Forum menu
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.
[quote=epicsteve ]Not a requirement of the law so difficult to call negligent.
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).
[quote=woody74 ]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.
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 [i]calibrated[/i] 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 [url= http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics ]statistically speaking... [/url] 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.
[quote=bails ]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.
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 [url= http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/old-street-cycle-death-trial-jurors-urged-to-put-aside-prejudice-as-they-retire-1-5157690 ]news article[/url]:
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.
[quote=newrobdob ]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.
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.
[quote=slowster ]No need to assume - confirmed in this news article:
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.
This has become such a big story that the BBC News app sent a BREAKING NEWS notification.
Anyway - it told me:
'Cyclist accused of killing woman on London street cleared of manslaughter but guilty of "wanton and furious driving''.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321
Discuss.
Seems a sensible outcome.
Damn it - I logged on just to post this update and be first, too slow for that too!
guilty of "wonton and furious driving'.
What a dumpling!
Surprised at the perjorative language on the Guardian breaking news - "Charlie..convicted of causing bodily harm after mowing down" the woman. Mowing down seems a bit harsh.
The correct verdict I think - if you ignore the legal tehnicalities as discussed above that a defence for the manslaughter charge ought to be a defence for the W&F charge! (I'll have to go and remind myself why, can't remember the details of that argument)
At least it feels about right to me - or at least not a terribly wrong verdict.
What a dumpling!
Damn, too slow. 😀
Let's see what the sentencing comes to.
IIRC, still up to two years in jail.
[s]Would he of been convicted of wanton and furious driving if it was just a normal day and no one stepped out in front of him?
/devils advocate
(tbh I don't really understand what that charge means, I'll google it now)[/s]
EDIT: Alright the name of the full charge is "Causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving" which makes more sense.
"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 ..."
probably the right verdict but is wanton and furious [i]driving [/i]correct when he was [i]riding [/i]not driving? (Yes, I know that's what it says on BBC site)
Yes, because "driving" refers to driving a carriage rather than a car - it's a charge which dates to before cars and bicycles were invented (but covers the use of those due to later clarifications of legal definitions). In the same way it is illegal to ride on the pavement due to an 1835 law prohibiting "driving" on a footway.
fair enough
MTB-Idle - Memberprobably the right verdict but is wanton and furious driving correct when he was riding not driving?
Prosecutors should only prosecute this offence when it is not possible to prosecute for an offence under the RTA 1988, for example:
when the vehicle used was not a mechanically propelled vehicle (such as a bicycle or horse drawn vehicle);
So - I am right to assume the "Wanton verdict" was reached because he should of have time to emergency stop? And thereby choosing not to or to try to evade the deceased it was deemed "wanton"?
(rather than the lack of front brake being what was wanton)
Really comes down to how the Judge directed the Jury with regard to the charges with Wanton and Furious being they one where they could at least reach a majority? Reasonable outcome given the circumstances.
[url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35 ]Up to 2 years in jail[/url]
"Judge Wendy Thomas warned that he faced a custodial sentence but added that it was not a certainty until she had heard mitigation at the sentencing hearing. She added: “I have not seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all at any stage.”"
Looks like he's facing prison
[quote=plyphon ]So - I am right to assume the "Wanton verdict" was reached because he should of have time to emergency stop? And thereby choosing not to or to try to evade the deceased it was deemed "wanton"?
(rather than the lack of front brake being what was wanton)
Discussion on that on page 11 of this thread: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/charged-with-manslaughter-riding-a-fixie/page/11
I think if the "wilful neglect" is the lack of brakes then the defence is the same as for manslaughter, so maybe they deemed the style of riding constituted "wilful misconduct". Though in reality I suspect the finer points of law were ignored and it was a verdict the majority of the jury felt was right.
I'm sure his case wasn't helped by his attitude - which I have to admit is one reason I'm not at all upset at him being found guilty despite a suspicion it wasn't legally correct.
[quote=HoratioHufnagel ]She added: “I have not seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all at any stage.”
There's definitely a message being sent there - he hasn't exactly helped himself in this case (I still suspect he wouldn't have found himself in court if he'd had a better attitude in the aftermath of the collision).
Mrs Briggs' family said they plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians.
Even though the legal system has convicted the cyclist who killed their relative.
😕
There's definitely a message being sent there - he hasn't exactly helped himself in this case (I still suspect he wouldn't have found himself in court if he'd had a better attitude in the aftermath of the collision).
Yep, he could either have offered sincere apologies, remorse, said the sun was in his eyes or the opposite and just buggered off.
Either way he'd get off (assuming in the latter case that he was never tracked down).
Seems to be what happens with drivers anyway.
Mrs Briggs' family said they plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians.
Or they could campaign for compulsory helmets for pedestrians. Again, that's what happens when a cyclist gets killed, they get told they should have been wearing a helmet.