[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

As to why you chose to ride without a front brake and other safety precautions such as wearing a helmet, you deny it was for the thrill of the experience.

That is one more indicator of attitude to risk. It is essentially his attitude he is being sentenced for. Whilst I am not quite on the TJ scale of helmet argument, I don't always wear one for pootling around town, and see nothing concerning with her statement. She acknowledges that he denies doing it for the thrill. She is a judge not a forum poster - she talks in statements of fact, not implied insults.

I basically read it as him getting a point scored against him for not wearing safety equipment such as a helmet. Something I am pretty sensitive to as people in general, especially non-cyclists, appear to think you'd be a lunitic to cycle whilst helmetless which does not reflect the facts of the actual risk exposure. Far more pedestrians and motor vehicle passengers die from head injuries than cyclists - but people would think you are a lunatic if you suggest they wear a helmet.

Seem to be a lot of people complaining about the lack of severity of the sentencing, they seem to be much quieter when it comes to motorists killing cyclists or pedestrians. Three points and the cost of a takeaway of he'd been in a car.

As has been mentioned a few times, we miss a lot of the info (unfortunately). According to the huffpost "Speaking outside the court, Alliston’s mother, Karan, said her son had been sentenced [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cyclist-charlie-alliston-kim-briggs_uk_59bfafc8e4b0edff971d7a75 ]“appropriately”[/url]." Similarly the Guardian article had some stuff about whether or not [url= https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian ]he genuinely showed remorse[/url] or was just scared for his future.

The problem though is that is does show that being a bit older and having a good lawyer can make a big difference to the outcome :(. If he had been coached in what to do and what to say I doubt he would have had the same sentence even if he felt the same

akira - Member
Seem to be a lot of people complaining about the lack of severity of the sentencing, they seem to be much quieter when it comes to motorists killing cyclists or pedestrians. [b]Three points and the cost of a takeaway of he'd been in a car.[/b]

This just isn't true.

[url= https://preview.ibb.co/iAqNTk/Picture1.pn g" target="_blank">https://preview.ibb.co/iAqNTk/Picture1.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= https://imgbb.com/ ]images uplod[/url]

"In the shock of the moment" the pedestrian appears to have done that startled rabbit thing and watched the bike plough into her. The cyclist gave her as much opportunity as he could, twice as many options as if he's swerved one way or t'other.

Or; by standing still she gave him a chance to go either side of her.

That's the issue, the moment you decide to avoid you are still reliant on the other person guessing right. You have to slow to allow the situation to develop (although duly noted, and I've done it myself sometimes you can avoid a situation by speeding up. Trouble is, I don't know what makes me make that decision other than I've been riding on the road for 30 years+ and so far it hasn't proved to be the wrong one)

I had a squirrel run out on me yesterday, about 20 yards away. It stood in the middle of the road and I knew it didn't know which direction to run (or more likely would run in both at the same time 😉 ) - you wouldn't just bear down on it at full speed expecting it to avoid you, why you'd do the same to another human is beyond me.

on the TJ scale of helmet argument

Has anyone apart from the court seen the cctv footage?

It's a video showing a woman being seriously injured. Injuries that she died from. The court and anyone who has a need has seen it. It certainly doesn't need to be published to further fuel arguments on the internet.

Fanatic, do you have a version of stats purely involving cyclists being hit by cars, would be curious. Although when you say it's not true.

A taxi driver who collided with a young cyclist and crashed into a tree carrying the body on his vehicle's bonnet has been fined £35.

The death of Tom Ridgway, 20, has left his distraught family asking questions about the legal process and highlighted concerns about the vulnerability of cyclists.

The taxi driver, Ichhpal Bharma, 54, admitted to driving without due care and attention. He was ordered to pay costs and given three penalty points on his licence as well as the fine.

Also on that Tom Ridgeway case though: "he court was told he had been charged with driving without due care and attention because the Crown Prosecution Service had been unable to determine the cause of the crash and whether it, or the 90-metre bonnet journey, had caused Ridgway's death."

It sounds like the charge related to what happened after the collision - not who was at fault for it.

From the verdict, it appears the pedestrian was not using a phone!

How does that change things?
I thought it was accepted she stepped out in front of him. The exact reason for her doing so wasnt really relevant though and hence didnt get looked at closely.
If anything being on the phone might have gone against him since shouting would be even less likely to work.

Saw this in the [url= http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/londres-18-mois-de-prison-pour-un-cycliste-ayant-heurte-et-tue-une-passante-18-09-2017-2157969_24.php ]press[/url] and guessed there would be a thread.

