any objective reckoning at least as pertinent as in many (perhaps most) of the cases where it is a feature.

I refer, of course, to the highly negligent decision of the pedestrian to attempt to negotiate fast moving urban traffic, while not wearing a helmet.

The clear difference here is that he chose to take the front brake off. The act of actively doing something before hand makes the big difference compared to someone that hasn’t maintained their bike or someone who is riding too quickly but on a full functioning bike.

That’s why there was a case a couple of days ago when a guy got 4 years for driving too fast and crashed his car killing his friend. He was prosecuted for dangerous driving and not manslaughter. If he had taken the seat belts out of his car, as it was more thrilling to drive without them, then he would have been prosecuted for manslaughter I would have thought.

It’s the conscious pre-planned act that is the issue.

I refer, of course, to the highly negligent decision of the pedestrian to attempt to negotiate fast moving urban traffic, while not wearing a helmet.

Not a requirement of the law so difficult to call negligent. Apparently the headclash between the cyclist and the pedestrian was a big factor in her death – wonder if it’d made any difference if he’d have been wearing a helmet or if that might have made it worse for her.

Her negligence in crossing the road when it wasn’t safe to do so would be negligence though, especially given the proximity to a crossing.

The clear difference here is that he chose to take the front brake off.

He did on his other bike – not on this one. It’s a track bike so never had a front brake and might not even be fitted to take one.

That doesn’t seem to stop some judges:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918

(in light of the previous discussion I also note the sentence for a repeat offender).

He was prosecuted for (presumably causing death by) dangerous driving because that’s what drivers are charged with when they cause a death. The cyclist wasn’t because that isn’t a possible crime when cycling.

The fact his friend was killed despite the seatbelts being present is sufficient defence for the manslaughter charge in the case of the seatbelts being removed (if he was charged with unlawful act manslaughter like Charlie). In the same way that Charlie has a defence if he can show that the death would have happened even if he’s had a front brake.

Of course there as with most cases like this there’s another unlawful act – the dangerous driving – and conviction on the DBDD charge shows that the case for unlawful act manslaughter was completely proved apart from the issue of a reasonable person realising that the unlawful act would be likely to subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm. I should think that in this case that would almost certainly be proven as well, therefore unlawful act manslaughter would have been an alternative and appropriate charge.

That doesn’t seem to stop some judges:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918

(in light of the previous discussion I also note the sentence for a repeat offender).

I don’t know the details of that case, other than what I just read in that article, however if did die from a head injury that a helmet would have prevented then it might be fair comment I suppose.

That sentence does seem very light if he was found guilty of death by dangerous driving but would be inline with seems to be common for death by careless driving. On the second offence thing I suspect that the judge might have largely disregarded it given it was so long ago.

The crown also must have thought the sentence light though as they appealed the sentencing as being too lenient. It’s also worth noting that the appeal court judges said disagree with the sheriff’s comments about helmet wearing.

Note: Did some checking and it was indeed a conviction for causing death by careless driving, not causing death by dangerous driving.

Not a requirement of the law so difficult to call negligent. Apparently the headclash between the cyclist and the pedestrian was a big factor in her death – wonder if it’d made any difference if he’d have been wearing a helmet or if that might have made it worse for her.

As others have noted, it not being legally required doesn’t stop the judiciary (and of course the popular press) suggesting that a cyclist choosing to ride without one is negligent, albeit not criminally so. To the extent that it can almost be taken that helmet = you’ll live, no helmet = you’ll die.

There’s a quote I can’t be bothered to find that I saw from a judge, (doubtless highlighted by Bez, possibly in this thread) along the lines of “despite wearing a helmet, the cyclist suffered injuries that proved fatal” when the circumstances were being hit by behind by car doing 50 mph or so – the implication being that it would be reasonable to expect that half an inch of expanded polystyrene would make all the difference in such a case.

So the point I was reaching for in my previous point is nothing to do with, actually, what would the outcomes for either party have actually been in this case if either or both had been helmeted, it’s about that informal risk assessment and what can be seen as “reasonable” – a really important point when heavy court cases can swing on such matters.

…because it’s entirely subjective.

Well yeah, for any jury trial the measure used being is that of a “reasonable person(s)”, which is calibrated around the values, beliefs and bias’ of those twelve people…

I don’t think there’s any such thing as “Objective” justice, facts can be established, but interpretation is still down to the individual…

No verdict then? This was expected to end today.

Perhaps the jury are still wading through this thread.

No verdict then? This was expected to end today.

Not sure if that’s good or bad news for the lad. I was expecting a fairly quick verdict one way or the other.

Jury dismissed until tomorrow apparently.

There’s probably one belligerent bugger who understands the legal arguments and refuses to find him guilty just because he’s an evil cyclist.

^agree. Perhaps a majority direction by the end of tomorrow? If found guilty, I think suspended sentence (after possible adjournment for reports).

If found guilty, I think suspended sentence (after possible adjournment for reports).

I’m going with either suspended sentence or the complete opposite – guilty on all counts, a massive fine and jail time far more severe than any sentence he’d have got as a driver…

There’s probably one belligerent bugger who understands the legal arguments and refuses to find him guilty just because he’s an evil cyclist.

Looks like you’re right statistically speaking… 12~15% of the English population cycle once a month or more. So there should be about 1.45-1.8 cyclists in any representative jury… 😉

Majority direction given to jury.

