UKC

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/charlie-alliston-jailed-cyclist-who-k...

He'll be out in 9 months. Still no remorse shown. His victim is dead forever.

There definitely needs to be a change in the Law and the penalty available for a judge to award.

If a motorist had caused death by dangerous driving he could have got 10 years.

In reply to Trangia:



really?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9636991/Third-of-drivers-who-kill-...

In reply to Trangia:

Could have got 10 years but typically 3-5. Sadly all too often motorists who kill don't get custodial sentences at all. A friend of mine killed a cyclist with a close pass, and even admitted it was his fault, and only got a driving ban. He was devastated, but also relieved not to go to jail and I can only imagine the victim's family were distraught.

The sentencing guidelines for a "level 3" offence- where there is a "significant risk" of danger (lower than level 2, "substantial", or level 1, "flagrant disregard"), are 2-5 years. In reality the poor victim was incredibly unlucky, as being hit by a vehicle moving at 12mph (which is the calculated speed), would not normally cause death. Most cars are doing 20-30+ mph. Aggravating factors obviously the lack of remorse and the illegal bike.

More info here: http://www.road-peace.org.uk/resources/RoadPeace%20Sentencing%20of%20Causin...

In reply to Trangia:

agree he should have got more though .

In reply to Trangia:


Could have but more than likely didn't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9636991/Third-of-drivers-who-kill-...

Whilst no one can condone this guy the coverage of this case has been appallingly biased. People are killed by cars on a daily basis and the cases get no coverage whatsoever but as soon as a cyclist is involved then the pitchforks are out.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Agree motorists get away with murder

In reply to tim000:

Thanks for that link. Hadn't realised that. It's a shocking revelation.

In reply to Trangia:

Obviously you are trolling, but would you care to back up your claim with any facts ?

For a start had he been driving a car he wouldn't have been expected to stop within 6m, so the blame would be placed entirely on the pedestrian.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

See my reply above

In reply to Trangia:





You really need to look into it a bit deeper.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Deeper ! Even 30 seconds on google would be ' A shocking revelation'

In reply to Trangia:

I've been a cyclist all my life and irrespective of the minutiae of the case the kid was riding a bike over which he did not have proper control. And he isn't alone. Since fashion made "fixies" (I despise the term) cool there are hundreds of these plonkers all over the place.
Back in my day we used to ride our fixed wheeled track bikes to the local track league but always installed a front brake for the journey. We didn't bullshit ourselves that we could stop on a dime without it.
If you were driving a vehicle with defective braking systems and you were aware of it, let alone deliberately made it this way and then killed someone you would go down for a long stretch. Deservedly so.

This guy has got off lightly.....

In reply to Trangia:

I'll agree he got off lightly once I'm convinced that a motorist would have even received an equal sentence for the same actions with the same outcome.

You've also ignored the fact that:
1) She was partially responsible for the collision, and
2) He spent time in a psychiatric hospital, having apparently attempted to take his own life, and also apparently called the hospital repeatedly to check on Brigg's condition

4 people were killed and several seriously injured on Saturday on the M5 near Bristol when a lorry smashed through the central reservation and hit several vehicles head on. On Thursday on the same stretch of motorway, a man was killed when he stopped on the hard shoulder, left his car and was hit. Within 3 days, 5 people dead (more than cyclists kill per year in the UK) and several badly injured due to motorised traffic on one stretch of road. Where's the outcry, the articles highlighting the risks of driving, the calls for new laws and tougher sentencing?

This isn't whataboutery. Focusing on the cyclist is completely counterproductive to road safety and public health in general.

In reply to Trevers:

Cyclist without front brake kills pedestrian that steps out in front of them, gets 18 months.

Motorist with bull bars kills pedestrian that steps out in front of them...

discuss.

In reply to Trevers:

Many cyclists have seen this case as an attack on all cyclists while ignoring the dangers posed by other road users.
But this case is solely about an arrogant man who ignored the law and contributed to the death of another person.
For doing so he deserves to be punished.
And the law changed to a more suitable one for modern times.
None of this absolves other road users from their responsibilities and the law should deal with them in a similar fashion.
Because it doesn't do so is a reflection of the failings of a system that is obviously not working and not a reason to allow this person to go unpunished.

In reply to Trangia:

A different perspective for those that are interested. The articles of motorist bias sentencing/Jury is also worth reading.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html

In reply to Trangia:



The guy who killed my mate 2 years ago next week driving whilst twice the limit for drink got a grand total of 3 and a bit years, there was zero culpability to take in to account on my mates side.
The bloke has just finished his first year but a few months ago they moved him to an open prison and he goes to work during the day and home on weekends.

It's a great system we have

In reply to Trangia:

The maximum sentence for the charge of which he was convicted is 2 years' imprisonment.
He was acquitted of manslaughter.

In reply to Trangia:

Is there a gap in the range of charges available to use against a cyclist? Yes.

Should the law change? I was going to say "No as this happens so rarely" but many people made the case that it was unfair to charge the cyclist with manslaughter. Create a lesser charge with more severity than the archaic once used and that would be addressed.

I leave the last word to the judge - it seems this person could do with some time to reflect,

In reply to Trevers:

No, it is.


Expecting cyclists.to have front brakes is in no way counterproductive.

In reply to MG:



And that's why it's illegal to ride without them, and rightly so.

You missed the point. Charlie Alliston was a selfish lout, on that we can all agree. But obsessing over him indirectly (and to a very minor extent) makes things more dangerous for me on the road.

Reports on the M5 crash that killed 4 people mention the lorry driver only in passing, as though he's a passive actor in this. In one report, it was mentioned that he was taken to hospital for minor injuries. In another, he was talking to accident investigators. It paints the picture of a cooperative man deserving our sympathy, not anger. See the difference?

In reply to Trevers:

t was mentioned that he was taken to hospital for minor injuries. In another, he was talking to accident investigators. It paints the picture of a cooperative man deserving our sympathy, not anger. See the difference?

Didn't he have a tyre blow out? If so, hardly comparable to an idiot on a bike with no front brakes riding as fast as he can down a busy street.

In reply to Ragingpossum:



You got there before me. This certainly puts some of the Daily Mail coverage into perspective.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



But the lorry driver who killed five people while drunk a few weeks back is barely heard of a gain.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



True but I have seen evidence that suggests the lack of a front brake had no bearing on the outcome of the incident


So in that case he should have been punished for colliding with a pedestrian who stepped out into a busy road without looking. Just as severely as a driver might. He should also be punished for riding a bike with no front brakes.

In reply to Trevers:

I do see the difference. In one case an arrogant, selfish, reckless road user, in the other (so far as we know) a road user who was none of the above helping an investigation.

In reply to Trangia:

This table was posted on STW

https://ibb.co/gE6wok

Out of 171 drivers convicted of causing death by careless driving, little over a quarter received immediate custody and only 8 received a harsher penalty than in this case. Rightly or wrongly, Death by careless driving has a max penalty of 5 years, wanton cycling 2 years, so the judge in this case showed little leniency.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What do you conclude from that? The cyclist case wasn't about carelessness

In reply to MG:

I conclude that the cyclist was given a punishment far harsher than motorists convicted of a similar offence.
Whether he has been treated harshly full stop is another matter, it's the lack of consequences for careless/dangerous motorists that is my main concern.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I think you need to.compare with sentences for Death by Dangerous driving to draw any valid conclusions. As above, this wasn't carelessness

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Agreed.

In reply to MG:

Death by Dangerous driving is equivalent to manslaughter, for which he was acquitted

In reply to Chris the Tall:

meanwhile when a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist causing his death, there isn't any prosecution, see http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-st...

