[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

I'm not sure why we need yet another law. The current one, although old seems suitable and has resulted in a few convictions.

I can't help feeling if the cyclist hadn't been such a cock with his victim blaming attitude his future might be looking a little rosier than it appears at the moment.

She wasn't paying attention and he was riding like an idiot. A recipe for disaster.

Plyphon your third why was flawed - you appear to have been trying to make a connection to the HW code. Should just be a full stop after the phone. Then we need to ask why on the phone?

You might find she was arguing with someone on an Internet forum.

presume that Charlie Alliston's defence was paid for by legal aid. I doubt that the legal aid pursekeepers will be willing to fund such testing now (after the trial) on a speculative basis, and I suspect that Charlie Alliston lacks the means to pay for it himself (and his unlikeability will not encourage anyone else to pay for it).

It really looks like the defence wanted to avoid any arguments about braking capability considering:
1) Their defence was that braking capability wasn't a factor in the incident
2) Even properly done tests would still show that a bike with just a rear brake would take twice as long to stop as one fitted with a front brake (and I think it's likely that with just a fixed wheel braking could be even longer).

Plyphon your third why was flawed - you appear to have been trying to make a connection to the HW code. Should just be a full stop after the phone. Then we need to ask why on the phone?

The phone thing (which I'm not sure was proven anyway, as the defendant backed off from his comments later) isn't really the issue either. The pedestrian has a duty of care to themselves and others to make sure it's safe to do so before crossing the road, and that she didn't do. No need to speculate about the reasons etc.

Not taking that care was 100% a factor in her death. The subsequent activities of the cyclist and the lack of effective braking was a secondary factor, but still a factor.

It'll be interesting to see whether the judge comments on the pedestrian's actions during sentencing.

Just listened to the victims husband being interviewed on Radio 4. He is now campaigning for cyclists to fall under the same road laws as car drivers so, in this case, the charge would have been death by dangerous driving.

He was incredibly composed, measured and eloquent. He is a cyclist himself and is very pro cycling and the changes to law and awareness that he is now campaigning for seem perfectly sensible and justified.

I listened to him too and thought He put the point forward well and in a balanced fashion.
It's about appropriate charges being available and by extension the appropriate sentencing guidelines applying to a guilty verdict...

Bit torn on this, on one hand I think if we want car drivers to face higher punishment for traffic crimes, so should this guy - I really think riding without brakes is a silly and reckless fad. But also think that he could have been on a standard road bike and the result would have been the same - result of the accident that is, not the court case.

I think there's two separate points here, you are of course right that the duty of care and responsibility owed to cyclists should equate to the responsibility and duty of care owed by cyclists towards others...
By extension the quality of evidence used to demonstrate the safety performance of a bicycle to a court should therefore be on par with the quality of evidence that would be used in a case involving a motor vehicle... The evidence for comparative stopping performance of bicycles used in this case appears to be rather inadequate, but it's fair to say 'better' evidence may well have not have favoured the defendant...

Other things that you need to be road legal, like pedal reflectors, are much more dubious but don't really put other peoples lives at risk, only your own for the limited scope of their effectiveness.

It's a fair point, but these things are currently 'conditional' ([url= http://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations ]interesting reading[/url]), reflectors and lights are only needed for riding after dark a "Road legal" bike during daylight hours can become "illegal" at night... Many people (including myself) probably fall foul of the pedal reflector rule when commuting in the winter time in SPDs, but I've never seen any sort of enforcement applied...
Of course if you follow these arguments to their logical conclusions are you heading towards the DM readers favourite of applying "Bicycle MOTs"?... Discuss 😉

Beyond this case there are more things to consider...

greyspoke » @plyphon changing the law so the pedestrian was committing an offence would not in any way affect the question of whether the cyclist was committing an offence.

That's not really the point - he's looking at the best way to prevent such accidents (in the context that that's what the husband is calling for).