No front brake, furious cycling, swearing at pedestrians rather than avoiding them. Even his mother seems to have thought the sentence reasonable. If a motorist drove into you because he had only a handbrake on the rear wheels because he had removed the front brakes what do you think the verdict would be?

How does that change things?

It probably doesn't change anything on the sentencing etc. however on other forums I have seen folks jumping on the claim (since withdrawn) that she was on her phone and saying that she therefore deserved what she got. Although the type of arsehole saying that sort of thing won't be put off by little things such as facts and evidence!

If he had been coached in what to do and what to say I doubt he would have had the same sentence even if he felt the same

Which (for me) makes a total mockery of the justice system

The fact someone could be coached to give answers just to lower their sentence regardless of the actual crime and their guilt, just doesn't sit right with me 😕

I'd imagine a hipster fixie rider called Charlie is going to have a fun old time of it in a young offenders institute 😯

I wonder who's idea it was not to go for some kind of plea bargain, because I'm pretty sure a guilty plea and public, pre-trial remorse and apologies would have seen him with a suspended sentence.

I'd imagine a hipster fixie rider called Charlie is going to have a fun old time of it in a young offenders institute

Well he's already got some prison style tats.

For me, the issue here is much less about whether he was in the wrong or not (at the end of the day, the bike was illegal) it's the utter hypocrisy of the way the whole thing has been dealt with both in the court and in the media.

There really are two separate arguments here

1) Was he sentenced appropriately under the law for the crime he was convicted of? - In my view, yes. Even his mother agrees. We demand our rights as cyclists, this is a tragic reminder that rights come with responsibilities.

2) Do drivers get sentenced appropriately for similar convictions? The answer seems to be "not always"

I was actually quite impressed by Cycling UKs response, pointing out that demands for tougher laws on cyclists should be considered in an ongoing review of all motoring offences which the government has been dragging it's feet over for years.

akira - Member
Fanatic, do you have a version of stats purely involving cyclists being hit by cars, would be curious. Although when you say it's not true.

A taxi driver who collided with a young cyclist and crashed into a tree carrying the body on his vehicle's bonnet has been fined £35.
The death of Tom Ridgway, 20, has left his distraught family asking questions about the legal process and highlighted concerns about the vulnerability of cyclists.

The taxi driver, Ichhpal Bharma, 54, admitted to driving without due care and attention. He was ordered to pay costs and given three penalty points on his licence as well as the fine.

from the guardian.

OK - so in the [url= http://www.road-peace.org.uk/resources/RoadPeace%20Sentencing%20of%20Causing%20Death%20by%20Driving%20offences%20England%20Wales.pdf ]source[/url] I am using, death by careless driving was dealt with by a fine in 4 occasions out of 141 convictions in 2015 (i.e. 2%). It doesn't make distinction between whether the victims were in another car, pedestrians or cyclist.

Your example of Tom Ridgeway is a prime example of the failure of the CPS to bother prosecuting properly. From the Guardian [url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/18/taxi-driver-fined-cyclists-death ]source[/url]:

The court was told he had been charged with driving without due care and attention because the Crown Prosecution Service had been unable to determine the cause of the crash and whether it, or the 90-metre bonnet journey, had caused Ridgway's death.

I agree with earlier sentiments that cyclists are let down by police, CPS, politicians, media and general public. On the particular instance of Alliston, it seems like when it gets to the court it is dealt with [i]reasonably[/i] fairly. As I said before, to me, the sentence seems within +/- 6 months of what I consider fair.

Worth reading the legal blog on the Tom Ridgeway case here: [url] https://ukcrime.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/death-of-a-cyclist-ichhpal-bharma/ [/url]

Thanks epicsteve.

I find this quote despairingly poor though:

The fact that someone dies is a feature that would normally aggravate the sentence. There is a separate (and more serious – maximum penalty 5 years) offence of causing death by careless driving. This requires proof of the offence of careless driving (present in this case as there was a guilty plea) and that the driving caused the death. This could not be charged in this case as it could not be established that the careless driving was the cause of death.

REALLY! They want to make a distinction between whether the fella died because he hit the bonnet or whether he hit a tree?!? The fact is he died because the driver was careless. It just seems to me that a jumped up magistrate wanted an interesting case for once, rather than handing it over to a proper court.

i thought this article in the guardian covered it well- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge - sorry if it's being posted before. where i live there are a lot of shared footpaths with pedestrians. The number who wander erratically whilst glued to their phones or deafened by their heaphones makes it a slalom course - they seem oblivious to bicycles and also merrily step into the road without a moments break from their phones. How i've missed some of these bozos despite great care when cycling i'd love to put down to lightning fast reactions, but seem mostly down to luck. I can assure them that being hit by a fully loaded ebike towing a trailer is going to hurt (a lot) but they don't seem bothered.

