[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

I remember my driving instructor saying to me "assume when driving in town centres that people will step out or do other idiotic things. be vigilant and control as many variables as you can".

Just because someone [I]shouldn't[/I] step out without looking, doesn't mean they won't - and if you're riding in a city, you should be expecting it, matching speed to stopping distance (or at least reduction of speed distance) and be ready for freak occurrences. Removing the brakes from your bike reduces the ability to deal with these kind of things, so reducing the number of controllable variables.

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.

Maybe if you are a cyclist. I wouldnt put money on it if they get hit by a car.
Bit on sun in the eyes or just a casual claim they didnt see them and will be home and dry. In some ways I think his offence, aside from being a cyclist, was actually make some effort to avoid the collision but not managing it.

Bit on sun in the eyes or just a casual claim they didnt see them and will be home and dry.

Yep, seems to be the case here. Mounted pavement and ran over a 4 year old. No wrongdoing at all! WTF. Isn't it illegal to drive on the pavement??

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437

aracer - Member

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.

Or stopping, you seem to be unable to accept he could have done that, or that he had any obligation to attempt to do so.

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?

The trouble is, the jury and the judge don't buy the interpretation you are seeking to put on the evidence

The trouble is judges and juries have a rather dubious history when it comes to incidents involving cyclists (or pedestrians being hit by cars)

Does this not even slightly suggest to you that this was someone who was aggressively expecting the pedestrian to get out of his way?

Or that he was going to go round them. There are statements that he tried to evade her before she stepped back into his way.
Stupid cycling from him. Sure since you should never underestimate the unpredictability of a pedestrian. However if accurate she made two mistakes which guaranteed the collision.

If a pedestrian steps out in front of you- for whatever reason- and the collision is [b]proven to be[/b] avoidable [b]beyond reasonable doubt[/b], if you fail to avoid the collision, you will get done.

FTFY.

It is hard for me to clearly understand why he was acquitted of manslaughter and found guilty of wanton and furious driving. It seems the jury thought manslaughter looks a bit harsh, what's the fall-back? Given he's obviously a dick and needs to be punished in some way.

Years ago a family member was driving a car when an elderly woman crossed the road, she was nearing the centre line and for some reason froze when seeing the car, then stepped back towards the kerb, he hit her and she died of her injuries. There was no conviction, nor driving offence of any kind. I think that there could be sufficient grounds for doubt that a similar thing could be argued in this case.

When a pedestrian stepped in front of me, after hitting her, I was pretty angry too, but thankfully we were both OK. The bike was less OK, but it is only a bike.

BTW At the inquest into my friend and clubmate who died after hitting a pothole, the coroner was very understanding of the position cyclists and other vulnerable road users find themselves in. Presumably there was an inquest in the case? (which does not attribute blame)

Can't have our cake and eat it. The outcome would be even less equivocal if presumed liability was adopted. Something that we seem to actively want. Until it applies to someone in the cycling tribe... That smacks of hypocrisy.

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/bez-selling-a-dream-at-the-cost-of-reality/ ][/url]

Yep, seems to be the case here. Mounted pavement and ran over a 4 year old. No wrongdoing at all! WTF. Isn't it illegal to drive on the pavement??

My wife mentioned this to me earlier. I can't even find the words to describe my anger at it being possible to KILL SOMEONE and not be found at fault.

aracer - Member
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).

POSTED 1 DAY AGO # REPORT-POST

Is it just me that finds people referring to strangers by their first name a bit vomit-inducing?

Is it an attempt to 'humanise' the subject? Or false mateyness? Or just an affectation?

Genuine question, because it does piss me off, so I'd like to understand.

Alliston is quite difficult to spell

[quote=HoratioHufnagel ]Yep, seems to be the case here. Mounted pavement and ran over a 4 year old. No wrongdoing at all! WTF. Isn't it illegal to drive on the pavement??
> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
br />

I mentioned that case somewhere in the preceding 1000 posts (from which we apparently haven't got the message), having picked it up from an article by Bez. Bez has more interesting comments on that in his most recent blog - along with various other interesting stuff on issues arising from this case:
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-law-must-be-fixed-mustnt-it/

The point (which I think I also made earlier) is that in that case all the required evidence appears to be in place and beyond reasonable doubt for an unlawful act manslaughter conviction. The points which must be proven being:
1) the defendant deliberately committed an unlawful act
2) the unlawful act directly caused the death
3) all sober and reasonable people would realise that the unlawful act would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm
I tend to agree with Bez that there would have been a very high chance of a conviction if those were the points which needed to be proved - it's hard to see any possible doubt over any of those points. I note that the jury in the Charlie Alliston case found that at least one of those points wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, which I'll come back to...

