Forum menu
The average sentence for causing death by careless driving is 14 months, and the averaged custodial sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 57 months. So in the context of those, without a guilty plea or remorse, the sentence here doesn't look like it's harsh. It's at the upper end of the available sentencing for the offence he was found guilty of (which is 2 years) so again not unreasonable given it's at the upper end of seriousness for that.
Thanks for those facts. It has put it into perspective and swung my instinctive reaction to this sentence the other way. Better than quoting random cases to support a preconceived opinion
@horatio; alternatively....I think Alliston's 18 month sentence is appropriate and, on that basis, the driver in the example you quote should have received a far stiffer sentence.
One of the problems is the inconsistent application of sentencing guidelines.
Sentence seems fair to me, given what I've read publicly. 18 months for killing someone and showing no remorse seems fair enough to me. You just can't kill someone due to your own lack of care and expect to get off lightly.
Driver sentences are the lenient ones. But then they are easier to empathise with.
[quote=epicsteve ]The average sentence for causing death by careless driving is 14 months, and the averaged custodial sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 57 months. So in the context of those, without a guilty plea or remorse, the sentence here doesn't look like it's harsh.
Except he wasn't found guilty of causing the death, and I'm not sure on what basis you're putting it at the upper end of seriousness of the offence he was found guilty of.
If only judges didn't (apparently) make decisions lightly when motorists kill with their vehicles. For reference the average sentences you mention are in the context of a maximum sentence of 5 years for DBCD and 14 years for DBDD. I'd be interested to see an example of somebody getting 3 years 9 months (3/4 of the max sentence) having been convicted of DBCD when killing a cyclist or pedestrian.
Seems an incredibly harsh sentence to me, I'd be amazed if he doesn't appeal.
You just can't kill someone due to your own lack of care and expect to get off lightly.
Not on a bike you can't.
but do we really think that a judge and jury, faced with a motorist in a similar situation,
If they were driving an illegal modified car, and showed no remorse for their actions then very much yes.
Seems an incredibly harsh sentence to me, I'd be amazed if he doesn't appeal.
Perhaps he needs to spend a little time considering what he did, the seriousness of it and that he may actually have been at fault.
The Rhyl one? driver with defective car self admitted driving too fast. Not even prosecuted for killing 3 cyclistsd
He got off lightly, hopefully he'll learn from it
[quote=mikewsmith ]Perhaps he needs to spend a little time considering what he did, the seriousness of it and that he may actually have been at fault.
Well when you put it like that, they should probably have banged him up for life.
David Kilgallon, the driver of the car who [b]admitted causing death by careless driving[/b], today said he never stops thinking about the tragedy. The 24-year-old, of North Drive, Cleveleys, was sentenced to 100 hours of community work and banned from driving for a year by a judge at Blackpool Magistrates Court.
A man has been given a 100-hour community order and banned from driving for a year for causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving in Essex.
Well when you put it like that, they should probably have banged him up for life.
No in context of what I said before he rushes off to appeal he needs to understand that he is guilty and move towards remorse.
The Guardian article reporting it suggests he has some significant emotional issues which may well get in the way of his ability to demonstrate or feel remorse. I'm not saying he's a character deserving of 100% sympathy, but there looks to be more going on than is simply distilled in a forum.
I'm not that convinced that jail terms are really appropriate in most ot these cases. No-one thinks they're going to kill anyone by driving dangerously (because at an individual level its very unlikely) so it doesnt act as a deterrent. We're not locking them up to protect society from them (as we would someone who'd committed a violent act). In the first instance it should be (length) driving bans with suspended jail term (so that if they're caught driving while banned they're locked up).
That 24 year old above? A 1 year ban? That's a joke. Actually so is 100 hours of community service - c15 days work? 100 days of community service (all your weekends for a year?) or even double that might be a useful level of deterrent. Locking people up is expensive
riding in a stupid manor
I think the location is irrelevant.
Hmm - I see comments there from the judge which would never have been made about a driver in a similar case - some of which have been mentioned earlier in this thread.
For reference the average sentences you mention are in the context of a maximum sentence of 5 years for DBCD and 14 years for DBDD. I'd be interested to see an example of somebody getting 3 years 9 months (3/4 of the max sentence) having been convicted of DBCD when killing a cyclist or pedestrian.