Indeed, I'm not challenging the court verdict or trying to challenge who was causing an offence at the time - i'm just trying to explore to the root cause of the incident so we can discover what needs to change to prevent this in the future.

Plyphon your third why was flawed - you appear to have been trying to make a connection to the HW code. Should just be a full stop after the phone. Then we need to ask why on the phone?

So I made this connection because I seem to remember reading the defence stating there was a pedestrian crossing not far up the road but the deceased chose to cross before that crossing. The highway code suggests where possible, to always cross at a crossing. It was clearly possible in this instance (if the statement was correct and I am remembering it correctly) to use a crossing - hence the link!

You might find she was arguing with someone on an Internet forum.

😆

Not taking that care was 100% a factor in her death.

This is what I'd like to explore more as root cause of the incident tbh. Had she been taking more care, well - you know. Brakes are great at avoiding collisions, but they can't stop an incident from unfolding in the first place.

I'm not excusing the cyclist for having an ill equipped bike, or his attitude. But you have to wonder.

As others have said, if the cyclist was less of an arrogant prick we might not even be talking about this case today.

Therefore, make the highway code, or the part referring to pedestrians using crossings, law.

Pedestrians are not traffic. They have been largely forced from their legal right to use the carriageway by the volume and speed of modern vehicles.

Pedestrians are not traffic. They have been largely forced from their legal right to use the carriageway by the volume and speed of modern vehicles.

There is also the complication that there are still plenty of places without a pavement where pedestrians are forced to walk on the carriageway.

epicsteve - Member
I'm surprised no one has discussed making jaywalking a crime in built up areas.
There have been a couple of mentions in the thread. Not on the basis that it should be done, but on the basis that if the family wanted to campaign for a change in the law then that might be the most effective one.

suspect he would get plenty of support for that too from certain interests....not necessarily overtly at first.

Just got round to viewing one of the interviews with the husband of the lady that was killed. He does come over well and his points on the danger of no front brakes are well made, however he does seem to focus on that as the only reason she died, without any comment on the dangers of walking onto the road when it wasn't safe to do so. The BBC don't comment on it either and anyone seeing the interview or reading the BBC article would get the view that his wife wasn't at fault at all. Very, very poor journalism.

Hate the term jaywalking and making it a crime would be a terrible idea.

Surely, rather than tightening the rules, the ones we've got should be properly enforced?

Hate the term jaywalking and making it a crime would be a terrible idea.

FWIW, I agree.

, without any comment on the dangers of walking onto the road when it wasn't safe to do so.

And if she'd stepped right in front of a cyclist without there being any chance of avoiding a collision then the only story would be that. But the court accepted that in this case there was time for the cyclists to avoid a collision, if he had two working brakes and or used better judgment.

ut the court accepted that in this case there was time for the cyclists to avoid a collision, if he had two working brakes and or used better judgment.

I'm not disputing that at all - just making the point that it wasn't the primary cause of her death.

ransos - Member
Pedestrians are not traffic. They have been largely forced from their legal right to use the carriageway by the volume and speed of modern vehicles

That almost sounds like the case against cyclists using roads. Replace 'pedestrians' with 'cyclists'.

Dont forget, there are 3 classes of road user with an inviolable right to use the road; pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists. The rest are licensed to do so.

[quote=epicsteve ]It'll be interesting to see whether the judge comments on the pedestrian's actions during sentencing.

Or that she wasn't wearing a helmet?

[quote=ransos ]Pedestrians are not traffic. They have been largely forced from their legal right to use the carriageway by the volume and speed of modern vehicles.

[quote=chakaping ]Hate the term jaywalking and making it a crime would be a terrible idea.

I agree with you both - the very use of the term jaywalking tends to make me disagree with it because of the historical context as mentioned above - it wasn't about pedestrian safety, it was about clearing the way for motor vehicles.

I'm not sure what (if any) the correct course of action here is - the HC already recommends using crossings, as mentioned during the trial.