However in their wisdom the CPS fell back on the standard "death by driving" charges, which have the unfortunate "competent and careful driver" clause, with the jury judging that against their own standard of driving. A jury composed of members who probably all park on the pavement themselves. Bez helpfully references the Court of Appeal judgement which not only allows juries to let drivers off in this way, but specifically instructs them to do so:
"It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves."

Apologies to Bez for precising so much of your blog, but it's so relevant to the discussion here. The other point he makes is that if Mr Briggs' campaign to introduce dangerous cycling charges to parallel the dangerous driving ones succeeds, jury selection procedures will have to be changed so that jury members in such cases are cyclists. Otherwise it would be impossible for the jury members to make an accurate judgement of the standard of an ordinary prudent cyclist by reference to their own standards.

IMHO that case is an excellent example of how the use of "death by driving" charges rather than manslaughter when deaths occur on the roads has gone horribly wrong. It's the sort of example which should be used when the government reviews charging and conviction of cases involving deaths on the roads, as they have promised to do...

[quote=dannyh ]Is it just me that finds people referring to strangers by their first name a bit vomit-inducing?
Is it an attempt to 'humanise' the subject? Or false mateyness? Or just an affectation?
Genuine question, because it does piss me off, so I'd like to understand.

It's just easier TBH. Check out my comments on the F1 thread where I tend to refer to Max, Kimi and Vettel, as their other names are problematic and I'd have to think about how to spell them. I regret that you are offended by me referring to him as Charlie.

[quote=duckman ]Or stopping, you seem to be unable to accept he could have done that, or that he had any obligation to attempt to do so.

Good - I've clearly not been that hard to understand. No, based upon the testing done by epicsteve and the theory of how fast you can stop a bicycle, even with a front brake it would have been very marginal to stop in the distance available. It would have relied on doing a perfect stop in a panic situation. I'm completely discounting the evidence supplied by the police on stopping distances here, having seen an example of their methodology (and given that their quoted distances appear to break the laws of physics). He had an obligation to attempt to avoid the collision - swerving to avoid her on a bit of road which was plenty wide enough for him to pass her is sufficient for that, and quite possibly the best choice given how marginal the chances of avoiding the collision by braking are.

swerving to avoid her on a bit of road which was plenty wide enough for him to pass her is sufficient for that, and quite possibly the best choice given how marginal the chances of avoiding the collision by braking are.

If he'd braked he would've been going more slowly at the point of impact and Mrs Brigg may not have died. Of course not having a front brake denied him this opportunity. Swerve away.

So, what effect if any will the introduction of a death by dangerous driving law have on trail access (on forestry land and bridleways) and cheeky trails (say on forestry land - eg wharncouver)?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/25/perspective-needed-with-cycling-death-statistics

Matthew Briggs is channelling his grief commendably into changing the law to introduce offences of “dangerous cycling” and “death by careless cycling”. It is critical that, if he is successful, it is seen that these crimes will apply to cyclists riding on pavements as well as on roads. I fear that the next fatality may occur when a cyclist hits a pedestrian who does what pedestrians do: walk on pavements.

What kind of a position will we be in if we hit someone or their dog on say unsanctioned forestry trails.

You really are starting to spin this whole case aracer. Even by your normal default position, your attempts to justify his bike and riding are pretty odious based on the facts we have,not the speculation you introduce.
So just to sum up your version of events; he tried to avoid her,she got in the way and he hit and killed her.He did the correct thing by trying to avoid her and his inability to brake is irrelevant. Is that how you see it from the evidence that was presented?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41337440

In principal, I've no objections. But as the cycling body quotes say, it needs to be part of a wider review of transport, motor vehicles wreck and kill far more lives every year including cyclists and pedestrians.