[url= https://preview.ibb.co/gbyE8k/IMG_0381.pn g" target="_blank">https://preview.ibb.co/gbyE8k/IMG_0381.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
Given that he was not found guilty of causing death - i.e., there was reasonable doubt, and by implication, that the pedestrian had some culpability for her actions, and the CPS had to rely on the fall back charge, I think it's a pretty harsh sentence.
I doubt he thinks he has anything to feel remorseful about. It has not been proven that his actions could have absolutely avoided the collision (and fatal outcome). Only that he "caused bodily harm by wantonly or furious driving" his bicycle.
Punished for the consequences, not the offence - not having a front brake might have been the only offence he was truly guilty of.
The Guardian article reporting it suggests he has some significant emotional issues which may well get in the way of his ability to demonstrate or feel remorse. I'm not saying he's a character deserving of 100% sympathy, but there looks to be more going on than is simply distilled in a forum.
Indeed, accurately measuring remorse must be very difficult. Also, in stepping out in front of him, she could as easily have caused his death - I think a little initial anger at what she had put him through would be understandable.
I think the location is irrelevant.
excellent work sir.
[quote=TiRed ]I doubt he thinks he has anything to feel remorseful about. It has not been proven that his actions could have absolutely avoided the collision (and fatal outcome). Only that he "caused bodily harm by wantonly or furious driving" his bicycle.
Is a good point. Why is he expected to feel remorse for an offence he was found not guilty of? Yet the judge's comments suggest she thinks his actions were reckless in a way the jury didn't.
He was cycling a dangerous bike in a dickish manner, killed someone and then showed no remorse. A custodial sentence is fair enough. If I was made in charge of a laws then whether you were on a bike or in a car, you'd get at least 12 months for that.
Given that he was not found guilty of causing death - i.e., there was reasonable doubt, and by implication, that the pedestrian had some culpability for her actions, and the CPS had to rely on the fall back charge, I think it's a pretty harsh sentence.
If that's true, it would seem that the appropriate comparison would be with causing injury by careless driving. Now, I don't have any stats to hand, but I bet 18 months would be highly unusual.
[quote=fanatic278 ]He was cycling a dangerous bike in a dickish manner
What was wrong with the way he was riding the bike?
What was wrong with the way he was riding the bike?
In my mind:
Wanton & furious = dickish
Also, in stepping out in front of him, she could as easily have caused his deat
This happened earlier this year:
Keen and accomplished’ Cheltenham cyclist dies after colliding with pedestrianBenjamin Pedley was riding in Reading at around 24mph when a pedestrian stepped out in front of him in March.
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..
Is the offence he was convicted of. It is hard to argue that the woman did not suffer bodily harm, nor that the bike did not have the legally necessary number of brakes (hence guilty of wilful neglect). All other "facts" are moot.
As for his dickish riding, I have not seen the CCTV footage, nor read any witness statements. But his conviction for the above offence is basically that he was in collision with a pedestrian (who suffered injury) and had no front brake. Whether these two are absolutely related was not proven in law (otherwise the more serious charge of manslaughter would have been proven).
He'll appeal the sentence at the very least. It doesn't sit easily on my mind, but comparison with other offences is not a valid argument.
Compare this case with a couple of other recent ones
Using car as a weapon, driving into a group of law-abiding cyclists, injuring one - 16 weeks
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/229239-dangerous-driver-who-deliberately-hit-cyclist-jailed-16-weeks ]Link 1[/url]
Pedestrian stepped out in front of a cyclist, this time the cyclist died, no calls for presecution
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest ]Link 2[/url]
Obviously neither of these made the national news, the phone-ins etc etc
Given that he was not found guilty of causing death
Not strictly true, as he was not charged with a crime featuring "causing death" in its construction. He was found not guilty of manslaughter.
He was found guilty of causing bodily harm - the fact that that lead to death but not to a guilty verdict of manslaughter is the reason why the bereaved husband is petitioning for a "death by..." style of crimes to deal with this sort of situation.
Comments from the judge:
Probably the key point from the comments, explaining why he's going to jail:
"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. "
Interesting thanks for the link. I suspect whether reading that you view the judge as someone who just doesn't understand cycling, or as the views of a rational judge in the circumstances, might depend on your existing prejudices.
I read it as rational, save for the peculiarity of the standard "you didn't have a helmet on" seemingly to be an indication of lack of safety consideration towards others (which it self evidently isn't).
