Forum menu
I'm not understanding the nature of the complaints on this thread. People keep posting isolated comparisons to cases involving cars vs cyclist, or cars vs pedesitrians. The examples people pick will only have been selected to justify pre-concieved opinions.
Why not open ourselves up to some basic facts?
A) Custodial sentences for death by carless driving are greater than 18 months long 16% of the time.
B) Alliston was cycling in a "wanton & furious" manner - whether that be exhibited by his disregard to the requirement for front brakes, or his style of cycling.
The bigger question is whether 18 months is an appropriately long sentence. This comes down to personal opinion. For me, it seems about right, give or take 6 months. I don't care what form of transport was used (inc. walking), the sentence should be the same.
Had the laws applied I'm sure he'd have been found guilty of death by careless and it does sound like the sentence was in line with what would have been expected for that, given the not guilty plea and the lack of remorse etc.
You could be right, but it's not relevant, because it didn't form part of the prosecution's case.
There was no need for them to, as the result proves.
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.
I have seen nothing that suggests this to me.
There would appear to be several contentious statements in the judges sentencing remarks.
I find it hard to believe he wanted to collide with her, he was just as likely to be injured. For all his experience it does sound like his riding style, presuming that she would stay out of his way, contributed to their collision - but I don't suppose for one moment the cars travelling in the other direction slowed at all, if they had - perhaps she would not have moved towards him. The inconsistency between his sentence and that of the many motorised drivers who do 'similar' is what appears unjust.
I'd say it was arguably higher than death by careless driving, closer to death by dangerous driving by the way it has been described by the judge in those sentencing notes - reinforcing how valid the sentence appears to be in that context.
The inconsistency between his sentence and that of the many motorised drivers who do 'similar' is what appears unjust.
Unjust in which direction? Should Alliston have a reduced sentence, or these other examples an increased sentence? What do us (as a group of cyclist) think the appropriate sentence should be? Pretend he was in a car with no front brakes if it helps decide.
by the way it has been described by the judge in those sentencing notes
That's the problem I guess, is that we're all guessing from descriptions from judges, lawyers and coppers all of whom, to a lesser or greater degree don't seem to demonstrate much knowledge or expertise of the realities of urban cycling.
One reading from those notes is "you held your line consistently and repeatedly shouted at her to get out of the way" which doesn't sound like terrible behaviour (see my earlier post).
There is this underlying bit about him not doing anything to avoid the collision (although "threading a path" seems to imply that he at least had some sort of plan) when it seems entirely clear from the same notes that the pedestrian did the sum total of precisely nothing to avoid the collision either.
Let's not forget this collision happened on the road, not the pavement.
Pretend he was in a car with no front brakes if it helps decide.
Why would it? They are hardly comparable in terms of levels of danger. You might as well compare riding an intercontinental ballistic missile (with no front brake) or a space hopper (also with no brake).
People drawing equivalence between several tons of fast moving motor vehicle and a bicycle should just stop it. They aren't equivalent.
Unjust in which direction? Should Alliston have a reduced sentence, or these other examples an increased sentence? What do us (as a group of cyclist) think the appropriate sentence should be? Pretend he was in a car with no front brakes if it helps decide.
For me, increased for the motorised examples (I think, I'm not entirely sure I have mixed feelings about all this).
Unjust in which direction?
I really am not sure. But when you can kill 3 people with a defective car and not even be prosecuted Or kill people with a car while drunk and speeding gets a 4 year sentance then this one seems out of step
Its a really tricky thing because in many of these cses especially this one what good does jail do? Deterrence effect is minimal surely. Rehabilitation seems needed often. Punishment?
I had a long chat with the sister of someone who killed a cyclist when driving. ( dazzled by the sun, turned right into the path of the cyclist) That persons life was also ruined. Severe mental health issues afterwards, lost her job, never drove again. In this case I can't see jail would have done any good although its no doubt she killed someone by careless driving
There are definitely cases where the sentencing of car drivers who've caused deaths have seemed very light, however not quite so much when you look at the sentencing averages. There have also been sentences of other cyclists that have caused deaths which have seemed light as well.
Overall it sounds like the sentencing in this case is about right, based on the limited legal precedents that exist.
One reading from those notes is "you held your line consistently and repeatedly shouted at her to get out of the way" which doesn't sound like terrible behaviour
This is the bit that makes me uncomfortable and I suspect is what contributed to the wanton & furious. Passing someone on foot or on a bike 'signalling' is often poor so you end up doing that left/right/left dance.
When I went to Vietnam 20+ years ago when there were 1000's of mopeds, few cars and no ped crossings I was 'taught' to cross the road by walking out and maintaining a steady pace in a straight line. The sea of mopeds would all shoal around you and you'd be fine. People don't do that in the UK. Stop, step back, hover.
If someone steps out in front of me I might yell, I might swerve, but I'll always be on the brakes first/as well.
he was a scroute that got his comeuppance , we dick get what he deserved
epicsteve - Member
Comments from the judge:
Summary:
Don't be a dick. You were a dick.