The potential for death is far greater when driving a 1-2 ton vehicle (which has a metal shell plus seat belts offering the driver and passengers reasonable protection), very often faster than speed limits which for many only seem to apply on the approach to speed cameras, compared to the combined mass of ~65-120Kg cyclist and their bike (where the only protection they usually have is a foam helmet).

Of course not having a front brake denied him this opportunity

No it didn't. You can stop on a fixed gear bike with no brakes, he chose not to.

The very unfortunate part of this whole thing is that someone died. If the pedestrian had not died and had just been knocked over and got up and went on their way (or even reported it) would someone be prosecuted for furious and wanton riding and spending time in prison?

I regret that you are offended by me referring to him as Charlie.

I don't think that is very sincere.

I would suggest "I am a bit annoyed that someone has called me out on trying to use a classic spin-trick to win people over".

"Call Me Dave" ring any bells?

would someone be prosecuted for furious and wanton riding and spending time in prison?

I suppose it's a bit like a car crash in that sense, I'd there's no 3rd party damage or injury the police generally aren't interested.

I suppose it's a bit like a car crash in that sense, I'd there's no 3rd party damage or injury the police generally aren't interested.

They could of course have prosecuted him and other fixie no brake riders for the construction and use offence at any time. I wonder if since then they have issued a single ticket for having no front brake in London - if they want to make the street safer that would surely be a far better deterrent than thinking up new laws and you'd only need a couple of purges on a few random dates to get the message out that if won't be tolerated. By ignoring the issue you for so long you could say the met are partly to blame!

I wonder if since then they have issued a single ticket for having no front brake in London - [b]if they want to make the street safer that would surely be a far better deterrent[/b] than thinking up new laws

"If they want to make the street safer" then they need to go after people breaking the law while driving. Yes, there are idiots riding bikes, but the danger on the roads is caused almost entirely by people in motor vehicles. If they want to do a PR stunt, then fine, clamp down on brakeless bikes, I don't really have a problem with that because riding a bike like that on the road is stupid, it's just very, very unlikely to prevent any deaths.

Interestingly, since West Mids Police started their close pass initiative, there has been a 20% fall in all KSIs on the region's roads. They're not handing out hi-viz or telling riders not to get run over, they're catching the people who bring the danger to the road and then trying to remove that danger, and it seems to be working.

*Being very generous, if it's actually once since the invention of the 'safety bicycle'!

hey could of course have prosecuted him and other fixie no brake riders for the construction and use offence at any time. I wonder if since then they have issued a single ticket for having no front brake in London

I've been paying more attention to the bikes I see in London since the trial started and so far have only seen one brakeless fixie, and that one wasn't being ridden at the time. I was even in Shoreditch this weekend and didn't even see a brakeless fixie then. Based on that the police might have to waste a lot of time checking without charging many folks.

A couple of weeks back I saw what I thought was police doing some kind of safety checks on bikes (on Fleet Street) but wasn't close enough to be sure that was what they were doing.

Interestingly, since West Mids Police started their close pass initiative, there has been a 20% fall in all KSIs on the region's roads. They're not handing out hi-viz or telling riders not to get run over, they're catching the people who bring the danger to the road and then trying to remove that danger, and it seems to be working

This. All road users, but focusing on the biggest dangers and impacts, not singling out a few in response to press and politicians reactionary demands.

This. All road users, but focusing on the biggest dangers and impacts, not singling out a few in response to press and politicians reactionary demands.

Hard cases make bad law

[quote=duckman ]You really are starting to spin this whole case aracer.

I'm guessing you've not read the previous 1000 posts on this thread? I've been remarkably consistent in my comments, and we've also discussed extensively the normal reactions and correct actions for a cyclist in this position.

Even by your normal default position, your attempts to justify his bike and riding are pretty odious based on the facts we have,not the speculation you introduce.

Which facts do you think contradict my interpretation, and what is odious about it? I note that I don't want to defend him, I think he was a bit of a dick before during and after, but neither am I convinced that justice has been done, particularly given the fact that the evidence presented on braking distances was a load of bollocks. I also note that the jury found him not guilty of manslaughter, which some of you seem to be forgetting - it might be worth reading the previous discussion on what his manslaughter defence was based on.