LawyerWife reckons that 18months is a good sentence for him, especially after a trial (i.e. he didn't plead).
From the verdict, it appears the pedestrian was not using a phone!
Also got told off by the judge for not wearing a helmet, which would annoy Chris Boardman no doubt.
See the post 11 minutes earlier, above.
So he will be out after 9 months?
It does sound like he was cycling like a dick:
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. 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.
The comparisons to other motorists are, imho, not especially pertinent as the situations are not as comparable - that "if you modified a car for the track and then took it out on the roads" especially - motorists are allowed on the roads only with a licence for a reason, and from a risk point of view the likelihood and severity of causing something nasty with an unroadworthy car, drive badly (or a roadworthy one driven badly) are so out of kilter that comparison is meaningless.
What is more interesting, and I think much more comparable, is the one someone linked to where a cyclist, riding legally on a legally compliant bicycle, died as a result of a pedestrian stepping out in front of them. Nothing ever went to a trial (which is sort of the point) so there's only report of an inquest, but from that it appears the cyclist was utterly blameless and the pedestrian appears to have been entirely at fault. Pedestrians, like cyclists, can use the roads by right.
Is there even a charge that can be laid in that sort of instance (against the pedestrian)?
It does sound like he was cycling like a dick:
It'd be interesting to see the CCTV but it sounds like he might have been trying to scare her with a close flyby which went wrong.
Is there even a charge that can be laid in that sort of instance (against the pedestrian)?
Potentially manslaughter (by gross negligence) but, as this trial has probably proved, with zero chance of a conviction.
It does sound like he was cycling like a dick:
Regardless of what brakes were or weren't available, there are plenty of situations where pulling on the brakes will make a situation worse, not better. Same when driving a car to be fair.
I've not seen the footage, but I'd question the logic of an assumption that seems to be: didn't try to brake = didn't try to avoid the collision.
Some collision avoidances might even require some acceleration - for example a viable bud rapidly reducing gap in traffic. Or simply that you've got more control over direction when not braking heavily.
Like I say, I've not seen the footage that was available to the court and he may well have been cycling like a dick, but what is written down about it is, imho, not entirely logical in and of itself.
[EDIT]
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.
The more I read this the less I feel he did something wrong at that point (the setting off on an illegally brakeless bike that morning is a different matter). I think I'd have done the same in that situation (I ride plenty in the middle of a city so that's not hypothetical speculation). On a bike, whether at a "wanton and furious" or even a sensible, nay sedate speed, in this circumstance the pedestrian can easily and very, very quickly take a quick step back or forwards and we don't collide. On my bike, not so quick.
So if I, on the bike, make a call that I'm going this way, for that to work out, the pedestrian has to go that way. If we both go that way, we collide. Same if I swerve that way, it only works if the pedestrian goes this way. We haven't got time for a conversation about it. If I keep to my line, as long as the pedestrian does [b]something[/b], and it doesn't matter which way, we're all good.
"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.
I'm working from the assumption that the braking / stopping distance thing as described in court doesn't stack up, by the way, but even if it did, in tight traffic situations and when a ped steps out without looking, as per my earlier point, the idea that you just yank the levers and everyone breathes a sigh of relief isn't what the real world looks like anyway.
Regardless of what brakes were or weren't available, there are plenty of situations where pulling on the brakes will make a situation worse, not better. Same when driving a car to be fair.
Indeed. I have instinctively swerved to avoid a pedestrian before now - would I be guilty because I didn't haul the anchors on?
The judgement does seem to hinge on the disputed expert evidence that a road legal bike would've stopped.
The judgement does seem to hinge on the disputed expert evidence that a road legal bike would've stopped.
Disputed by whom? It wasn't disputed by the defence and every test has indicated that a bike with legal brakes could have stopped or at least slowed significantly.
Disputed by whom? It wasn't disputed by the defence and every test has indicated that a bike with legal brakes could have stopped [b]or at least slowed significantly. [/b]
That's not the same as "stopped" is it? I believe that the prosecution accepted that the catastrophic outcome was not related to the speed of impact.
I believe that the prosecution accepted that the catastrophic outcome was not related to the speed of impact.
It'd still be bollox if they did.
It'd still be bollox if they did.
You could be right, but it's not relevant, because it didn't form part of the prosecution's case.