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

This is worth our attention instead

“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

” 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. “

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 still 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

Surely this is a rather contentious statement: a) it is rather precise, b) surely it must depend on a number of factors?

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,

If someone killed a pedestrian whilst driving a car in which speed was a issue, I would expect that it would be seen as an aggravating factor if they had modded said car and boasted on the internet how fast they liked to drive it. Old Mrs Trelawney down the road who let the speed drift up through inattentiom in her Nissan Micra & who had an otherwise unblemished record would be treated more leniently.

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 had a right 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

He was only going 18 mph; no doubt the cars going in the other direction, which I presume she was more worried about – as she stood back towards him, were going faster and did not slow.

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.

Surely this is a rather contentious statement: a) it is rather precise, b) surely it must depend on a number of factors?[/quote]

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

Judge pretty much addressed this point.
[/quote]

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.
Funnily enough. Whenever a pedestrian is hit by a moving vehicle, unless the collision takes place in the pavement, it usually involves the pedestrian stepping into the path of the vehicle. Seeing as most vehicles move slower than the speed of light, there is also pretty much always a degree of negligence associated with that act. When that happens it is the responsibility of the vehicle ‘driver’ to take reasonable action to avoid the idiot. Given the negligence of the pedestrian is pretty much a given and not accepted as a mitigation when the vehicle concerned is a car, I’m not sure why you think it is so significant in this case.

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 would 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 **** 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

As the rider did not attempt to stop not sure how the judge can sate that they could not stop.

The expert evidence said that he was not able to stop because there was no front brake on his bike.

My dad has a small fleet of vintage cars / trucks. By modern standards, the whole lot are unsafe and certainly more dangerous than a bicycle, even if it had 16 brakes.

But if he were to run someone over in the conditions described over the last 28 pages, I seriously doubt he’d even lose his license.

The expert evidence said that he was not able to stop because there was no front brake on his bike.

With the follow on from that being the prosecutions case being that the main reason he didn’t try to stop was because his choice in riding an illegal bike without effective brakes didn’t give him that option. His defence challenged that but saying he’d have done the same thing even if he had brakes, however the jury appears not to have accepted that. In her summing up the judge also appears to indicate that, based on the CCTV evidence, his riding was so dangerous that he might have still been up on charges even if he had brakes but chose not to use them (e.g. he might have been doing a deliberate close flyby to scare her even more than his shouting and swearing had already done).

imnotverygood – Member
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.

Funnily enough. Whenever a pedestrian is hit by a moving vehicle, unless the collision takes place in the pavement, it usually involves the pedestrian stepping into the path of the vehicle. Seeing as most vehicles move slower than the speed of light, there is also pretty much always a degree of negligence associated with that act. When that happens it is the responsibility of the vehicle ‘driver’ to take reasonable action to avoid the idiot. Given the negligence of the pedestrian is pretty much a given and not accepted as a mitigation when the vehicle concerned is a car, I’m not sure why you think it is so significant in this case.
POSTED 5 HOURS AGO

*having not seen the evidence/CCTV footage…*
This is where the underlying issue that is causing the difference of opinion is located. The fact a pedestrian either a) didn’t pay FULL attention before walking out in tho the road or b) was paying attention and did so anyway, has been completely discounted. People may call ‘victim blaming’ but she wouldn’t be a victim if she had looked/listened before crossing AS ALL CHILDREN ALL TAUGHT (if indeed she didn’t look/listen).
But what makes it worse is the 2nd bold, why is this a given? How can we accept that. This is basic road safety. If she was paying attention, why did she not know that she would have to stop in the middle of the road?
I do think that Charlie was partly to blame, and that his actions before he even left the house showed that maybe he shouldn’t have been on the road, but in a court case this unusual and media-scrutinized, and therefore being seen/heard by a lot of the general public, to basically say “if you walk out into the road without looking and get hit its not your fault” is a massively irresponsible blunder.

You appear to be making unjustified assumptions based on the judges comments – admittedly the comments do seem to be phrased in order to give such an erroneous impression. https://goo.gl/maps/YFpcdf5fftt is I where the collision happened (based upon reports Charlie had just ridden through this junction) there’s a van parked in the parking/loading bay where the lorry presumably was (apart from the bays the road is double red lined). Still plenty of space to avoid a pedestrian by swerving – there’s sufficient road width for vehicles.