In reply to MG:


If it is indeed the case that the M5 crash was the result of a tyre blowout then the driver of the lorry has my sympathies. I'd read several BBC articles and none of them mentioned or suggested the cause of the accident.

But this kind of serves to illustrate my point. When it's motorised vehicles involved, the emphasis is usually on the victims, and the disruption caused. Unless there's any suggestion that the driver was texting or drunk, they're barely mentioned. Alliston was, as you say, arrogant, selfish, reckless but he's been turned into a monster because it easily fits into a tabloid narrative about reckless young cyclists flouting the law. That reporting serves no positive purpose.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


No it's not. Driving a motor vehicle can lead to a manslaughter charge. Death by dangerous driving is a step down from that.

In the end this is pointless speculation. Part of the problem is that there are no equivalent offences for cyclists. Hence the calls for a review of the law. Given this, making a comparison and trying to draw any meaningful conclusions is futile.

As a cyclist I am appalled by the lenient sentences handed down across the board for motoring offences that lead to death

I also don't think the perpetrator in this case has been harshly served at all.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

In reply to MG:


If it was a car driver, I'm fairly certain it would be being treated as death by careless driving. The defining line between careless and dangerous driving is more or less whatever the jury thinks it ought to be. That sounds flippant but that's how it tends to play out in court. If there's a case for dangerous driving but it's not clear cut, the prosecution will tend to go for careless driving. Even though by default careless driving is available if dangerous driving is thrown out, juries tend to go all or nothing.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Absolutely agree. But there is the question of fixing which "wrong" should be given priority. And the government has indicated that it intends to react to to this isolated case with stronger legislation against dangerous cyclists. At the same time it shows no inclination to act on the far greater problem of dangerous motoring

But you also have to consider why this one case has received so much publicity, and generated so much anger, and the hundreds of cases involving motorists don't.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

There are a number of factors, and the anti cyclist bias of the mail, express et al is definitely a part.

But there's also a degree of 'man bites dog'- rare events get more coverage than the tragically routine killing of cyclists by motorists. The attitude of the perpetrator, the victim having young children, these all played a part in increasing the coverage- and that's not just tabloid fuelled hate, the judge was pretty scathing in their comments.

I think when the lorry driver that killed so many comes back to court there will be similar coverage, and I expect the sentence to be much harsher. I still think this cyclist got off lightly, but don't dispute that many drivers get even more leniently treated.

In reply to Snoweider:


Obviously they'd be distraught but not necessarily about the sentence. If you view prison largely as a tool for rehabilitation and or public protection then you view those who cause harm by mistake very differently to those who do so through malice. Not everyone sees much point in prison as deterrent against criminal acts which people do not intend or expect to happen.

Obviously it's not simple to get the balance 'right', especially in a world where opinions on this sort of thing differ wildly and for some reason we're curiously comfortable with emotion and dogma over evidence when it comes to sentencing. Plus there are some aggravating circumstances in this particular case but at the end of the day the outcome has far more to do with rotten luck than intent or foreseeable consequences of actions. Personally I don't see any point in ruining yet another life over what is already a tragedy. Every now and again sad cases like this crop up and divide opinion.
jk

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm no lawyer but I am pretty certain it isn't correct. The CPS has this to say
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosec...

"Gross negligence manslaughter should not be charged unless there is something to set the case apart from those cases where a statutory offence such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving could be proved. This will normally be evidence to show a very high risk of death, making the case one of the utmost gravity. This is in contrast to the statutory offences where all that is required is evidence that the driving was dangerous and that the manner of driving caused the death of another person."

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Given there are numerous offences specific to driving, the anti-speeding campaign of the last two decades, the anti drink driving campaign before that, and that the UK has among the safest roads in the world, I don't think you can really claim that.

In reply to MG:

On the contrary, there may be many offences on the statute books, that doesn't mean that they are all applied, or even applied equally to all.

Drinking (and/or taking drugs) and Driving are regarded as heinous acts, and anyone caught 1 milliwhatsit over the limit is treated by society as no different to someone completely legless - and lose their licence straight off.
However if someone is simply not looking where they're going then it regarded as "just one of those things", never mind.
However the latter outnumbers the former greatly in the number of people maimed/killed.

The difference being that the great and the good commit the latter, whereas the former is (seen as being) committed by lower-lifes.

It's the same with speeding; 1 mph over the limit and hit someone, even if they run out in front of you, and you are a social pariah; drive at 29 mph past a school in freezing fog and hit someone on a pedestrian crossing - no problem , you weren't doing anything illegal.

I also honestly believe that if this prat (and I am being polite here) had killed a middle-aged male rather than an attractive mother-of two then he would have been dealt with far more leniently.

In reply to fred99:

You are just making stuff up now.

In reply to MG:

Safest in the world ? Possibly better than the global average, but I don't think Britain compares well to the rest of western Europe. And safe for whom - sure it's not so bad if you are in your oversized metal box, less so if you are a pedestrian or a cyclist.

But hey, a thousand deaths a year in collisions and a few hundred more from air pollution is a small price to pay for the convenience of being able to jump in your car and sit in a traffic jam for hours.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



More like 25,000 from air pollution

In reply to Chris the Tall:


You are wrong. Sweden is safer but that is all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_ra...

In reply to MG:

Have to admit I'm surprised at that, but there is still the issue of where the casualties are occurring, and to whom. Multiple fatalities on the motorways make the headlines, but actually our motorways are much safer than elsewhere.

Of course there is a conundrum faced by cycling groups - wishing to highlight the dangers faced by cyclists, without scaring them off the streets. However I'm sure I have seen statistics showing the number of fatalities in the UK compared to Netherlands, France, Belgium, Danmark etc and they don't paint a favourable picture. Unfortunately I have other things to do

Meanwhile those who think CA got off lightly may get their wish - thanks to the good old Daily Mail

http://road.cc/content/news/229482-charlie-alliston-potentially-facing-perj...

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Funny, I thought our government was rather progressive in terms of funding and legislating towards self driving cars.

I do wonder how those people who are so tunnel vision set against cars will cope when in 30-40 years they are non polluting, cheaper cost (shared ownership) and almost totally safe to all road users (autonomy). What's left to hate?

In reply to wintertree:

You're absolutely right - lets give the motor industry 40 years of grace and they'll solve all the problems

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What do you actually want to see happen that isn't other than long prison sentences for drivers?

In reply to MG:

Actually longer prison sentences is not high on my wish list, as I think we've discussed previously
Longer bans for dangerous and careless drivers certainly is.

As for motoring generally, a carrot and stick approach is required. The overall cost of motoring has fallen in real terms in the last 30 years, but the cost of using the alternatives have increased dramatically.

Cycling infrastructure in the UK is poor and people are put off using cycles more by a perception that it is dangerous. Unfortunately the less people cycle, the more dangerous it gets.

As to technology - yes I'd love to see more electric vehicles, I'd love my next car to be electric, but as yet it isn't really practical for someone who does a small number of predominately long journeys.
But we could use existing sat nav technology to introduce road-pricing - taxing motorists not on owning a car, and not for using it when it's there's no real alternative, but based on the pollution and congestion you cause.

Unfortunately no government in the world has yet been brave enough to risk the backlash by introducing anything more ambitious than a congestion charge

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Mostly agree.

In reply to baron:

I don't think anyone is saying he shouldn`t be in jail. the complaint is with the way it has been reported . as other people have posted there have been much worse road traffic incidents with multiple people killed that are completely ignored by the press . but because it was a cyclist that caused the death it is all over the press .

In reply to tim000:


Its not because its a cyclist, its because its an unusual and interesting case. Someone killing someone whilst recklessly using a skateboard might have received equal coverage.

