[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

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

The fact is he died because the driver was careless.

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

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

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

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

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

No-one is claiming that was the case here

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

epicsteve - Member

The fact is he died because the driver was careless.

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

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

MoreCashThanDash - Member
There really are two separate arguments here

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

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

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

^^This^^

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed.

shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way

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

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

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

You have criticised her for crossing in front of you

Which seems a completely reasonable thing to criticise her for.

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

It had no bell to warn others of your approach.

FFS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That'll be manslaughter, job jobbed.

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

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

What would the grounds be for his appeal?

That'll be manslaughter, job jobbed.

No need to bother with due process, then.

No need to bother with due process, then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He did face a manslaughter charge.

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

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

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

"rather"? 🙄

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The judges summing up quotes say

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

so maybe the brake wasn't all that relevant?

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

He'll agree not to appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent summary there ^^^

larkim - Member

Excellent summary there ^^^

Posted 33 minutes ago # Report-Post

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

so maybe the brake wasn't all that relevant?

The judge also said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT: Ahforrgetaboutit, life's too short

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

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

Presumably the judge and jury do know.

So this conversation can never really conclude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge pretty much addressed this point.

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

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

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

I do however accept I could well be wrong.

[quote=gauss1777 ]The judge also said:

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

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

[quote=grumpysculler ]

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

How exactly did she address it?

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

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

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

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

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

How exactly did she address it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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