Which is where the analogy with vehicles falls down, because in a car the only appropriate action is to brake, whilst as discussed above swerving is an appropriate action and likely to be the most appropriate action in many circumstances. Also as discussed above the chances are he couldn’t have stopped even with a front brake – though clearly the dodgy police evidence suggested otherwise.

It may be irresponsible, but there is no legal requirement for a pedestrian to look before crossing the road. There is a legal requirement for a cyclist to ride safely and comply with the law with respect to the bike’s equipment.
Speaking as someone who was a motorbike courier in London for 3 years, you don’t need to tel me how irresponsible pedestrians can be. However , that does not absolve matey boy from riding like a knob and killing someone. Especially in the eyes of the law.

With the follow on from that being the prosecutions case being that the main reason he didn’t try to stop was because his choice in riding an illegal bike without effective brakes didn’t give him that option. His defence challenged that but saying he’d have done the same thing even if he had brakes, however the jury appears not to have accepted that. In her summing up the judge also appears to indicate that, based on the CCTV evidence, his riding was so dangerous that he might have still been up on charges even if he had brakes but chose not to use them (e.g. he might have been doing a deliberate close flyby to scare her even more than his shouting and swearing had already done).

“Might” being the key word. A bike with effective brakes and a rider choosing to swerve rather than stop wouldn’t fall into the category of “wanton and furious” so a heck of a lot of weight would have to be placed on other aspects in order to secure a conviction.

I completely agree, that wasn’t quite the point I was making though.
There may be no legal requirement for it but surely its COMMON SENSE?
I wouldn’t dream of crossing a road without checking its clear. I do happen to like being alive and uninjured.

The point being, it hasn’t been even discussed as a cause (whether or not i think it should effect the sentence), and it reinforces the ‘don’t need to take consequences of my actions’ mentality that A LOT of people have. Just look at the number of drivers who speed/use mobile/drive too close/break too late/drink and drive…… but those bloody cyclists/pedestrians shouldn’t be on the road.

Actually aracer, if there was a lorry parked where he van is & traffic coming the other way than I can entirely see why he was convicted. Space to avoid someone in an extreme emergency perhaps. Space to safely pass someone at double figure speed, when there is an option to stop. No way.

Hmm – I’m not sure it was Charlie who left her with nowhere safe to go – she is the one who walked into the road with traffic in the opposite lane which meant she would be forced to stop in the middle of the road in a lane with approaching traffic. The dangerous situation was almost entirely created by the victim – reading the description by the judge it seems to be an extremely stupid time/place to cross the road. As for direct cause of the collision, clearly that is debatable, but as I wrote before the only alternative decision/action which would definitively have avoided the collision was that made by the victim. I’m not sure you can claim he didn’t try to avoid the collision either – that would be a nonsensical thing to do on a bicycle where there’s a good chance you’re going to come off worse, he appears to have tried to avoid it by riding around her.

I note from the sentencing guidelines for causing death by driving:

Where the actions of the victim or a third party contributed to the commission of an offence, this should be acknowledged and taken into account as a mitigating factor.

^^This

There is still a fundamental principle not to be negligent. Clearly in this case the victim wasn’t following HC guidance – similar behaviour from the operator of a vehicle is sufficient for a conviction in the absence of any specific law breaking.

Allison was convicted largely because he thought it was all the pedestrian’s fault and he was entitled to keep going. Despite his conviction and nearly 1000 posts, some people don’t seem to have got he message.
EDIT: If a pedestrian steps out in front of you- for whatever reason- and the collision is avoidable, if you fail to avoid the collision, you will get done.

Again, not arguing with the outcome of the trial as such, as I believe he didn’t do enough to avoid the collision.
What I do not agree with is the fact that the pedestrian must have been, to some extent, negligent on her part for crossing where/when she did. I do not want to make any less of the tragedy of her death but this was largely ignored, and sends out the wrong message.

If, in the closing statement, the judge had said she was partly at fault and pedestrians need to ALSO take more care of their surroundings, but it was still within Charlies power to stop or lessen the collision i wouldn’t have a problem.

I presume the message we’re supposed to get is that because he was convicted the collision was entirely his fault and avoidable? That despite some of the evidence on which the conviction was based being extremely dodgy. BTW somewhere in those 1000 posts there is a lot of quite useful debate on various issues, most of it isn’t directly arguing whether or not Charlie was being a dick. Most of the debate now is not about the conviction – that happened a while ago and we were mostly fairly comfortable with the outcome – but with the sentencing.

Can I just check though what the point of your post is other than an attempt to shut down debate from people you disagree with?