In reply to GrahamD:
I suppose that's right . but it shows how sad the world is that we now take car drivers killing people due to bad driving as normal and not worth reporting

In reply to tim000:

I think the fact that he modified his bike so it was illegal to use on the highway has at least some part to play in the public's negative reaction towards his case.
If you want to compare his sentence to a motorist's who has caused a similar pedestrian death, your first Google filter should be along the lines of finding" a motorist who has modified his car to rely on engine braking alone guilty of killing pedestrian".

In reply to Tom Valentine:
he didn`t modify the bike . track bikes don't have brakes fitted .
but they are illegal to ride on the road

In reply to tim000:



Which makes him a reckless moron!

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Just by way of anecdote, I recently rode 250 miles in France with out a single close pass; I could expect about a dozen over the same distance cycling round here.

In reply to MG:

agree , not trying to defend him . he`s a dick.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


You ignored another poster pointing out that lots is being done now - look at the drop in deaths and KSIs over the years, even before normalising by increasing miles driven. So I pointed out an example of longer term government action and you dismiss that outright. Should the industry stop innovating now because it takes time? You'd often think so given the popular reaction to EVs and autonomy on here...

Just no pleasing some people.

My view - UK roads are some of the safest going per mile driven (not the same as pedestrian risk but per mile driven is the one that relates most directly to driven training and legislation) and we seem to be approaching an asymptote in safety. Diminishing returns on safety initiatives around driver training - so the next step is to improve autonomous safety features.

Options: (a) convenient personal mobility continues at present rates, but more affordably, more environmentally friendly and less dangerously. (b). We turn the clock back a century to most people cycling or using public transport because that's "easier". According to the most keen cyclists out there, anyhow.

In reply to Trangia:

Meanwhile, van driver drives on the pavement and kills 4 year old, acquitted.

http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/delivery-man-c...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Grim. I've got a daughter pretty much that age. Stuff of nightmares.

But hard to know from a short piece what to make of the verdict. The jury sat through all the evidence and heard the arguments and said not guilty; I don't have enough information to have an opinion on whether that was a perverse decision

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Absolutely shocking verdict. What the f*ck were that jury thinking saying not guilty?

In reply to Trangia:

Death by Dangerous Driving has a similarly high barrier to conviction as manslaughter, the crime that the cyclist was found not guilty of, with manslaughter having a longer maximum sentence. If he had been driving a car, the charge would likely have been Death by Careless Driving, people found guilty of this often get away with a suspended sentence.

In reply to Trangia:

I wonder what showing remorse entails? Some kind of media peep show?

In reply to tim000:

My mistake.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The point is, as has been amply demonstrated on this thread, that the jury very often sit through all the evidence and are quite happy to accept that the defendant's driving was exemplary, that the cyclist/ pedestrian/scooter-riding little girl appeared out of nowhere. It's one one barrister describes as the "there but for the grace of God" line of reasoning.

I suppose what's happening is that the law sets a threshold of what constitutes acceptable driving, and juries set a lower one in practice (which it could be argued might accord better with what's actually achievable).

In reply to The New NickB:

You are incorrect there.
The reason the statutory offence exists is that the conviction rate for manslaughter/culpable homicide in driving was so low. The test for death by dangerous driving is simply dangerous driving and a death resulting whereas in manslaughter/culpable homicide you need to prove some form of intent or criminal negligence.

Much harder to defend death by dangerous driving.

In reply to Ragingpossum:



The 'cyclingsilk' seems to suggest that Alliston was overcharged and that a charge under the construction and use regulations or careless or dangerous cycling would have been more appropriate.
None of those offences carry the possibility of prison or a community sentence.

In a case where a death has resulted would starting out with a charge where the accused cannot receive a prison or community sentence really be a good idea?

In reply to rogerwebb:

He does write a lot of received bollocks, doesn't he? 'From experiments on other bicycles, including a police mountain bike, it was alleged that with a front brake he would have been able to stop in 3 metres.'

The internet and our friendly silk seem to believe that the comparator was a mountain bike, which it wasn't. My (unreasonable) guess is that he's writing for an audience whose vision is as weak as its cycling ability; I gesture towards King Boonen (cyclingnews) and comments on our previous thread on CA for several further examples of myopia and incompetence.

In reply to Mike Highbury:



In that case he must be approaching the very lower level of imbalance this case has received from the Mail and the Sun

In reply to Mike Highbury:
>The internet and our friendly silk seem to believe that the comparator was a mountain bike,

Note that bicycles is plural and use of the word 'including' in your quote.

If your comprehension is that cyclingsilk thinks the comparator (singular) was a mountain bike you have missed TWO clues in TWO CONSECUTIVE words 'bicycles, including'. That's just looking at your quote.

In reply to rogerwebb:
Depends on the degree of culpability - where there is any degree of recklessness as to the safety of others I'd agree entirely with you

In reply to wercat:
Behaving as an a***hole on a bicycle is about as dangerous a normal driving.

Which is more reckless with other people's lives when they present similar risks to others?

In reply to elsewhere:


This was a reply about a point of principle:

"In a case where a death has resulted would starting out with a charge where the accused cannot receive a prison or community sentence really be a good idea? "

"A death has resulted" is insufficient to imply custodial punishment without a reasonable degree of culpability. I made no comment on this case but if you search the thread I think I already expressed an opinion on duties of care to pedestrians owed by anyone travelling faster

In reply to elsewhere:

The first. ALARP is the phrase, I think.

In reply to wercat:


>

I think you misread my post. Starting with an offence that provides for a custodial sentence does not imply a custodial sentence, it does imply that the possibility should be considered.
If England and Wales are at all like here the police report is often thin and if a death has resulted it would be a brave decision to limit options early on.

In reply to The New NickB:


See my earlier post - I am very dubious it would have been a charge of death by dangerous driving.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



This is tragic It's unfortunately a textbook example of what I mentioned previously about dangerous vs careless driving.

If the driver was in court on a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, then the less charge of causing death by dangerous driving was also an option should the more serious get thrown out. That the driver was acquitted suggests the jury found his driving to be faultless. Yet the driver's assertion that he didn't see her is more or less an admission of guilt of careless driving. Juries tend to go all or nothing and either find the driver guilty of causing death by dangerous driving or acquit them. If the prosecution had sought a charge of causing death by careless driving he would probably have been found guilty.

In reply to MG:
ALARP - even when the car is more comfy than walking or public transport?

You're saying if you pick certain modes of transport that's less culpable even if it presents the same risk to others.

In reply to elsewhere:

I'm not sure the statistics support that - I think normal 'careful' driving is much more dangerous to others than reckless cycling.

In reply to elsewhere:


Yes, for a given activity, you try and reduce the risk "as far as reasonably practicable". Cars are inherently more dangerous than bikes so even after doing that, you may pose a greater risk to yourself and others. Such is life (or death).

In reply to MG:

You are excluding the most important factor in the chain of causation in the consideration of culpability or reducing risk as much as reasonably practicable.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



The 'man bites dog' theory falls down when you consider how much attention a similar case received
http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-st...

Again pedestrian walks into road causing a collision with a cyclist, but in this instance the cyclist dies. Just as rare (thankfully), but no media attention.

The simple fact is that Alliston fits a popular narrative - that the typical cyclist is young, male, arrogant, aggressive and has no respect for the rules of the road. As such we shouldn't worry too much if a few of them go under the wheels of lorries, or provoke a motorist into a bit of road rage. And we certainly shouldn't be encouraging such people by giving them better infrastructure. Far better that we rip up the bike lanes so that decent, law-abiding, hard-working drivers who do proper jobs can have an easier commute.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

That sort of language, and the comments under the article you link, basically just confirm the "young, male, arrogant, aggressive" stereotype and are totally counterproductive if you actually want the stuff you say you do higher up. The comments, particularly, show that a good number of cyclists think Alliston was the victim and see the cyclist's death as a chance to get back at pedestrians. It would all be rather pathetic if it wasn't people's lives being discussed.