You should probably also read Bez's blog post I linked above - because the issue I have with this case (and discussion in the wider media) is the double standards being applied. Of particular note is the judge's comment: "shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way" - as I mentioned earlier, the use of the plural appears to be the judges interpretation. Several on here are also suggesting the shouting (and particularly the swearing) are a particularly negative thing which led to his conviction - the question is, would such a negative spin be put on the use of a horn by a driver when a pedestrian walks into the road in front of them? There also seems to be the idea that his speed was reckless despite it being slower than that of cars who would be overtaking him "you chose to ride at a speed and on a bike when you could not stop" - yet the stopping distance (even the one found by the police in their dodgy testing) was still less than the HC stopping distance for a car at 30mph.

BTW I've also re-read the judges comments and filled in what I was missing before - it's quite clear that he did swerve to avoid her, she was in the middle of the road and he was attempting to ride to the left of her and that she then stepped back into his path. Yet the judge appears to have been very careful to avoid explicitly stating that she stepped in front of him - I'm not sure I'm the one spinning.

There are a lot of illegal bikes around

Are there? I'm not convinced - although that might change if there is an increase in chipped eBikes being used.

[quote=wrecker ]Cycles represent a big danger and impact to peds on shared use paths as has been demonstrated.

Not from the statistics - it may well have happened, but I don't think I've seen a single case of a ped being killed by a cyclist on a shared use path. Certainly it's extremely rare (in comparison with the number of pedestrians killed by drivers every year). The point being made is that focusing on the danger posed by cyclists is poor use of limited resources.

There are a lot of illegal bikes around
Are there? I'm not convinced - although that might change if there is an increase in chipped eBikes being used.

By the letter - pedal and wheel reflectors, bells, etc......

Something needs to be done regarding pedestrians just stepping out on traffic

We have a stretch of road near me that is outside a shopping center. It's at most 100 meters in length and has a zebra crossing and 2 pelican crossings in the last 3 years we have attended on my watch alone 4 fatalities where people couldn't be bothered walking to a crossing point, at most 35m away

This has now had some work done to protect the pedestrians?? It now has two zebra crossings and two pelican crossings. It would have been better to run a fence down the street with only access points to the criss but no let's build more crossings

Pedestrians need to be held to account for their actions too.

But the fixie rider is clearly a bulb end

Of particular note is the judge's comment: "shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way" - as I mentioned earlier, the use of the plural appears to be the judges interpretation.

I think we all need to be careful of extrapolating a whole story from the snippets that we've actually heard. Unless you were in the court to hear all of the evidence (as the judge was) I'd suggest care needs to be had when we are drawing inferences (e.g. "plural [b]appears[/b] to be the judges interpration" - it "appears" to you, but not based on any specific fact, as far as I am aware. Happy to be corrected!)

[quote=theotherjonv ]By the letter - pedal and wheel reflectors, bells, etc......

Maybe a lot of illegal bikes at night then - none of that required in daytime (not even the bell, whatever the judge in this case might think...)

By the letter - pedal and wheel reflectors, bells, etc......

Only needed at night (and the bell is not a legal requirement - don't think wheel reflectors are a legal requirement either, but not 100% sure!). Although of course there are a lot more illegal bikes at night than during the day.

Ref pedestrians being held to account. How common is it that a pedestrian negligently or carelessly gets themselves onto a road and the harm is done to someone else? Invariably the harm happens to them. In that way they are held to account!

I think in the UK it is accepted that it is not illegal or necessarily negligent for a pedestrian to attempt to cross a road at any point whether or not there is a specified crossing place. Rightly or wrongly there'd be uproar if there was legislation to address this.

The balance of the UK law is to make it the responsibility of a driver (or rider) to not hit something that is in their way on a road, irrespective of how it gets there. If you hit something and it is not conceivable that you could have avoided it, there is mitigation. If you hit something and it is reasonable that you could have avoided it, there is a price to pay. Seems sensible enough to me, and that's what's in my mind when I drive or ride through heavily congested areas with pedestrians crossing.

[quote=larkim ]Can you evidence that. Given judges propensity to choose their words carefully, I read that as being a recounting of evidence that the court heard during the trial, rather than just a pluralisation of a single event in the mind of a judge.