Hard to disagree with anything in there...
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. This single instance of a cyclist causing a death has caused more debate in the media and amongst MP's clamouring to be more outraged than their counterpart on the other side of the house, than every instance of harm/peril/death of a cyclist by motorists.
Cyclists are deliberately run off the road, put in danger from close/unsafe passing or even pedestrians not looking where they are going causing cyclists to swerve into the path of other road users on a daily basis in this country and no-one seems to care, police won't charge because CPS won't prosecute, or if it does make it to a court then a driver can get off by claiming losing his license will inconvenience his lifestyle.!!
Where is the outrage and calls to change the law there.? Would anyone have listened to or put a TV camera in front of this poor woman's husband if she had been cycling and killed by a car.? Would the driver even have seen the inside of a courtroom.?
That's the thing about this situation that really winds me up.
Apologies for the rant. (and breathe...!)
edlong - Member
Pretend he was in a car with no front brakes if it helps decide.
Why would it? They are hardly comparable in terms of levels of danger. You might as well compare riding an intercontinental ballistic missile (with no front brake) or a space hopper (also with no brake).People drawing equivalence between several tons of fast moving motor vehicle and a bicycle should just stop it. They aren't equivalent.
You have taken it to the extreme with your example, but I argue if you kill someone with a gun you should get the same sentence as if you kill someone with a knife (moot point - as obviously they both get life). Killing someone with a bike should get the same sentence as with a lorry, van, bike, pushchair or just walking. Sure, you can [i]potentially[/i] kill more people with a lorry, but if you only kill one person then that's what the sentence should reflect.
I'm not convinced there was any hypocrisy in the court but there definitely was (and is) in the media. But as others have said "man bites dog" is a bigger story than "dog bites man", plus the offender being such a despicable character also makes it more press worthy.
People drawing equivalence between several tons of fast moving motor vehicle and a bicycle should just stop it. They aren't equivalent.
I'm not sure of the particulars of the case, but this is incorrect in principle. They are equivalent. The reality is a large enough force was imparted to the woman to cause her death. It matters not to her by which vehicle it was that brought her untimely demise. She doesn't really care if it was a bike, car or articulated lorry that hit her - she'd be just as dead - it is utterly irrelevant....she's dead. And he is just as responsible whether he was riding a bike, car or lorry, any mode of transport is just as capable of killing someone if driven without due care and attention. It is the manner by which he drove/rode the vehicle and his attitude to other road users that is important, not what he was driving. It doesn't take a lot of force to kill a person and a lone cyclist riding without any care for others in their path is more than capable of delivering enough force to kill someone, and therefore has to take as much care and attention as any other road user out there. A car can be a lethal weapon, but so can a bike. Why should a cyclist who has killed someone through their careless actions not be just as culpable as a driver of a car or lorry? it is like saying a murderer who strangled someone is not as culpable as someone who shot someone.
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
got told off by the judge for not wearing a helmet,
Well, if you read the whole sentence that is not what she said:
[i]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.[/i]
That is [i]one more[/i] 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.
H1ghland3r put it so much better than I could have!
I still maintain that if he hadn't behaved in the arrogant self obsessed manner that he displayed throughout, he might well be spending tonight in his own bed.
Let's hope the bell end learns something while he's locked up.
H1ghland3r - I totally felt the same instinct when the sentence was announced. But a bit of info from epicsteve, and a bit of my own googling makes me feel like the court got it right on this occasion. Statistically, when a death by driving case makes it to court, there does seem to be more-or-less equivalence. Although, this case is on the upper end of severity (in terms of sentencing).
I totally share your gripe regarding police, CPS, media and general public attitude to cyclists. I think we all experience it first hand on a regular basis.
Has anyone apart from the court seen the cctv footage?
we get to see lorries driving into a car and killing the entire family. I find it odd we don't get this freely available to us.
it is like saying a murderer who strangled someone is not as culpable as someone who shot someone.
...and being devil's advocate, I'm going to do just that.
Most murders aren't premeditated, they are spur of the moment actions, someone is at the end of their tether, and they lose it and someone dies. This, by the way, is one of the arguments against proponents of capital punishment who justify it by way of a deterrent effect - the deterrence only applies to the smaller proportion of premeditated, planned murders. Someone who's "lost it" isn't going to stop mid-murder and go "hang on, I'll get life / death for this" But anyway..
...and court sentences reflect this by the way, rightly so, there is a difference in culpability between someone shooting someone - people (in this country) don't just find themselves with a gun in their hand. It requires planning and forethought. You will, and should, be treated differently if you kill someone "on the spur of the moment" than if you went out with a gun and shot someone.
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 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.
The sceptic in me suggests that a healthy proportion of the population could conceive of themselves one day not paying full attention and accidentally killing a pedestrian with their car, but a much smaller proportion ever cycle as 'fast' as 18mph.
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.
LOLon 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.
from the guardian.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.
The death of Benjamin Pedley got basically no headlines. Wonder if he would have been treated the same if the pedestrian had died in that case.
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.