In reply to MG:

Pardon me for having a fear that all this hate that is getting whipped up towards cyclists might have an impact on my life

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Having been involved in a case where the police not only blamed me for an incident in which a driver decided to play a bit of Russian Roulette with my life, but actually threatened me with a public offence for swearing on camera and called me the criminal, I can attest that it was deeply unpleasant experience which has left me with the feeling that the authorities more or less hold the attitude Chris described.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

its not that similiar though. no unlawful vehicles involved, and no criminal prosecution.

having said that, i agree with your point re it fitting a narrative, and i don't doubt that that further fueled the media coverage.

i think you're straying into hyperbole with the comments after that though.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


You and others (see comments on your article again) don't appear to care at all about your or anyone else's lives. Rather just about expressing an arrogant superiority to drivers, indeed any non-cycling road user, perfectly pitched to piss people off and stifle any investment in cycling safety. The first comment for example reads, after a clearly insincere expression of well wishes

"I like how they mention the speed of the cycle and lack of knowledge as to the colour of the light - are the Police and Justice System actually internet trolls?"

As if the police are somehow out of order for raising obviously relevant questions in an investigation simple because a cyclist was involved.

In reply to MG:


How about this for disregard for life. Do you recognise it?

Cars are inherently more dangerous than bikes so even after doing that, you may pose a greater risk to yourself and others. Such is life (or death).

In reply to birdie num num:


Saying sorry, is a good start.

Then, not trying to excuse your use of an illegal vehicle might also help.

In reply to elsewhere:



a) I'm not the one claiming to be concerned and b) in any case there is nothing there that suggests a disregard for life, quite the opposite in fact.

In reply to MG:


I don't speak for other people, merely myself. Why on earth do you judge me on other people's comments, just because we indulge in the same bizarre hobby called "cycling" ?

And even by your standards of twisting my comments, stating that I don't care about my own or other people's lives is pretty far fetched.

In reply to MG:

So why do you argue for lower culpability for when we choose a mode of transport that imposes a greater risk on others?

In reply to Trangia:

We had people on the other thread about this, saying the back brake is almost as effective by itself as having both a front brake and back break.

A piss poor attempt to use flawed physics to try and exonerate this idiot, you only have to look at a motorbike, you'll see two disks on the front and one on the back, which quite easily shows where most of the braking comes from.

In reply to elsewhere:


I went through that above. It's pretty well established idea that some risky tasks are necessary, such as driving.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



I didn't. I based my judgement of you on your comments, but they do chime with those of others that you linked to so I connected them. All these sarcastic references to "metal boxes" and such like give the clear impression you are primarily interested in seeing yourself as superior to drivers rater than actually making transport safer.

In reply to krikoman:

Correct, piss poor physics.

But by choosing to be an a***hole on a bike he chose to impose no more risk on others than if he had chosen to be a normal driver. Therefor he's no more morally guilty than somebody else who imposed a similar risk on others such as an ordinary driver who kills and gets a fine/ban.

I don't object to him being imprisoned if that's the norm for road users who kill.

In reply to MG:


I apologise for offending your car.

In reply to MG:

But the choice is more often for convenience and comfort rather than necessity.

It seems it's ok with you to impose risk on others mostly for comfort and convenience.

In reply to elsewhere:

Are you saying you want drivers on "unvirtuous" trips who crash to receive tougher sentences than those on "virtuous" trips? Doesn't sound very practical. Realistically driving is widely necessary and as long as drivers follow the rules, take care, maintain their cars etc., it's unreasonabe to hold them to higher levels of culpability than any other road user.

In reply to elsewhere:


This is clearly a bollocks argument. The risk and morality are not linked. What about a brain surgeon who does something far riskier than driving - are they morally more guilty than a wilfully negligent cyclist if someone dies at their hand ?

In reply to MG:

If you claim necessity justifies imposing risk on others that is logical.

Personally I think punishment for causing death should be independent of the mode of transport rather than lower culpability when a riskier mode of transport is chosen.

Hence a driver who mounts the kerb and kills a child should get a comparable punishment to the cyclist who killed the pedestrian.

In reply to GrahamD:
Risk and morality are linked when you compare different ways of getting from A to B.

In reply to elsewhere:

If you mean "Hence a driver who mounts the kerb [when driving an unroadworthy vehicle recklessly] and kills a child should get a comparable punishment to the cyclist who killed the pedestrian [when riding an unroadworthy bike recklessly] ."

I agree. If you saying regardless of whether the driver was being irresponsibly, I don't.

In reply to MG:
Surely....

Hence a driver who crashes into a child who steps out into the road [when driving an unroadworthy vehicle recklessly] and kills them should get a comparable punishment to the cyclist who killed a pedestrian who steps out into the road [when riding an unroadworthy bike recklessly]

......what this simplistic statement misses though is whether the unroadworthly element was a factor in the outcome (which is required under our legal system (i..e. your not automatically guilty if your car/bike is not roadworthy of any crime other than the act of driving/riding said vehicle). Determining this requires detailed analysis (e.g. a court case) to resolve.

In reply to elsewhere:

Oh, yeh, you're the guy who can't ride through London without people walking into him, aren't you?

In reply to Trangia:

Returning to the Charlie Alliston case - I'm wondering if it's possible anywhere to find concrete details of the court proceedings, evidence and statements etc?

I'm interested in the precise situation in which the collision occurred. All I can find are the various news reports, which are completely contradictory. His speed is reported as anywhere between 10 and 18mph. It's sometimes reported that Briggs stepped off the kerb 6.53m away from him, or that this was the point at which he took evasive action. It's also reported occasionally that there was 3.8 seconds between Briggs stepping off the kerb and the collision, which would corroborate with Alliston having the time to shout twice.

The most accurate description I can find is from the judge's sentencing remarks, although this still doesn't clear up the inconsistency (see para 7):
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-...

Trying to piece things together from incomplete information, the collision occurred in this location and direction:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5267581,-0.0814062,3a,75y,254.62h,67.68t/...
(n.b., I can't find any report specifying which direction Alliston was travelling. I've inferred this from the presence of the unloading box and the width of the road after the junction which he is said to have crossed).

This is my reconstruction, which seems to be most consistent with all the reports. Please feel free to challenge it:
It seems there was a lorry parked in the red unloading box. Briggs stepped out near the lorry (whether in front of or behind isn't clear, but I would guess it was in front where she was visible to Alliston). This was 3.8 seconds before the collision. She moved out to stand just within the centre line, waiting for traffic coming the other way to let her cross. During this time, Alliston shouted twice and slowed to between 10 and 14mph. He decided to continue riding between Briggs and the parked lorry.

When they were 6.53m apart, she stepped backwards, into Alliston's path and they collided. Depending on his speed, there was between 1.46 and 1.04 seconds to react.

According to the Highway Code, the reaction time is 0.67 seconds. At 10mph he's covered 3m, and at 14mph it's 4.2m. Recent studies suggest that the reaction time is closer to 1.5 seconds. However I won't give Alliston the benefit of the doubt here, since he should have been alert when passing near a pedestrian.

If this version of events is true, then it seems Alliston is correct that a front brake would not have made a difference, or at the very least it would have been a very close call.

In reply to Trevers:
Any additional braking would behave reduced the speed at impact and hence the severity of injury. There's no excuse for him.

Although in general being able to see court transcripts would be good.

In reply to MG:

Perhaps. He would still have had only a split second to react and may still have opted to try and swerve around her. The cause of the collision is still the combination of his decision to move between Briggs and the lorry, and her movement back into his path. Assuming my reconstruction is accurate of course.