Can’t be too much longer then… Predictions?

I reckon it’ll be guilty on both counts…

Can’t be too much longer then… Predictions?

I reckon it’ll be guilty on both counts…

I seem to recall a statistic that the longer a jury debates, the more likely they are to reach a guilty verdict.

Might all be bobbins though…

I’ve read a lot of the arguments above and they throw up some very important stuff.

However it’s hard to see that even a reasonable non cyclist person wouldn’t find him guilty. Bloke goes out on a bike intentionally having no brakes and hits someone crossing the road and kills them. That’s what it boils down to and the defence would have to be very very convincing to get a not guilty charge.

That’s what it boils down to

No, it isn’t. That’s why they’ve had the trial!

edit: My fear is that the jurors see it the same way you do.

edit again: To take two extreme positions

1. You get blind drunk, get in your car, go straight through a red light at the first pedestrian crossing you come across and kill a baby robin’s face.

2. You’re on a short road section between trails on a night ride. you’ve got a bright light on your bars and head. And another pair of bright lights on the back as well as front and read reflectors. A driver comes up behind you, makes no attempt to brake or move out, and wipes you out. But your lights weren’t BS approved so it’s your own fault, eh, bloody scofflaw cyclists.

This case is somewhere between those two, and the link between the brakes and the death is what matters. The fact that he didn’t have a front brake is not in dispute and is not the only thing that needs to be proved in order to get a conviction.

We seem to be generally on the fence on this one so in that respect it’s perhaps good that the jury are also struggling to decide – although they will have had access to evidence that we haven’t seen.

I’m sure some of them are – and I think some may have actually understood the legal argument (hence my post above is probably more accurate than intended when I posted it!) It’s probably very similar to a thread on here in that jury room, with neither side willing to budge and not even understanding the position of the other side.

@newrobdob – read http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#unlawful which is the specific charge we all assume he is being prosecuted under – the prosecution have to prove all parts of that beyond reasonable doubt. If you read this thread you’ll see that most of us have come to the conclusion that the crucial bit is the first clause, the direct link between the illegal act and the death. The defence case is that the death would have happened even if he was on a fully legal bike.

I have to admit I’ve also changed my mind a couple of times on this – I did think the evidence was all there for manslaughter, but then realised that he’d probably have acted exactly the same if he’d had brakes on his bike and the death would still have happened (IMHO, based upon reported evidence, hence I’d find him not guilty). To some extent the way he comes across as arrogant and unlikable actually helps that defence, because it seems unlikely he’d have chosen to do a panic stop when he had the option of buzzing the ped to teach her a lesson (as suggested above – I tend to agree that’s what was probably happening).

Problem is that I’ve been on a jury, did a few cases, and I know how people see these things. I’d say the majority of people would consider the case carefully as we’d all want them to do, but maybe 1/4 to 1/3 will just have a snap judgement which they won’t sway from. Add in a dose of anti-cyclist sentiment and the “no brakes” issue and its hard to see how he’s going to get off.

Hopefully the legal points will be well presented and he will get a fair judgement on the facts, I really hope he does. But nothing will raise the victim in this case back to life, which can overshadow a lot of good arguments, even though it shouldn’t. 😕

the specific charge we all assume he is being prosecuted under

No need to assume – confirmed in this news article:

My Wyeth added: “I’m not criticising Mrs Briggs.”

He also suggested it was unlikely that a driver in Alliston’s position would face the same charge: “If you drove your car really dangerously and at very high speed, you might get prosecuted for what’s called gross negligence manslaughter. You might.

“But this defendant is not getting prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter. He is getting prosecuted for unlawful act manslaughter. As drivers, the prospects you would be prosecuted for unlawful act manslaughter are very slender.”

If you read this thread you’ll see that most of us have come to the conclusion that the crucial bit is the first clause, the direct link between the illegal act and the death. The defence case is that the death would have happened even if he was on a fully legal bike.

What has been reported of the court case has been inevitably very limited, and some of the reporting has been very poor and even misleading. However, I am surprised that we have not heard that the defence made a stronger argument that the choice to swerve instead of brake was a perfectly valid/reasonable one (and possibly even the more appropriate choice). I would have expected that point to be have been emphasised far more strongly, and yet it seems not from the reporting, e.g. of the defence’s final statement.

So a non-reasonable person would find him guilty, but a reasonable person who’s actually considered the evidence properly might not? He only needs 3 people to consider the evidence the same way I do (assuming there’s not something crucial I’m missing, or the CCTV doesn’t paint a completely different picture to what I’m assuming), so that’s only 3 out of the 8 reasonable people. I note that if they’re not back yet having been given a majority direction over an hour ago (where are people getting these updates?) then it seems that’s the way it’s going. I wonder if they will hold another trial if the jury can’t reach a verdict?

The summing up by the defence barrister as reported was interesting – a lot of emphasis on aspects which weren’t directly crucial to the legal case being made, but which might help sway general feelings.

Ah thanks – I’d not read that. I don’t think it’s just me – as you note, the reporting of this has been pretty sparse and missing some of the more important information.

The issue for the majority could be that they are settled (or have a good majority) on the lower tariff crime, but have only nearly a good enough majority on the higher tariff crime and still want to resolve that.