The fact is he died because the driver was careless.

That's what they're saying they don't know for sure i.e. it's also possible that the cyclist caused the accident, and that he died on impact. It sounds like there just simply isn't any evidence either way.

My gut feel is probably the same as yours (i.e. the motorist was probably at fault for the death) but as there was no evidence there is no way he could be charged.

he number who wander erratically whilst glued to their phones or deafened by their heaphones

No-one is claiming that was the case here - Alliston did originally but admitted later he'd never seen the pedestrian on her phone.

Slow down, Bobgarrod. You'll have less trouble avoiding people and even if they deliberately jump in front of you it won't hurt you or them (a lot).

No-one is claiming that was the case here

I dont think anyone disputes that she did wander erratically. The reason for that wasnt investigated in detail.

epicsteve - Member

The fact is he died because the driver was careless.

That's what they're saying they don't know for sure i.e. it's also possible that the cyclist caused the accident, and that he died on impact. It sounds like there just simply isn't any evidence either way.

He admitted to careless driving. How much evidence do they need to conclude the careless driving which resulted in a cyclist landing on his bonnet then caused his death? The fact is, they didn't even try.

MoreCashThanDash - Member
There really are two separate arguments here

1) Was he sentenced appropriately under the law for the crime he was convicted of? - In my view, yes. Even his mother agrees. We demand our rights as cyclists, this is a tragic reminder that rights come with responsibilities.

2) Do drivers get sentenced appropriately for similar convictions? The answer seems to be "not always"

I was actually quite impressed by Cycling UKs response, pointing out that demands for tougher laws on cyclists should be considered in an ongoing review of all motoring offences which the government has been dragging it's feet over for years.

^^This^^

And also the follow on campaign for appropriate charging options backed by both the victims family and the defence barrister...

Trying to get proper recognition of cyclists rights and Responsibilities into modern road traffic legislation should be seen as a positive outcome IMO...

I'd agree that the attention this case has received does raise questions about the coverage given to similar motoring offences, but that's really a side issue now...

He admitted to careless driving. How much evidence do they need to conclude the careless driving which resulted in a cyclist landing on his bonnet then caused his death? The fact is, they didn't even try.

From the reporting it would appear they considered other charges but, as well as not being able to prove the driver was at fault, they didn't have any evidence that suggested who actually was at fault. Sure they could have gone ahead and tried to prosecute him for something more serious but I think it'd have been thrown out by a defence motion in the first couple of minutes of any trial.

The fact someone could be coached to give answers just to lower their sentence regardless of the actual crime and their guilt, just doesn't sit right with me

[quote=gauss1777 ]There would appear to be several contentious statements in the judges sentencing remarks.

Indeed.

shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way

I'm not aware there is any evidence for the use of the plural there. It also seems a perfectly normal thing to do to shout at a pedestrian who walks into the road in front of you - I'm sure it's what I'd do (and I couldn't be sure I'd avoid the temptation to use a swear word in the heat of the moment), and I suspect most cyclists would. Which brings us onto the most significant contentious comment IMHO

You were an accident waiting to happen. The victim could have been
any pedestrian.

Any pedestrian who recklessly walked into the road in front of moving traffic that is. I appreciate it is victim blaming, but in this case some of the blame has to be allocated to the victim because she put herself in the situation. Yet I'm struggling to see anything in that report which suggests she was anything other than completely innocent.

You have criticised her for crossing in front of you

Which seems a completely reasonable thing to criticise her for.

It's right here that the comparison with motoring cases is so jarring. Because the vast majority of cases where a cyclist is killed they have done nothing at all wrong. In cases where the cyclist (or pedestrian) has done something to contribute to their own death the sentence of a driver is decreased accordingly (the stats presented here are useless without context) if they even happen to be prosecuted. It still seems reasonable to question whether a driver hitting a pedestrian who's stepped into the road in front of them would be prosecuted at all.

It had no bell to warn others of your approach.

FFS!

She reached almost the centre of the road but could not go further because of on-coming traffic.
...
When she realised her danger, in the shock of the moment, she clearly did not know what to do or which way to move for the best. The result was that you rode straight into her.

I have a feeling there's something missing there, but then we'll never see the CCTV footage so presumably this will always be speculation. It doesn't say what she did do in her confusion. Did he ride straight into her because she stepped back into his path - that interpretation is certainly possible given that remark.