EDIT - It should also be pointed out that 0.67 seconds is the reaction time for a driver to apply brakes to avoid a collision. It doesn't include time to weigh up options about whether to brake or swerve.

In reply to Trevers:

Having done a bit more reading, I'm fairly certain I'm correct about the location/direction of the collision.

Two details that I may be mistaken about:
1) It's possible that Briggs, instead of reaching the middle centre line and then stepping back, was still moving towards the centre line and then froze when she realised the danger. Thus she was further to the left than she would have been had she continued walking.
2) Possibly the 6.53m refers to the point at which Alliston swerved, rather than the point at which she moved into his path/froze in his path.

Which particular version of events is accurate is completely unclear from all the reporting of the case. If these possible amendments to my reconstruction reflect the truth, it would increase Alliston's proportion of the responsibility for the collision.

In reply to MG:

Why are two things similarly likely to kill such as mounting the kerb (roadworthy vehicle) and a bike without front brake not considered equally reckless? They both show the same disregard for human life that says a one in a million chance of killing is ok.

In reply to Trevers:

It is possible that if CA had a better lawyer, not to mention a better attitude, he would have got more sympathy from the judge. In the judge's summing she accepts the prosecution case that whereas his illegal bike required 12m to stop, a "normal" bike could have stopped in 3m and therefore 6m gave him plenty of time. The 3m claim has been widely disputed on a number of grounds, and of course the comparable figure for a car is also 12m.

I'm fairly certain that CA was riding a fixie because he thought it was cool and not because he was on his way to velodrome - the only place where such bikes make sense. Otherwise we might have some sympathy that he was an athlete who could only afford one bike. But other than his choice of bike, it does seem that his only alternative may have been to swerve in front of a lorry.

And yes, if your vehicle is illegal you should be held responsible for the consequences, just a driver who is texting whilst driving and then hits a cyclist....

Hopefully though he won't appeal - it would only give the media more ammunition

In reply to Trevers:

this is why attempts to 're-try' this, and other, cases based on evidence reported in the media is ultimately unsatisfactory; there just isn't the detail, or the ability to challenge the account. you've done a remarkably good job there, but there are parts that are impossible for us to know from the information we have.

the jury sat through it all, and heard both sides put their case, and respond to challenges. the judge was equipped with all the information that the defense and prosecution felt relevant to the case. each came to a more informed decision than any of us can on here.

i don't think the sentence was long enough; and i dont think sentencing for drivers who kill due to dangerous driving anywhere near reflects the seriousness of the incidents they cause. but in the end that's just my opinion; the opinion that matter were in the courtroom.

the same goes for the links to other cases that have been linked to to support or undermine points in the debate. the devil is often in the detail, and that's not available in a 200 word summary...

In reply to MG:



So definite impact at a lower speed is better than no impact at all (from swerving, a manoeuvre hindered by braking)?

It's not at clear cut as you are making it.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Well he didn't do either! He hit her. Had he hit her slower as he would have with brakes, her injuries would have been less severe.

In reply to elsewhere:


We've done that twice.


No they don't. See the other post regarding brain surgery too

In reply to MG:

From what's been written above, it appears that he hit her because she kept moving into his path.

In reply to Trevers:



The problem is death by dangerous driving is poorly defined in legal terms. So it is easy to claims that it was not damgerous driving and for a jury to see it that way. For instance many drivers drive illegally down a pavement and dont see it for the dangerous driving it is.

In reply to MG:
The illness or injury imposes a risk to health.

A brain surgeon imposes no increased risk.

A brain surgeon offers to reduce the risk to health.

If the brain surgeon cannot offer reduced risk to health the surgeon won't offer the option of surgery for no therapeutic benefit.

The surgeon does not impose the surgery.

The patient consents to surgery.

Brain surgery is not the same as getting about.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Yes, that's me.

I collide daily with bicycles, including mountain bikes too.

For clarity bicycles are plural and including means not exclusively.

Happy to help.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

OK, I'm sorry. You and elsewhere and CtT are all right. Cyclists are infallible and all other road users murderous morons. My mistake.

In reply to MG:


Is there any detailed evidence on how the injury occurred? I presume it was a brain injury that killed the poor woman, but was this due to impact with Allison/his bike or with the ground?

Deaths like this are rare, and it would not surprise me if this was a little like the occasional "one punch" deaths that are reported - a very specific impact on the head leading to death.... a mm either way or a little less force may well have been just a bit of bruising

In reply to MG:
Not murderous morons, just road users more likely to get a slap on the wrist when they kill.

In reply to MG:

Full marks for flouncing.

In reply to krikoman:

A media peep show then.
The question was general rather than specific.
Saying sorry doesn't mean feeling sorrow.

In reply to birdie num num:

Showing remorse means getting your solicitor writing a letter to the judge telling him how sorry you are and how much you regret your foolish, selfish behaviour.

Rooney wasted his money there then.

In reply to MG:
>> he didn`t modify the bike . track bikes don't have brakes fitted .
>> but they are illegal to ride on the road


Well the law is of course the law, and I wouldn't be happy riding a fixie without brakes on the roads (least of all through London) but I've been quite a keen cyclist for years now and have seen lots of people riding fixies, and if I'm honest I previously didn't know it was illegal to ride one without a front brake (but not a rear).

I also have carbon wheels on my road bike and the braking is utterly shit in the wet, and this isn't a secret. Everyone knows carbon is crap in the wet, and lots of people ride on carbon wheels. In fact, even on my alloy winter wheels they are shit at braking in the wet. Road bikes in general are crap at braking in the wet, and I ride far more conservatively than the vast majority of the club riders I have ever been out with. It would be interesting to know what proportion of people riding road bikes could be argued to be 'reckless' (probably a lot of them).

To me this seems to be piece of unimaginably bad luck and it would certainly take more than has come out in the media to convince me that there was any real malice, recklessness or even the slightest expectation of the possible consequences. A tragic case for all involved.

In reply to Aly:

And, once again, it is worth pointing out that he could just have easily have been killed, and she survived, having recklessly stepped out in front of him.

Then what charges would be brought?

Yes, it does happen; in pedestrian/cycle collisions that result in a fatality, it's about 50:50.

In reply to captain paranoia:




There is a recent case, but you need to search for a parish newsletter to find it because it didn't meet the agenda for the national press.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yep, it was in Reading, I think.

In reply to Aly:



You seem to be saying loads of cyclists ride unroadworthy bikes. I don't think this helps the idea that cyclists are the victims here.


Possible no malice (although clear indifference before and afterwards). But definitely reckless and the idea he couldn't see the possible consequences of not having effective brakes is laughable.

In reply to MG:


As reckless as driving up onto a pavement without knowing if there's a child there or not.
The idea that he couldn't see the possible consequences of driving onto the pavement is laughable.

In reply to elsewhere:


How about if the person know there were safety issues with their bike / car?

How about if they are drunk or on drugs?

Surely the sentence should be comparable to the offence, and whether it might have been avoided, by taking sensible precautions, or not breaking the law.

You seem to be trying to defend his actions, because SOME other people get lighter sentences. Shouldn't you be asking for heavier sentences on the people who didn't get jail time?

In reply to captain paranoia:



He was on an illegal bike FFS!

If he was pissed, would you still be arguing his case, because it's just the same. If his bike had been legal then he might never has hit her, never mind killed her.

In reply to elsewhere:


It is. Which is why in the case above according to the reports, the driver made his best effort to check. See the difference? In one case: know the consequences and blast on regardless, in the other know the consequences and do your best to avoid them.

In reply to krikoman:
Good questions.