[quote=epicsteve ]without any comment on the dangers of walking onto the road when it wasn't safe to do so. The BBC don't comment on it either and anyone seeing the interview or reading the BBC article would get the view that his wife wasn't at fault at all. Very, very poor journalism.

I suspect there's a laudable intention to avoid victim blaming. Not of course that it stops the media in other circumstances and we are getting a bit of the double standards that Martin Porter complains about - would the media be so silent about the errors of a cyclist who jumped off the pavement into the road and was mown down by a driver not paying attention?

It as a bit disappointing that he doesn't at least acknowledge that the primary cause of the incident was his wife walking into the road. Understandable maybe, but if he's busy promoting things for road safety reasons, then one way to avoid another family being put through the same ordeal is for pedestrians not to step into the road in front of bikes - I do wonder if she thought "it's only a bike, it will avoid me" when you wouldn't think that about a car.

[quote=boblo ]That almost sounds like the case against cyclists using roads. Replace 'pedestrians' with 'cyclists'.

I don't think that's the intent - I'm reading it that pedestrians have the right to be on the road, and that the current situation isn't a positive thing (and I agree, particularly given the context you mention).

BTW I thought I should mention that the discussion on this thread has been incredibly well measured. It's a subject which had all the ingredients to just blow up into stupid arguments, but even where we've disagreed with each other everybody has handled the discussion in a sensible way. Well done everybody!

Wonder if this [url= http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/cyclist-dies-after-crashing-pedestrian-12785475 ]cyclist and pedestrian incident[/url] will result in a prosecution?

As others have said, if the cyclist was less of an arrogant prick we might not even be talking about this case today.

If the cyclist wasnt a cyclist we wouldnt be talking about this story.

Its a non story made into one by cycling haters.

I know that the "wanton and furious" bit is being well discussed, but are we certain that that is what the guilty verdict entirely was?

The legislation is drafted as

35 Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, [b]or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect,[/b] 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

Once its proven that he deliberately had no front brake (whether or not he knew that that was the law), and it is proven that actual bodily harm was done he's bang to rights surely?

I wonder if the "wanton and furious driving" phrase is just being lifted because it is good media?

If the cyclist wasnt a cyclist we wouldnt be talking about this story.

Its a non story made into one by cycling haters.

I disagree - it's a legitimate prosecution made more interesting by the (thankfully) very rare circumstance of a cyclist killing a pedestrian along with the combination of a total arsehole of a defendant riding a bike not fit for the road.

We're all cyclists here and we've found the story interesting.

Once its proven that he deliberately had no front brake (whether or not he knew that that was the law), and it is proven that actual bodily harm was done he's bang to rights surely?

Only if it's proven that the harm occurred [u]because[/u] of the neglect.

Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall [b]by[/b] wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or [b]by[/b] 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

The harm must be caused [i]by[/i] the wanton or furious driving, wilful misconduct, or wilful neglect. If the accident and harm would have occurred even if a front brake was fitted, either because

a) it could not be said beyond a reasonable doubt that using a front brake would have prevented the collision and injury (hence the importance of the highly dodgy results of the police tests of stopping distances), or

b) a competent cyclist on a fully braked bike in the same situation would have done exactly what the defendant did, and swerved (rather than braked),

then the harm was not caused by wilful neglect. That leaves wanton and furious driving, and that does not seem to apply given the reported speeds etc., or wilful misconduct, which also does not seem to apply.

EDIT - I suppose it's possible that the jury deemed the behaviour of the defendant in the brief period between the pedestrian steeping into the road and the collision to be wanton and furious, inasmuch as he he shouted and swore at her to get out of the way. That shout could be interpreted as implying an attitude of cavalier arrogance, and suggesting that he was not going to make any concessions because he had right of way. However, that would be a huge assumption, and the words used could just as easily have been shouted in panic (and fear of a collision where he would probably have been more likely to come off worse than the pedestrian).

We're all cyclists here and we've found the story interesting.