As others have pointed out, there still isn't anything inherently reckless about trying to avoid a collision by steering around somebody rather than braking.

It also seems from those remarks that the judge is sentencing him based upon the illegal lack of the brake directly causing the death. Yet the jury explicitly found him not guilty of that - because there appears no other possible reason for the not guilty verdict on the manslaughter charge, all parties accept the other requirements for that have been met. I reckon if there is an appeal it will be based upon that (assuming that as suggested up thread there is now no way to challenge the extremely dodgy braking evidence, which the judge also references in her remarks).

I should note I'm not suggesting he wasn't a dick and he certainly did a lot of things wrong (not least of which was his attitude after the collision), it's just that I'm even more uncomfortable with all of this having read those remarks.

It appears that Alliston's fibs in court about his courier experience are being looked at as possible perjury now.

Which sounds to me a lot like he failed the 'dick test', got convicted of something that'll likely get overturned on appeal and now 'they' are desperatly trying to find something that'll stick so that 'justice' can seen to be done.

To me, it's not rocket science, was his bike delibratly illegal - Yes, did that illegality reduce his options in the event of an incident - Yes, did someone dies as a result of said incident - Yes

That'll be manslaughter, job jobbed.

We have the laws to cover this, it's just juries are useless for actually finding people guilty, whether they're in a car/on a bike/riding a horse.

Which sounds to me a lot like he failed the 'dick test', got convicted of something that'll likely get overturned on appeal

What would the grounds be for his appeal?

That'll be manslaughter, job jobbed.

No need to bother with due process, then.

No need to bother with due process, then.

You've seen the video of the police 'testing' the brakes, right?

I know what you mean, and I was oversimplifying things but if you'd done what he did with industrial equipment you'd be looking at a manslaughter charge.

I just don't get why we seem incapable of applying all of our laws in a consistent manner.

You've seen the video of the police 'testing' the brakes, right?

The defence didn't really challenge the situation regarding braking because it can't really be challenged. So while that police video is rather unscientific it's not really an issue.

I know what you mean, and I was oversimplifying things but if you'd done what he did with industrial equipment you'd be looking at a manslaughter charge.

He did face a manslaughter charge.

[quote=sobriety ]I just don't get why we seem incapable of applying all of our laws in a consistent manner.

Presumably you'd first need to read said laws and understand the criteria which must be met for a guilty verdict. Something which would also help when commenting on them on a forum...

[quote=epicsteve ]So while that police video is rather unscientific it's not really an issue.

"rather"? 🙄

I'm still assuming the reason it wasn't challenged was either because Charlie's lawyer was inexperienced and incompetent or because it was thought that it wouldn't play well with the jury when they were trying to go for a different angle. If the video we've seen is the real testing, or similar to the real testing then the methodology is extremely dodgy and it certainly didn't prove that Charlie could have stopped in the space available (on the basis of the theory and your testing there's certainly reasonable cause for doubt that he could have stopped).

If the video we've seen is the real testing, or similar to the real testing then the methodology is extremely dodgy and it certainly didn't prove that Charlie could have stopped in the space available (on the basis of the theory and your testing there's certainly reasonable cause for doubt that he could have stopped).

Quite. The judge's remarks were very clear that he should've been able to stop, and it was his inability to do so that caused the accident. If there is doubt about the validity of this expert evidence then surely it significantly undermines the case against him.

For the avoidance of doubt: I think his standard of riding fell well below what I would expect from a careful cyclist, and there's no doubt that his bike was illegal.

There will be some behind the scenes discussions. He'll agree not to appeal and the CPS will agree not to prosecute for perjury.

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/06/woman-cleared-careless-driving-crowd-funded-prosecution-cycling-uk ]This is worth our attention instead[/url]

“It seems that failing to be aware of what’s in front of you while you’re driving is an acceptable mistake, not careless, and that no explanation for that failure is necessary."

The judges summing up quotes say

[i]" On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident. "[/i]

so maybe the brake wasn't all that relevant?

He does seem to be doing a lot of lying... about pedestrians phone use and now his employment.

He'll agree not to appeal

I don't think he's got any grounds for appeal.

Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident

Exactly right, very good point from judge. As I said many pages ago I could have stopped within that distance. If I didn't choose to stop then having brakes or not is irrelevant.

Learning to take responsibility for his actions and feeling/showing compassion are the lessons for him but he may not get that reinforced in his time away.

Essentially the judges remarks are:
1: "You are a knob when it comes to cycling"
2: "On the day in question you were indeed riding like a knob"
"As a result of 1 & 2 you killed someone."