A fool on an unsafe bike is probably no more dangerous than an average car. It may be illegal but not very irresponsible in that it does not create much risk.


Aggrevating factor for sentencing.


No. I believe that the sentence should be comparable for risk posed to others and obvious likely consequences. That means sensible precautions for a motorist are far higher than for somebody who already takes a far greater precaution and creates a far smaller hazard by using another mode of transport.


I've called him an a***hole. That's not defending him. I do think he should get the normal punishment of motorists who kill.


The default for all should be if you kill you should get serious punishment and i've previously argued that.

In reply to MG:
Yup. Blast onto the pavement you can't see. As long as you do your best just take a gamble. That's fine. Not at all reckless.

In reply to elsewhere:


Which, of course, isn't what happened...

In reply to elsewhere:


But by that argument, you'd equate someone riding a bike on the road, with someone riding a bike on the pavement, simply because they were on a bike.

In reply to elsewhere:


I would always argue that the punishment should reflect the actions and intent of the person convicted rather than the outcome , which is often down to chance. Unfortunately it seems that our legal system is set up the other way around because the majority are vindictive morons. I think in this case there is the additional problem that the legislature
can never be truly separate from the judiciary, politics is always involved, see the government's knee-jerk launch of a review into whether a new law is need to tackle dangerous cycling to appease the non-cycling majority that they are safe in their tin boxes.

In reply to Aly:


Agreed - I've also ridden a fixie on the road and wouldn't like to be out without a front brake.


In which case, I respectfully suggest that you change your brand of brake blocks and/or brakes. I ride all year round on a road bike with rim brakes and don't seem to have had any serious reduction of braking capacity in the wet - and that includes being caught out in the rain on some pretty big descents in the Pyrenees. Whatever the conditions, I can expect to run out of grip on the road before I run out of power in the brakes.

In any case, you should know the limits of your equipment for a given set of circumstances and ride accordingly.


Agreed.

In reply to krikoman:


That sounds official government position for the last 18 years.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/990709_pboetengmp_ben_bradshaw...

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so."

I don't equate bike to bike.

I equate equal risk to others.

In reply to elsewhere:

Some informed, interesting commentary here
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston...

that suggests was Alliston lucky with the state of the law. Also that the claim the pedestrian was on the phone is false.

In reply to elsewhere:


Sadly there is nothing that can help the victim now. IMHO ultimately the purpose of any sentence should be to protect people either by a) stopping a repeat offence either physically, eg prison or ban from relevant activities, or by other means such as a fine (possibly involving remuneration) or education, b) discouraging anyone else from repeating the offence.
The publicity and sentence in this case would seem to cover both these criteria. Although the sentence is regarded as low by some I imagine any term of confinement is unpleasant to say the least, especially as he would never have envisioned either the accident or its consequences.

In reply to elsewhere:


This is just bizarre. If you run in to and kill someone on a perfectly maintained, carefully ridden bike because of a mechanical failure, say a brake cable snaps due to an invisible manufacturing fault, are you really saying that deserves serious punishment?

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

I disagree, punish on consequence. We already prosecute and punish on bad luck as for every collision there are many more almost equivalent near misses with no damage or injury.

In reply to elsewhere:


I don't understand why would you think that?

In reply to MG:

Yes but with some caveats.

That sounds like something so rare that it hasn't yet happened. That might be considered as very strong mitigation.

Something blindingly obvious because it has already happened many times in 2017 might get a serious punishment.

Punish by consequence is a convenient way of matching punishment to risk posed to others. The first case will probably never happen so if they get the same punishment or not doesn't really matter much. Such is life (or death) as you said earlier.

In reply to Jon Greengrass:


It neatly targets punishment on those who present the greatest risk of the worst consequences.

In reply to elsewhere:



If you immediately start talking about mitigation, you are no longer basing things on consequence. What about a blow out?

Also are you happy for me to drive my unroadworthy car at 90mph through a town while drunk so long as I happen not to hit anyone?

Any practical system has got to be a combination of act, intention and consequence.

In reply to MG:
Charlie Alliston had no intent to kill. He found the risk he posed to others was acceptable.

The driver who went up onto a pavement without knowing there was a child there had no intent to kill. He found the risk he posed to others was acceptable.

Punish equally by consequence matches the punishment to the risks to others that they both accepted.
If they'd both accepted lower risk neither of their victims would be dead and neither of them would have been punished.

In reply to MG:

Only if that poses no risks to others.

In reply to elsewhere:

I guess we can go round in loops forever here. For me the effort, or otherwise, that people put in to reduce risk to others carries a lot of weight. This is the legal position and what most people think sensible. It's not whether Alliston or driver thought the risks acceptable, but whether society generally did. In one case, Alliston, society didn't, in the other, the driver, society did. The key difference is the effort put in to reducing the risk as far as practicable. Alliston did nothing, in fact worse than nothing, the driver appears to have done (the bare minimum, I would say) of what is expected.

Personally, as reported, I think the driver was rather lucky and Alliston's punishment about right, but I wasn't on the jury n either case.

In reply to elsewhere:


So you've moved from consequence to risk as the measure?

In reply to krikoman:


That's exactly what we ask for, time and time again. Each time a driver gets away with a paltry sentence and driving ban for killing other road users.

We're arguing that motorists, driving vehicles with much greater risk of causing death or injury, whilst the driver is protected by the vehicle and its safety systems, have a much greater responsibility for the protection of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

Pedestrians and cyclists also have to take care, and not do reckless things like step out or pull out in front of traffic without looking.


I'm not 'arguing his case'. I am pointing out that she bore at least as much responsibility for her death as he did. And yet he has been the one vilified in the press. I've not seen one mainstream commentator say how reckless she was with his life (and hers).

I'm also asking why the CPS seem to have put so much effort into this prosecution, such as reviewing the offender's video viewing habits. I wonder how often they review the viewing and gaming habits of motorists who kill. It does strike me that both the CPS and the mainstream media have an anti-cycling agenda here.

In reply to MG:
that is by far the most cogent, lucidly set out piece of writing i've seen on this case so far.

i completely agree with the conclusions. would be interesting to see what some of the other contributors to the thread think, especially in the light of the paragraph below

The remarks [of the judge] are also worth reading in full as a rebuttal to misinformation that abounds online about exactly what the evidence showed that Alliston did. There is something unedifying about the way in which Alliston has been adopted as a cause celebre by certain cycling campaigners, who have presented his case as an example of prosecutorial persecution betraying a disparity in treatment between this and cases where cyclists fall victim to drivers of motor vehicles.

In reply to MG:
The key difference is the effort put in to reducing the risk as far as practicable has the caveat "except I'll use the car which is ten times more dangerous rather than use an obviously less comfortable and less convenient alternative".

Hence a cyclist or pedestrian is expected to reduce the risk to others to a far lower level than if they get into their car for reasons of comfort and convenience.

Punishment by consequence gets rid of that double standard.

In reply to elsewhere:

Unlike you, clearly, most people find comfort and convenience an entirely reasonable reason to do something. You've got a lot of work to do to convince society you are right and change the law!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Re the secret barrister

He states that Alliston had no means of stopping. This is completely untrue.

The bike didn't have normal brakes, but it does have a braking system - you apply pressure on the pedals. The problem is that it looks like you are still pedalling - so a witness, or a jury watching the CCTV footage - would assume that no attempt was being made to stop. Hard to explain if you havent ridden a fixie

Nonetheless this type of bike is illegal on the roads, and for a good reason. It is a woefully inadequate braking system. So inadequate, that the stopping distance is as bad as a car.