I'm not sure that's true, quite a lot of STW contributors are open that they rarely cycle.

That's not really relevant though other than as an actual cyclist the coverage given to this story increases the perception that people on bicycles pose a greater risk than is actually the case.

Subsequently it increases the likely hood I will be the victim of a malicious act by someone either a pedestrian or a motorist and then reduces the likelihood I will get any justice.

Both these points are real and significant problems made worse by this coverage whilst pedestrians being injured by people on bicycles just not an issue in comparison.

So yes lets have a discussion about road safety and once we've fixed the real problems we can move on onto the minor issues.

My reading of it is still that the jury thought, on the balance of evidence, that the lack of effective braking was a factor in the collision and contributed to the injuries the pedestrian suffered. I think that they also concluded that it was a forseable outcome of riding without effective brakes, but that the death of the pedestrian was a freak occurrence hence the not guilty on the manslaughter charge.

Either that or they just thought that manslaughter was a bit harsh, considering the pedestrians contribution, and went for the lower sentence. I reckon if it had been possible to charge him with causing death by dangerous they'd have downgraded that to a causing death by careless for the same reasons.

My reading of it is still that the jury thought, on the balance of evidence, that the lack of effective braking was a factor in the collision and contributed to the injuries the pedestrian suffered.

That was the expert evidence provided by the prosecution, so it's not very surprising...

Agreed, there is a burden of proof of causality - did the wilful neglect or misconduct (or wanton & furious driving) cause any bodily harm. But any bodily harm is a very small test to satisfy, so if (beyond reasonable doubt) having no front brake (wilful neglect or wilful misconduct) *any bodily harm* was caused, then the offence is committed.

I can see a common sense reasoning that if the force of impact would have been lessened, even by a small amount, then causality is proven in terms of causing any bodily harm. Common sense is allowed in the jury room, even if not guided by either the prosecution or the judge.

That was the expert evidence provided by the prosecution, so it's not very surprising...

The prosecution had an opportunity to oppose that but weren't able to do so effectively - which might mean the CCTV evidence is a significant factor.

It's not like the jury didn't given the situation due attention either, given how long it took for them to give a verdict.

I don't see that any laws need changed. If anything, this case proves that the existing laws are sufficient protection. What we do need is better application of the driving laws (possibly by less sympathetic juries).

I imagine that if Charlie Alliston's lawyers wish to appeal the verdict on the grounds of the flaws in the police tests, then the burden of proof will now be on them to show that the test results were flawed, and also that correct testing would give results that would materially undermine the prosecution case.

You can't appeal because the prosecution presented evidence that you didn't bother to debunk at the time. The opportunity was there and wasn't taken.

New evidence that couldn't reasonably been brought at the time of the original conviction would be needed if you want to challenge the testing.

You can't appeal because the prosecution presented evidence that you didn't bother to debunk at the time. The opportunity was there and wasn't taken.

New evidence that couldn't reasonably been brought at the time of the original conviction would be needed if you want to challenge the testing.

I don't think that is correct. There have been cases where expert witness testimony was fatally flawed, but was given in court and the defence failed to spot and expose the erors in the expert witness testimony during the trial. When the errors were exposed after the trial and conviction, it resulted in appeals and the conviction being overturned.

The most famous one I can recall was [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark ]Sally Clark[/url], where the expert witness stated that the probability of two child deaths in the same family as a result of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome was 1 in 73 million and so the deaths must have been murder, but it was later shown that that where there had been a Sudden Infant Death Syndrome child death, there was a much higher statistical probability of further such deaths in the family, and the figure of 1 in 73 million was completely wrong.

I can see a common sense reasoning that if the force of impact would have been lessened, even by a small amount, then causality is proven in terms of causing any bodily harm

It's a matter of debate as to whether he could've avoided the victim by using a front brake, so IMO it was not unreasonable for him to swerve. If we accept that shouting and swerving is a reasonable course of action by a competent cyclist on a legal bike, then the argument about the fitment of a front brake is rendered irrelevant.

