[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

There are a lot of illegal bikes around

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the fixie rider is clearly a bulb end

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well clearly you disagree with the jury then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

aracer - Member

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

Well clearly you disagree with the jury then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aracer - Member

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

Posted 8 minutes ago # Report-Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

Correct. Although the judge did also say this: "If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not. On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident."

We really are in speculation territory here steve!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*EDIT: nobody charged with anything

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the charge of Manslaughter not cover that?

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

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

Does the charge of Manslaughter not cover that?

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

[img] [/img]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*accidents don't just happen

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

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

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

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

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