The SB does make some valid points about the purpose of punishment and the fact that retribution is a poor reason, particularly when dealing with mistakes from carelessness rather than deliberate actions. I totally agree. But he makes a pretty major omission. In addition to deterrence, there is another valid factor for punishment - protection of society. He seems to think we shouldn't send careless drivers to prison - and this is of course rare - but makes no mention at all of driving bans. It is the leniency of the latter which causes most anger.

Now you can argue that CA's heavy sentence is down to the fact that a driving ban wasn't an option. But I haven't seen anyone raise that point.

In reply to Chris the Tall:




Except you are taking what he wrote (deliberately) out of context. He writes "deliberately chosen to ride a bicycle without a front-wheel brake, which increased the stopping distance by four times." which clearly shows he knows he had a means of stopping

The phrase you refer to is more fully "When he came across Mrs Briggs on 12 February 2016, she having stepped out into the road as he travelled at 18 mph, he had no means of stopping [in time]" with the square brackets blatantly implied by the context.

In reply to MG:

I don't think we should eliminate comfort and convenience.

I do think we should eliminate the double standard.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
The SB was of the opinion that it wasn't a heavy sentence though. While acknowledging the difficulties of trying to determine what sort of offence he would have been charged under had this degree of culpability been carried out by a driver, his (?) opinion was that it would have been dangerous driving, with a three year sentence, based on sentencing guidelines and the conduct of the offender.

It's a speculative exercise for sure; but such speculation appears to be the central plank of the argument of many on here that there is an inherent anti cycling agenda at play. If we're in the business of speculation, I'll take SBs opinion- that he got off lightly- over that of posters on this thread.

Edit: agree with your point re driving bans.

In reply to elsewhere:



There is no double standard here.

The level of some sentences for motoring offences do seem to be low, however, I agree.

In reply to MG:


You're wrong. I think comfort and convenience are reasonable motivations.

They're not reasonable reasons to reduce responsibility for a death.

In reply to MG:


Seriously ???

In 2014 the govt promised a review of the laws concerning careless/dangerous driving. Since then approx 5000 people have died on the roads - including around 1200 pedestrians and 300 cyclists - and the govt has done absolutely nothing. Just as it has done absolutely nothing regarding the 10s of thousands dying prematurely due to air pollution, despite acknowledging the problem.

And yet, due “to a series of high profile incidents involving cyclists” - in reality one case - it is planning to rush through legislation to introduce new offences targeting cyclists. The "wider consultation on road safety issues relating to cycling" will take place sometime later - i.e. never

So the govt joins the media and the judiciary in having double standards.

Or not, in your opinion.

In reply to Chris the Tall:




Well no. There are numerous driving offences that don't apply to cyclists. If anything the bias in terms of legislation is the other way. The proposed new cyclist legislation seems unnecessary to me (and as you say a knee-jerk reaction) as events such as this are so rare but it would be removing a double standard that favours cyclists if enacted.

And as way above, this idea the government does nothing about road safety is nonsense. Our roads are very safe by comparison with practically everywhere else in the world.

In reply to MG:


shame about the drivers

In reply to MG:


I'm not in principle opposed to there being parity between cyclists and car drivers in this sense. My concerns are:
- as your say, there's no urgent social need to deal with this, it would be a knee jerk reaction
- the first time somebody gets charged with causing death by careless/dangerous driving, the media will have a field day with it
- would there actually be parity between cyclists and drivers in court, even if the wording in law was similar? I worry that the way in which juries might judge such cases would result in cyclists being held to a much higher standard than drivers would be in equivalent circumstances.

In reply to Trevers:


Doesn't this rather depend on the make up / experiences of the jury ?

In reply to Trangia:

A well balanced response to the government's knee-jerk reaction

https://roadpeacejusticewatch.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/cycle-safety-review-...

In reply to Chris the Tall:

hard to argue with any of that.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm sure somebody will.....

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston...

"But culpability can be among the very lowest; barely criminal. A sharp intake of there but for grace of God breath."

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes I expect so...!

In reply to captain paranoia:

Yes I read that bit too- but what point are you using it to make?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Backing up Yaris' comment.

And also observing one possible reason why juries sometimes don't convict their fellow motorists. Whereas they might not be so understanding of an 'outgroup' member.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

If you read the i there is another view expressed by Matthew Claxon a partner in the serious injury team of the Law Firm Moore Blatch effectively calling for the existing Laws on dangerous driving to be modified to include both mechanical and self propelled vehicles whilst at the same time taking account of the relative vulnerability of cyclists with the introduction/construction of many many more designated cycle lanes. The new laws to clarify the rights and obligations of cyclists and offer greater legal indemnities to cyclists who are caught up in collisions whilst cycling in designated lanes.

i 21/9/17 p 23

Shouldn't the ultimate aim in all of this be the total segregation of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists wherever possible?

Not certain where horses and wheel barrows would fit into this Utopia

In reply to captain paranoia:
Yes, but the SB argued that that was likely to be a factor in charges of causing death by careless driving; and expanded on the reasons why this is such a problematic concept. I have no doubt it is, and that will have an impact on the changes of securing a conviction.

I don't think he was arguing that it was a major factor in dangerous driving cases- and that seems to me to be likely to be true. We all know that we have it in us to be careless drivers, after all a moments lapse is all that seperates us from tragedy. But I don't think many of us would associate ourselves with being dangerous drivers.

Here is the full section from the link, including the preamble to the bit you quoted, which sets some important context I think:

Almost always, causing death by dangerous driving will lead to prison. But devastation caused by careless driving – which often arises during momentary lapses in concentration or judgment behind the wheel – presents the hardest cases. The harm caused can be the greatest in the criminal spectrum. But culpability can be among the very lowest; barely criminal. A sharp intake of there but for grace of God breath.

The claim is that dangerous driving convictions would be expected to lead to a prison sentence- and that that is the closest equivalent to what alliston could have been expected to be charged with, had an equivalent offence existed. As a legal professional, I set more store by his view than opposing arguments made on here.

I just don't find the case he's been hard done to convincingly made; or that, because this may help promote a negative stereotype of cyclists, he should be treated more leniently. I do buy the argument that this is a distraction from the much more serious issue of dangerous behaviour by some drivers towards cyclists, and would be happy to see this charged much more severely, attempted murder would be entirely appropriate for deliberately dangerous actions given the potential consequences.

In reply to MG:



The bias in legislation (which one can argue is proportionate to the bias in risk) is utterly irrelevant if it's not successfully used. As has been pointed out many times, with a plethora of evidence, it isn't.

Here's the latest, that one has to scour local media to find:

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/van-driver-cleared-of-causing-33772/

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Point taken.

My blood ran cold reading that.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Maybe not. But I would estimate that about 1 in 4 drivers pass me too closely (by the standards used by West Midlands Police in their 'close pass' campaign). That is either through ignorance (no defence), or deliberate choice. Careless? Or dangerous?

In reply to Trangia:


No. All road users want to access facilities on the roads; homes, work, shops, leisure, etc. It is simply not possible to provide segregation without exclusion. We do this to a reasonable degree with urban footpaths, and pedestrian shopping areas, and some cycle ways. But my general experience with cycleways, such as the Sustrans network, is that they go from somewhere I'm not, to somewhere I don't want to get to, via a route that I don't want to follow, on a surface that is not built to highway standard, not maintained, not cleaned, and is shared with pedestrians who have preferential right of way to meander across the path.

In reply to Trangia:


Obviously Utopia is unlikely. I remember stepping in front of a cyclist in Amsterdam and only being saved by his quick reaction/awareness of inattentive tourists. Trams, buses, cars, cycles and pedestrians all mixed up.

As a part of the problem may be that a pedestrian doesn't notice a small quiet bike as opposed to a car perhaps we'll see more pedestrian accidents in the future with virtually silent electric vehicles. Hopefully Google driven cars may react faster and stay within speed limits.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


But that expectation is not met; see the link demonstrating this to Trangia right at the start of this thread. Or the kentonline link just posted by Yaris. Wasn't even convicted.