The prosecution had an opportunity to oppose that but weren't able to do so effectively - which might mean the CCTV evidence is a significant factor.

You mean the defence? It could be. Equally, it could be that the defence didn't do a very good job.

I'm not quite sure what to think about this - I agree and disagree - so I'll just leave it here for now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41036581

May I suggest watching Channel 4 news from this evening.

The lady's husband, Mr Matt Biggs, is interviewed

One can only imagine what he has been through, including sitting in the Old Bailey for 10 days of which he talks about. Yet he doesn't allow himself to be pulled into the whole "them and us" rhetoric and raises some fine points with eloquence and dignity.

I hope he gets his wish.... That another family doesnt have go through what his has.

It's a matter of debate as to whether he could've avoided the victim by using a front brake, so IMO it was not unreasonable for him to swerve. If we accept that shouting and swerving is a reasonable course of action by a competent cyclist on a legal bike, then the argument about the fitment of a front brake is rendered irrelevant.

That was his defence and the jury didn't buy it. They've seen the CCTV footage which might prove that to be bollocks.

You mean the defence? It could be. Equally, it could be that the defence didn't do a very good job.

Sorry - meant the defence. Difficult to know whether the defence did a decent job or not, because it's entirely possible that CCTV makes the case difficult to defend.

I'm not quite sure what to think about this - I agree and disagree - so I'll just leave it here for now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41036581

****er who things his "skillz" put him above the laws of physics.

[quote=Ro5ey ]I hope he gets his wish.... That another family doesnt have go through what his has.

Which would still be most easily achieved by getting pedestrians not to walk into the road in front of bicycles.

It's a matter of debate as to whether he could've avoided the victim by using a front brake, so IMO it was not unreasonable for him to swerve. If we accept that shouting and swerving is a reasonable course of action by a competent cyclist on a legal bike, then the argument about the fitment of a front brake is rendered irrelevant.

That was his defence and the jury didn't buy it. They've seen the CCTV footage which might prove that to be bollocks.

There are very few circumstances where, to avoid an unexpected collision, you swerve but make no attempt to adjust your speed, or at the critical moment even having swerved you make no (or very limited) attempts to reduce speed further. I can accept that swerving and shouting might be good starting points, but even if it only becomes clear very shortly before impact that the shouting and swerving is having no effect, being able to apply the brakes you're legally required to have fitted will always make *some* (potentially small) difference.

That's a lot to fit within a very short space of time.

As an aside, a pedestrian stepped out in front of me yesterday. My instinctive reaction was to swerve round her. My bike has disc brakes and the road was dry.

Which would still be most easily achieved by getting pedestrians not to walk into the road in front of bicycles.

I think though that either you or I will need to go and have a chat with him and explain he is fighting the wrong battle (after all the net effect of DBD cycling will be very similar to Injury by W&F), if drivers don't wake up expecting to kill people today, cyclists really won't.

He would be far better pushing for prosecution of all the cyclists who don't have front brakes (or reflectors, lights) or who jump lights / ride like idiots but who don't harm anyone - just as we have discussed before if you want to improve driving you don't focus on the cases where it goes catastrophically wrong you penalise the same behaviour the rest of the time.

Or perhaps he should be pushing for a law on bells, was in Scandinavia recently and I suspect the polite tinkle of a bell is more obvious, directional, less aggressive...

Which would still be most easily achieved by getting pedestrians not to walk into the road in front of bicycles.

Which is much the same argument that self entitled car drivers use to justify banning bikes from the road (it's for our own safety, apparently).

Or perhaps he should be pushing for a law on bells, was in Scandinavia recently and I suspect the polite tinkle of a bell is more obvious, directional, less aggressive...

Sod all use when someone decides to step out directly in front of you though. Unless someone designs one easily used whilst braking.

Which is much the same argument that self entitled car drivers use to justify banning bikes from the road (it's for our own safety, apparently).