I don't really think that is contentious. Those of you saying that his actions on the day were reasonable [i]still[/i] haven't seen the relevant evidence. The judge has.

Excellent summary there ^^^

larkim - Member

Excellent summary there ^^^

Posted 33 minutes ago # Report-Post

Indeed, and much better than the passive victim blaming that is rearing it's head on this thread.

so maybe the brake wasn't all that relevant?

The judge also said:

"If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not."

"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance"

a racer - thanks for taking the effort to go through what the judge said.
The judge also said:

... relying only on the rear-wheel system, it takes 4 times the distance to stop

I know quite a few people who like fast/sporty cars, they like the fast and furious films, indeed it is something that gets expressed on this forum quite regularly - it would seem a leap to me for the judge to then state, re his mentioning in a forum that he felt a thrill like when watching a Brunelle film,

I am satisfied that in some part it was this so-called thrill that motivated you to ride without a front brake, shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way

There is also something that doesn't sit comfortably with the statement:

But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane.

EDIT: Ahforrgetaboutit, life's too short

I know quite a few people who like fast/sporty cars, they like the fast and furious films, indeed it is something that gets expressed on this forum quite regularly - it would seem a leap to me for the judge to then state, re his mentioning in a forum that he felt a thrill like when watching a Brunelle film,

Thing is there's a key fact that we'll never be able to know..
Did the woman negligently step into a live lane of traffic.

Presumably the judge and jury do know.

So this conversation can never really conclude.

Disclaimer, yes he sounds like a dick, yes it's negligent to ride ya bike with no brakes anywhere outside a controlled environment like a velodrome.

One thing that's really odd and possibly psychotic, is the apparent complete lack of remorse, which I'm fairly sure had an influence on the outcome.
It wouldn't be to hard a stretch of the imagination to think a jury might conclude 'he's acting like this after a fatal collision, so he's probably riding like that too'.

BTW I think he convicted himself when he said ‘I was entitled to go on’.
He [i]had a right[/i] to continue riding into what became the collision.

if you'd done what he did with industrial equipment you'd be looking at a manslaughter charge.

If you were operating industrial equipment, you would be expected to operate with a higher standard of care (H&S At Work Act, and all that).

Thing is there's a key fact that we'll never be able to know..
Did the woman negligently step into a live lane of traffic.

Judge pretty much addressed this point.

If someone killed a pedestrian whilst driving a car in which speed was a issue

Cars forever go through amber lights, often claiming they cannot stop as someone may go into the back of them - perhaps (perhaps a big perhaps) he subconsciously feared breaking suddenly, afraid of being hit from behind, sees there is room to go between her and the parked lorry, she then takes a step back???

It all seems like a terrible accident, perhaps he could have reacted better, but I fear a significant number of people would have possibly collided with her had they been in his shoes - a lot of the judgements made about him, seem to have been made with significant hindsight.

I do however accept I could well be wrong.

[quote=gauss1777 ]The judge also said:

... relying only on the rear-wheel system, it takes 4 times the distance to stop

I'm fairly sure it is based on the dodgy prosecution evidence as shown in the video they released.

[quote=grumpysculler ]

Thing is there's a key fact that we'll never be able to know..
Did the woman negligently step into a live lane of traffic.

How exactly did she address it?

Quite clearly the pedestrian did negligently step into a live lane of traffic - the outcome is sufficient evidence for that. From my reading of the judge's comments that negligence was pretty much discounted. Sure that might seem like passive victim blaming, but ultimately the one person who could have done something different which would have guaranteed that the collision didn't happen was the victim.

Cars forever go through amber lights, often claiming they cannot stop as someone may go into the back of them - perhaps (perhaps a big perhaps) he subconsciously feared breaking suddenly, afraid of being hit from behind, sees there is room to go between her and the parked lorry, she then takes a step back???

While there may be some truth in this, I think when you add a pedestrian in front of you to the mix then most drivers would instinctively stand on the brakes to try and not hit them, regardless of what might be too close behind.

"If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not."

Thanks, didn't read that but. Take it back then the judge was only partially correct. As the rider did not attempt to stop not sure how the judge can sate that they could not stop. For that to be true the rider would have been doing all they could to stop but not been able to slow down enough to avoid hitting someone.

How exactly did she address it?

Quite clearly the pedestrian did negligently step into a live lane of traffic - the outcome is sufficient evidence for that. From my reading of the judge's comments that negligence was pretty much discounted. Sure that might seem like passive victim blaming, but ultimately the one person who could have done something different which would have guaranteed that the collision didn't happen was the victim.