As you point out, given the lack of a complete transcript it's hard to prove a negative. However it is something I've thought about rather than just throwing out, and I'm very confident in my interpretation:
- there is no suggestion of any other pedestrians interacting with the defendant on the day in question
- there is no mention in reports of any evidence of his riding style on other days, or of any other incidents he's been involved in - it's the sort of thing I'd expect the rags to gleefully report on if there had been
- it would be somewhat surprising to find a witness of another incident on another day who could positively identify the defendant to the level required
- most importantly, the trial was focused on this particular incident, what he did at any other time is irrelevant - not only that but such evidence would normally be regarded as prejudicial. It is of course normal for judges to refer to previous convictions when sentencing, but he appears to have no previous convictions and the judge doesn't specifically mention any other incidents in her comments

I'm not sure you're wrong about the judge carefully choosing her words though...

I have read the whole thread aracer and I think justice has been done. I think that the "before" and the "during" bit you refer to led to her death. As pointed out above.

Of particular note is the judge's comment: "shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way" - as I mentioned earlier, the use of the plural appears to be the judges interpretation. Several on here are also suggesting the shouting (and particularly the swearing) are a particularly negative thing which led to his conviction - the question is, would such a negative spin be put on the use of a horn by a driver when a pedestrian walks into the road in front of them?

[quote=duckman ]I think that the "before" and the "during" bit you refer to led to her death.

Well clearly you disagree with the jury then.

there is no mention in reports of any evidence of his riding style on other days, or of any other incidents he's been involved in - it's the sort of thing I'd expect the rags to gleefully report on if there had been

There are hints of a tiff with his (now ex) girlfriend immediately before the incident so it might be the case that he was "riding angry" at the time.

Very much enjoyed the BBC's "something needs to be done about cycling safety" this morning, followed by pictures of gangs of cyclists riding through London. Hope it inspires the increased hatred of cyclists they appeared to be going for.

@aracer - I don't disagree with how it might be logical to come to the interpretation you have. But equally I don't discount that the judge has not left a wide open goal in a written summary which an appeal would pick up on as evidence of the judge adding her own evidence to the case without a basis in fact.

On that basis, I prefer to accept as more likely that the judge has given an accurate account of the evidence she heard, rather than make an assumption about evidence not heard.

I do agree though that in the absence of any transcript neither you or I know the answer to this question.

aracer - Member

duckman » I think that the "before" and the "during" bit you refer to led to her death.

Well clearly you disagree with the jury then.

Nope, they found him guilty of one of the charges, didn't you notice?

I noticed that they found him not guilty of the manslaughter charge - how do you think they came to that conclusion?

I don't know...any more than you know why they found him guilty of the "furious" charge. Unlike you, I am unwilling to speculate on a trial I didn't see and then proclaim that justice hasn't been done.

You've not paid any attention to the legal arguments then? Fair enough.

I noticed that they found him not guilty of the manslaughter charge - how do you think they came to that conclusion?

Apparently only one or two of the jury wanted to go with a not guilty verdict for manslaughter.

That can't be right at all steve - had it been the case they'd have found him guilty by majority verdict. At least 10 of the jury must have agreed with the not guilty verdict.

Though I've no idea where you'd get such information, the release of which is against the law.

That can't be right at all steve - had it been the case they'd have found him guilty by majority verdict. At least 10 of the jury must have agreed with the not guilty verdict.

The jury were asking about a majority verdict but decided to go with a guilty verdict on the other charge as they all agreed on that.

Not a clue if the 10/11 going with the guilty verdict is true or not, but there was a fair bit of discussion at the time and it seemed very likely that they were close to agreeing on guilty than not guilty. Either way I wouldn't base too much of your argument on the majority of the jury thinking him not guilty of manslaughter as that is either:
1) Not true
2) No way to know

It is clearly the case though that at least some (and quite possibly most) of the jury were convinced by the manslaughter case.

[quote=epicsteve ]Either way I wouldn't base too much of your argument on the majority of the jury thinking him not guilty of manslaughter as that is either:
1) Not true
2) No way to know
It is clearly the case though that at least some (and quite possibly most) of the jury were convinced by the manslaughter case.