I think you'll find a large proportion of injured peds are hit on the pavement or when using crossings appropriately. When they walk out in front of cars it does generally mitigate the driving offence if any.

I suppose an analogy would be if someone is driving a car and a pedestrian steps out in front of them in similar(ish) circumstances, i.e. with similar stopping time requirements. In that situation, it would not be acceptable for the driver to just sound their horn a couple of times while maintaining speed, in expectation that the pedestrian will get out of the way. In fact I doubt any reasonably competent driver would do anything other than immediately brake hard (and would probably not even think of taking a hand off the wheel to hit the horn as well).

From the description of what the CCTV shows, there were parked vehicles and on the other side of the road oncoming traffic which caused the victim to stop. It would seem therefore that the available roadwidth was fairly narrow, and the room for Alliston to be able to avoid her by swerving was very limited (and probably dependent on her and him doing exactly the right thing very quickly, i.e. she moves left and he swerves right or vice versa).

Even if we accept that the severity of the injury to the victim could have happened at any speed, and that the actual collision speed was not a factor (purely as it happened to turn out in that instance, whereas very often collision speed [i]would[/i] be likely to influence the severity), a reasonably prudent cyclist would have braked hard (and probably done so instinctively without thinking first of the possibility that a vehicle might be behind them and run into them).

A cyclist on a fully braked bike who braked hard might still have collided with the victim, and maybe she might still have died. But maybe he would have been able to stop or the collision would have been less severe and they would not have bumped heads. We will simply never know, but Alliston denied himself that possibility when he decided to ride a fixed gear bike without a front brake. In some respects his assertions that he did nothing wrong, that he had right of way, that he was a skilled cyclist etc. are reminiscent of similarly aged new car drivers in a hot hatch who have an accident.

In some respects his assertions that he did nothing wrong, that he had right of way, that he was a skilled cyclist etc. are reminiscent of similarly aged new car drivers in a hot hatch who have an accident.

I wonder if he was poorly advised or just didn't take any advice, because his statements in court (including what appear to be lies to back them up) certainly appear to have made the situation worse - for sentencing if nothing else.

It's one of the fundamental tenets of learning to drive - you need to be prepared to stop at any time (hence the emergency stop protocol) to deal with an unexpected event in front of you. Whilst there's no driving test for bikes (no mandatory one anyway) the same applies - you've got to be prepared for someone doing something stupid in front of you (e.g. the classic kid running in the road to get a football etc) and be both competent enough to stop as soon as you can, and have a vehicle maintained such that it can achieve that stop within normal parameters. Not every car has ABS, wide tyres, active suspension etc to stop as soon as is possible to engineer, but they all are expected to meet certain minimum standards. Same for bikes - where its simple - a front a rear brake.

It is clear that the onus was on him, there was time to avoid the collision, but he didn't really try and he left her with nowhere safe to go. His allegation that she was using a phone and not looking was retracted (presumably to try and avoid perjury). The judge acknowledged that she could have done things differently. But it was his actions that most directly caused the collision. She did not cause the collision by walking across the road, but she did expose herself to danger. Presented with a dangerous situation, he then caused the collision.

If he had tried to stop, but there had been insufficient room, then he'd probably be in the clear just as a car driver might be in a similar circumstance. But he did not, and the pedestrian had right of way.

You have throughout sought to put your blame on her. Perhaps one of the most shocking things about this case is that you could not and apparently cannot still see any fault in your cycling or judgement. You began by posting messages on line saying she was using her mobile phone, but have retracted that assertion. You have criticised her for crossing in front of you. True it is that she could have walked a little further up the road and waited for the lights to change. True it is that she put herself in the middle of the road. But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane.

Whether she saw you and judged she had time to cross, or whether she simply didn’t notice you, I do not know; but I am satisfied on saw her as she stepped off the kerb. It was clear to you that she was in danger. It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into her. This must have been obvious to you, and you did indeed swerve and slow to between 10-14 mph as you went through the yellow-box at the junction of Old St and Charlotte Road. You shouted at her twice to (in your own words) ‘get out of the ****ing way’. She reached almost the centre of the road but could not go further because of on-coming traffic. On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’. That meant threading a path between her in the middle of the road and a parked lorry on your left. We have together in this court-room watched those final seconds over and over on the CCTV footage that recorded them. When she realised her danger, in the shock of the moment, she clearly did not know what to do or which way to move for the best. The result was that you rode straight into her. If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not. On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way

As the rider did not attempt to stop not sure how the judge can sate that they could not stop.