Well they found him not guilty of manslaughter by majority verdict, which means that at least 10 of the jury decided that way. It's one of the facts we can be most clear about in this case! On the contrary, it's everything else which is pure speculation - as I said, had it been 10 or 11 thinking he was guilty of that, then there would have been a majority guilty verdict. I'm wondering if there has been a bit of confusion about which way the majority were thinking from wherever you've got this information (which if it had any basis in fact at all would be based upon illegal disclosures). Particularly given the way the law is designed to work in this country, I'm not sure how much weight can be given to 1 or 2 jury members wanting to find him guilty - the judge certainly shouldn't give that any weight at all.

aracer - Member

You've not paid any attention to the legal arguments then? Fair enough.

Posted 8 minutes ago # Report-Post

Is that the best you can do? I have read as much as you are able to; unlike you (and others have asked you where you have sourced information, see larkim above) I am not willing to make anything up or make leaps of faith to defend somebody just because they were on a bike.

It's not particularly speculation to suggest that all parties agree that he deliberately committed an illegal act. Which is one of the required pillars for the manslaughter case, as discussed previously on this thread. The question is on which required point for the manslaughter case the jury found reasonable doubt, though you'd have to think about the legal arguments and the nuances of the case for that rather than considering it as a black and white thing.

As I challenged you before, you can if you want suggest where I'm incorrect, but you seem not to want to get into any specifics like that - otherwise your comments are verging on ad-hom. larkim up there did an excellent job of challenging something I wrote and I agree he has a point.

Particularly given the way the law is designed to work in this country, I'm not sure how much weight can be given to 1 or 2 jury members wanting to find him guilty - the judge certainly shouldn't give that any weight at all.

The most likely scenario is that some behind the scene deal was done where those who thought him guilty of manslaughter agreed to go with the not guilty verdict on that (we don't know if that ended up being a majority verdict or not in the end) in return for a unanimous guilty verdict for the wanton charge.

We really are in speculation territory here steve! All we know is that there was a not guilty verdict for manslaughter and a unanimous guilty verdict for W&F (and that they couldn't initially come to a unanimous verdict on the charges), and that's all we will ever know. It's conventional not to give details on the breakdown of voting on a not guilty verdict. For all we know the eventual decisions of all the jurors could have been exactly the same as the opinion they first went into the jury room with.

.

Yet you speculate that he took reasonable avoiding action and opine he has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The most likely scenario is that some behind the scene deal was done where those who thought him guilty of manslaughter agreed to go with the not guilty verdict on that (we don't know if that ended up being a majority verdict or not in the end) in return for a unanimous guilty verdict for the wanton charge.

*I still think most are missing the point about the W&F offence, as my reading of it just requires an injury and an illegal act, the W&F is optional or potentially just descriptive.

I still think most are missing the point about the W&F offence, as my reading of it just requires an injury and an illegal act, the W&F is optional or potentially just descriptive.

Correct. Although the judge did also say this: "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. 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."

We really are in speculation territory here steve!

Indeed. All we know is that they all thought he was guilty, but didn't necessarily agree that it added up to manslaughter.

[quote=duckman ]Yet you speculate that he took reasonable avoiding action and opine he has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

We know that he took avoiding action and that it's only the victim's subsequent movement which put her in his path, it's in the judges comments. You're now speculating about my opinions.

We know that he took avoiding action and that it's only the victim's subsequent movement which put her in his path, it's in the judges comments

He took some initial action but then either decided he couldn't stop or didn't want to so steamed on regardless into what the judge says was a pretty narrow gap. Alliston thought that the pedestrian should get out of his way (from his own statements) and stated that himself. There was also a mention during the trial that it only took a slight movement on her part to bring them into collision, so he must have been planning to pass her very close.

Ref pedestrians being held to account. How common is it that a pedestrian negligently or carelessly gets themselves onto a road and the harm is done to someone else? Invariably the harm happens to them. In that way they are held to account!

There's at least one case I'm sure was mentioned earlier in this thread (if I'm getting confused, I'm sure it'll be in Bez's twitter stream somewhere) - cyclist riding entirely legally, on a legal bicycle, pedestrian negligently stepped right into his path, cyclist dead*.

How common? Not common. But ferchrissakes look at the situation this thread is about - cyclist kills pedestrian. How common? Not common, but there's suddenly a big push to create new offences.

If we need "causing death by dangerous / careless cycling" then we need exactly the same offences for pedestrianing, for exactly the same reasons.