The expert evidence said that he was not able to stop because there was no front brake on his bike.

My dad has a small fleet of vintage cars / trucks. By modern standards, the whole lot are unsafe and certainly more dangerous than a bicycle, even if it had 16 brakes.

But if he were to run someone over in the conditions described over the last 28 pages, I seriously doubt he'd even lose his license.

The expert evidence said that he was not able to stop because there was no front brake on his bike.

With the follow on from that being the prosecutions case being that the main reason he didn't try to stop was because his choice in riding an illegal bike without effective brakes didn't give him that option. His defence challenged that but saying he'd have done the same thing even if he had brakes, however the jury appears not to have accepted that. In her summing up the judge also appears to indicate that, based on the CCTV evidence, his riding was so dangerous that he might have still been up on charges even if he had brakes but chose not to use them (e.g. he might have been doing a deliberate close flyby to scare her even more than his shouting and swearing had already done).

imnotverygood - Member
How exactly did she address it?
Quite clearly the pedestrian did negligently step into a live lane of traffic - the outcome is sufficient evidence for that. [b]From my reading of the judge's comments that negligence was pretty much discounted[/b]. Sure that might seem like passive victim blaming, but ultimately the one person who could have done something different which would have guaranteed that the collision didn't happen was the victim.

Funnily enough. Whenever a pedestrian is hit by a moving vehicle, unless the collision takes place in the pavement, it usually involves the pedestrian stepping into the path of the vehicle. Seeing as most vehicles move slower than the speed of light, there is also pretty much always a degree of negligence associated with that act. When that happens it is the responsibility of the vehicle 'driver' to take reasonable action to avoid the idiot. [b]Given the negligence of the pedestrian is pretty much a given[/b] and not accepted as a mitigation when the vehicle concerned is a car, I'm not sure why you think it is so significant in this case.
POSTED 5 HOURS AGO

*having not seen the evidence/CCTV footage...*
This is where the underlying issue that is causing the difference of opinion is located. The fact a pedestrian either a) didn't pay FULL attention before walking out in tho the road or b) was paying attention and did so anyway, has been completely discounted. People may call 'victim blaming' but she wouldn't be a victim if she had looked/listened before crossing AS ALL CHILDREN ALL TAUGHT (if indeed she didn't look/listen).
But what makes it worse is the 2nd bold, why is this a given? How can we accept that. This is basic road safety. If she was paying attention, why did she not know that she would have to stop in the middle of the road?
I do think that Charlie was partly to blame, and that his actions before he even left the house showed that [i]maybe[/i] he shouldn't have been on the road, but in a court case this unusual and media-scrutinized, and therefore being seen/heard by a lot of the general public, to basically say "if you walk out into the road without looking and get hit its not your fault" is a massively irresponsible blunder.

[quote=slowster ]I suppose an analogy would be if someone is driving a car and a pedestrian steps out in front of them in similar(ish) circumstances, i.e. with similar stopping time requirements. In that situation, it would not be acceptable for the driver to just sound their horn a couple of times while maintaining speed, in expectation that the pedestrian will get out of the way. In fact I doubt any reasonably competent driver would do anything other than immediately brake hard (and would probably not even think of taking a hand off the wheel to hit the horn as well).
From the description of what the CCTV shows, there were parked vehicles and on the other side of the road oncoming traffic which caused the victim to stop. It would seem therefore that the available roadwidth was fairly narrow, and the room for Alliston to be able to avoid her by swerving was very limited (and probably dependent on her and him doing exactly the right thing very quickly, i.e. she moves left and he swerves right or vice versa).

You appear to be making unjustified assumptions based on the judges comments - admittedly the comments do seem to be phrased in order to give such an erroneous impression. https://goo.gl/maps/YFpcdf5fftt is I where the collision happened (based upon reports Charlie had just ridden through this junction) there's a van parked in the parking/loading bay where the lorry presumably was (apart from the bays the road is double red lined). Still plenty of space to avoid a pedestrian by swerving - there's sufficient road width for vehicles.

Which is where the analogy with vehicles falls down, because in a car the only appropriate action is to brake, whilst as discussed above swerving is an appropriate action and likely to be the most appropriate action in many circumstances. Also as discussed above the chances are he couldn't have stopped even with a front brake - though clearly the dodgy police evidence suggested otherwise.

It may be irresponsible, but there is no legal requirement for a pedestrian to look before crossing the road. There is a legal requirement for a cyclist to ride safely and comply with the law with respect to the bike's equipment.
Speaking as someone who was a motorbike courier in London for 3 years, you don't need to tel me how irresponsible pedestrians can be. However , that does not absolve matey boy from riding like a knob and killing someone. Especially in the eyes of the law.

With the follow on from that being the prosecutions case being that the main reason he didn't try to stop was because his choice in riding an illegal bike without effective brakes didn't give him that option. His defence challenged that but saying he'd have done the same thing even if he had brakes, however the jury appears not to have accepted that. In her summing up the judge also appears to indicate that, based on the CCTV evidence, his riding was so dangerous that he might have still been up on charges even if he had brakes but chose not to use them (e.g. he might have been doing a deliberate close flyby to scare her even more than his shouting and swearing had already done).

"Might" being the key word. A bike with effective brakes and a rider choosing to swerve rather than stop wouldn't fall into the category of "wanton and furious" so a heck of a lot of weight would have to be placed on other aspects in order to secure a conviction.

I completely agree, that wasn't quite the point I was making though.
There may be no legal requirement for it but surely its COMMON SENSE?
I wouldn't dream of crossing a road without checking its clear. I do happen to like being alive and uninjured.

The point being, it hasn't been even discussed as a cause (whether or not i think it should effect the sentence), and it reinforces the 'don't need to take consequences of my actions' mentality that A LOT of people have. Just look at the number of drivers who speed/use mobile/drive too close/break too late/drink and drive...... but those bloody cyclists/pedestrians shouldn't be on the road.

Actually aracer, if there was a lorry parked where he van is & traffic coming the other way than I can entirely see why he was convicted. Space to avoid someone in an extreme emergency perhaps. Space to safely pass someone at double figure speed, when there is an option to stop. No way.

[quote=grumpysculler ]It is clear that the onus was on him, there was time to avoid the collision, but he didn't really try and he left her with nowhere safe to go. His allegation that she was using a phone and not looking was retracted (presumably to try and avoid perjury). The judge acknowledged that she could have done things differently. But it was his actions that most directly caused the collision.

Hmm - I'm not sure it was Charlie who left her with nowhere safe to go - she is the one who walked into the road with traffic in the opposite lane which meant she would be forced to stop in the middle of the road in a lane with approaching traffic. The dangerous situation was almost entirely created by the victim - reading the description by the judge it seems to be an extremely stupid time/place to cross the road. As for direct cause of the collision, clearly that is debatable, but as I wrote before the only alternative decision/action which would definitively have avoided the collision was that made by the victim. I'm not sure you can claim he didn't try to avoid the collision either - that would be a nonsensical thing to do on a bicycle where there's a good chance you're going to come off worse, he appears to have tried to avoid it by riding around her.

I note from the sentencing guidelines for causing death by driving:

Where the actions of the victim or a third party contributed to the commission of an offence, this should be acknowledged and taken into account as a mitigating factor.

^^This

[quote=imnotverygood ]It may be irresponsible, but there is no legal requirement for a pedestrian to look before crossing the road. There is a legal requirement for a cyclist to ride safely and comply with the law with respect to the bike's equipment.

There is still a fundamental principle not to be negligent. Clearly in this case the victim wasn't following HC guidance - similar behaviour from the operator of a vehicle is sufficient for a conviction in the absence of any specific law breaking.

Allison was convicted largely because he thought it was all the pedestrian's fault and he was entitled to keep going. Despite his conviction and nearly 1000 posts, some people don't seem to have got he message.
EDIT: If a pedestrian steps out in front of you- for whatever reason- and the collision is avoidable, if you fail to avoid the collision, you will get done.

Again, not arguing with the outcome of the trial as such, as I believe he didn't do enough to avoid the collision.
What I do not agree with is the fact that the pedestrian must have been, to some extent, negligent on her part for crossing where/when she did. I do not want to make any less of the tragedy of her death but this was largely ignored, and sends out the wrong message.

If, in the closing statement, the judge had said she was partly at fault and pedestrians need to ALSO take more care of their surroundings, but it was still within Charlies power to stop or lessen the collision i wouldn't have a problem.

[quote=imnotverygood ]Despite his conviction and nearly 1000 posts, some people don't seem to have got he message.

I presume the message we're supposed to get is that because he was convicted the collision was entirely his fault and avoidable? That despite some of the evidence on which the conviction was based being extremely dodgy. BTW somewhere in those 1000 posts there is a lot of quite useful debate on various issues, most of it isn't directly arguing whether or not Charlie was being a dick. Most of the debate now is not about the conviction - that happened a while ago and we were mostly fairly comfortable with the outcome - but with the sentencing.

Can I just check though what the point of your post is other than an attempt to shut down debate from people you disagree with?