*EDIT: nobody charged with anything

If we need "causing death by dangerous / careless cycling" then we need exactly the same offences for pedestrianing, for exactly the same reasons.

If the existing law was restructured it could be changed to cover cyclists too.

Not that I'm agreeing there is any need of course, because if anything this case proves there are available laws for cyclists - and it looks to me like manslaughter could be used where a pedestrian's actions have caused a death (although with zero chance of a conviction - something this case also proved).

That's not the most likely scenario. The most likely scenario is that the jury came to a majority verdict through their own means of NG for manslaughter and G for the W&F* offence. Deals are only done, if at all, in terms of the charges presented to the court - there is much less ability in the UK plea bargains etc, and if the verdict was left to the jury to decide (which it was in this case) then there was no deal being done.
*I still think most are missing the point about the W&F offence, as my reading of it just requires an injury and an illegal act, the W&F is optional or potentially just descriptive.

I think he meant the jury internally came to that agreement, maybe they were split between manslaughter, W&F and not guilty, and the two extremes agree'd a compromise to get a verdict. That's how I read it anyway.

If we need "causing death by dangerous / careless cycling" then we need exactly the same offences for pedestrianing, for exactly the same reasons.

Does the charge of Manslaughter not cover that?

IMO it really should cover death by driving/cycling too and leave it to the sentencing guidelines to ascertain the degree to which the guilty party was responsible.

Aracer; saves me time if I refer to ES's description of his avoiding her. Which is different to your description of him taking avoiding action.

Does the charge of Manslaughter not cover that?

Death by Dangerous/Careless was brought in because juries were (and clearly still are!) reluctant to find folks guilty of manslaughter for road offences. Suspect we'd see exactly the same when pedestrians and cyclists are charged with manslaughter.

[img] [/img]

Bit on sun in the eyes or just a casual claim they didnt see them and will be home and dry.

But surely, this particular defence would be relatively easy for the prosecution to debunk if there was evidence that the driver had screamed "get the **** out the way" a couple of times before they hit the pedestrian. No?

Bails - you can't only count deaths if we are talking safety. There are a surprisingly large number (higher than my gut feel) of deaths from ped v bike , although obviously only a fraction of those are caused / contributed to by dangerous bikes. The Injury numbers must be higher still given the common sense logic that a bike is less likely to kill you.

No reason to focus just of brakeless bikes, you could do no lights too (after dusk), riding on busy pavements, and RLJ, and probably get some drivers at the same time. Obviously that would require a rational approach to risk where your risk of dying on the roads is far greater than through terrorism but we spend disproportionately on it.

I am in no way implying that the focus of road safety should be cyclists risk to peds. But as with car drivers they should be seen to enforce existing laws before making new ones, and not waiting for serious accidents which none of us believe will happen to us.

I was even in Shoreditch this weekend and didn't even see a brakeless fixie then. Based on that the police might have to waste a lot of time checking without charging many folks.

Death by Dangerous/Careless was brought in because juries were (and clearly still are!) reluctant to find folks guilty of manslaughter for road offences. Suspect we'd see exactly the same when pedestrians and cyclists are charged with manslaughter.

True, but IMO simply educating juries or clarifying the definition would have been better. It really should be more black and white, did the driver/car cause the death yes or no. Then upto the judge to deliberate on the nuances of the case and sentencing. Same as any other accidental* death.

*accidents don't just happen

if 18mph is considered "wanton or furious driving" theres a case to be made to lower the assist cut out speed of ebikes to 10mph

Certainly a few years ago they were more common than that.

That will be fashion at work. Fixed gear bikes started to become fashionable around 10 years ago (which I was pleased about as made choice of parts and frames explode, before that it was limited)

10 years is a long time and not surprisingly they have gone out of fashion (probably about 5 years ago).

That and people probably realised a brakeless fixed gear bike is not a great idea in a city as busy as London.

That and people probably realised a brakeless fixed gear bike is not a great idea in a city as busy as London.

My office is close to one of the cycling superhighways in London - there are loads of cyclists of all sorts of abilities on that at peak times and riding a bike with compromised braking ability in close proximity to other cyclists along there would really not be a good idea.

That and people probably realised a brakeless fixed gear bike is not a great idea in a city as busy as London.

Probably not as good for Strava either