In reply to oldie:

It is why pedestrians were taught to look before crossing a road. Remember the green cross code? Not looking before entering a road is just being dumb whether on foot, a skateboard, bike, horse, car, lorry etc.

In reply to Lion Bakes:

Interested to know why you got a dislike for stating something obvious and sensible.

I just read that the family of the cyclist killed in a collision with a pedestrian who stepped into the road in front of him were told by the police that he could've been prosecuted had he lived. Aside from the breathtaking insensitivity, on what basis in law I have no idea.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Here's the latest, that one has to scour local media to find:

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/van-driver-cleared-of-causing-33772/

If the driver was on his mobile, then he deserves to be prosecuted accordingly.
I hate people on mobiles when they're driving, so Death by Dangerous Driving, etc. would be acceptable to me. Obviously, the prosecution would have to prove that he was on his mobile and that by doing so contributed to the accident.
The driver also states that the cyclist joined the road from a pavement and that contributed to the accident. I assume that the Jury took that into account in reaching their verdict.
For what it's worth, I think he was on his mobile, the cyclist was already on the road and in an ideal world the prosecution could have proved that and he would now be languishing in gaol.

In reply to captain paranoia:

spent 3 weeks in denmark in the summer. there is effectively this in place. may go some way to explaining the lower death rates in denmark to cyclists, because it certainly isnt explained by more considerate driving!

there is further (unclear and to a newcomer, often baffling) division of the pavement into cycle/pedestrian sections- and woe betide you if you are a confused tourist trying to herd small children around and find yourself in the wrong one by accident!

but on the whole denmark has invested in cycle infrastructure massively, and i'd happily go back for a holiday with a bike...

In reply to captain paranoia:


Funnily enough, WMP have just posted some figures indicating a 20% reduction in KSI as a consequence of their work protecting vulnerable road users.

What makes me really f*cking angry is that those close passes, which I regularly suffer, are not as a result of momentary inattention, they are wilful acts that put my life at risk for no reason at all.

The other day, a car passed me about a foot from my shoulder, then about a 200 yards down the road veered right across the other side of the road, it transpires to avoid a dead fox on the nearside of our side of the road. The cnut had given a dead fox more room than me!

In reply to FactorXXX:
That why it should be "death by driving/cycling/whatever" and the killer has to accept the consequences like this cyclist's family had to as that's life (or death).

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

it wasnt me that disliked- but perhaps because in the case this thread is about it looks like victim blaming. the judge was clear where culpability was in this case- lion bakes appear to want to shift it back to the dead person, not the person who yelled at her to “get out of the f*cking way” instead of doing everything possible to avoid a serious collision.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

this is inexcusable- in answer to C.P.'s question about careless or dangerous, depends on the specifics- but in your case, dangerous, i think, and should lose their licence.

do the police do anything with video evidence of this sort of thing?

In reply to captain paranoia:



But he was riding an illegal bike FFS!

I might agree with you had he not been riding this particular bike but he was!

I agree that car drivers sometimes do get off lightly, but that doesn't mean he should.

As for equating the crime as Elsewhere suggest, because the outcome is the same.

That patently ludicrous we'd be giving the old fella that smothers his demented and dying wife the same sentence as Brady if we took that approach.

In reply to captain paranoia:


well, it is, most of the time- but not enough, i accept. from the link;

For the most serious offences - driving with a "deliberate decision or flagrant disregard" for the rules of the road - the starting point for judges when choosing a sentence is eight years. It can be longer if more than one person was killed, if the driver had previous offences and if they were driving while disqualified or in a stolen vehicle.
However, if the driving was creating only a "significant" danger - the lowest level of seriousness, the starting point for sentencing judges is three years and the maximum term is five. The sentence is shortened if the driver was also injured, the victim was a friend or they were "unwittingly" on drink or drugs.


the problem seems to be the discount for early guilty pleas, and release on licence after the half way point reducing sentences to absurdly short lengths.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


The fact was that she was at least equally to blame. The question in the case was whether CA was criminally culpable, and given that contributory negligence isn't a feature of criminal law as it is in civil law means that her contribution to the accident wasn't the matter under consideration. At least that's my understanding of it.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



I don't have a camera, but it seems to vary from force to force based on what I read on Twitter.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Yanis, this is not a fact at all- this is explicitly not the case according to the judge's sentencing remarks- lengthy, but worth reading:

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 the evidence that you 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
f*cking 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. 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.
8. 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.


taken from

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-...

In reply to elsewhere:

That why it should be "death by driving/cycling/whatever" and the killer has to accept the consequences like this cyclist's family had to as that's life (or death).

Regardless of the circumstances and/or evidence?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I don't actually see what contradicts what I said in the summing-up. She wasn't on trial, he was.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



Well yes it is interesting isnt it? They clearly disagree with common sense and what we were all taught as children.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Yanis, this is not a fact at all- this is explicitly not the case according to the judge's sentencing remarks- lengthy, but worth reading:

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 the evidence that you 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 f*cking way’...

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-...


That really puts it into context and also highlights that the Jury had a lot more information to base their decision on than the information posted in the media.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Yes, apart from evidence of did you kill somebody.

Sentencing takes into account any mitigating or aggrevating circumstances.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
It's the bit where it says he did not try to slow down or stop. He could have taken steps to avoid or at least mitigate the impact and chose not to.

And the bit where the judge said 'you caused the accident '


That sounds to me like being a long way from her being equally to blame; and while that was the judgement in a criminal case, any civil action improbably raised by Alliston in the aftermath of that judgement would be fighting an uphill battle to prove any portion of the blame fell anywhere other than on his shoulders.

In reply to elsewhere:

Yes, apart from evidence of did you kill somebody.
Sentencing takes into account any mitigating or aggrevaing circumstances.

You're climbing one day and you dislodge a rock that kills someone. What do you think should happen?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Accept responsibility.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Perhaps it is slightly more complicated than you want to paint it.

Anyway, don't tell me, tell the trial judge...

In reply to elsewhere:

Accept responsibility.

What do you think you should be prosecuted with?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




I doubt he will be suing her, rather her family may seek to sue him, and were they to do so, I would be amazed if there wasn't contributory negligence on her part. Be interested in what legal experts have to say.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Can't disagree. However in real life many pedestrians are going to be 'dumb'. Many are old (or very young) and won't react quickly. They are often using the only transport option available to them. I'm really just stating the obvious. Other road users need to make maximum allowance for them and often the pedestrian is the party suffering most, though it certainly doesn't mean pedestrians are never culpable.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



As I said previously, her actions weren't the subject of the proceedings. His were, although as with any case of this nature the defence will draw attention to the actions of the other party.

Can you hand on heart tell me that you don't believe Kim Briggs played a significant role in her own demise?

In reply to FactorXXX:



Brain surgery.

No patience for comparisons with irrelevancies that don't routinely kill thousands per year due to mundane carelessness.

In reply to oldie:


It would appear that it does (except when I got run over of course!)

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Can't imagine they would - unless he is very wealthy what would they gain?

But if they did, the sentencing remarks would presumably be part of the evidence considered; and there doesn't look like much contributory negligence on show in there.

The video evidence point you raised earlier is a worry- what reason have police given for not following up when you've provided it?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




Not me, but others. I think it ranges from 'not a priority' to 'we need both front and rear camera footage'.

In reply to krikoman:


But she recklessly stepped out into the road without looking FFS! (see what I did there?)

They both share responsibility for her death. Do you accept that?

Show me here I've said he should get off.

In reply to elsewhere:

Brain surgery.
No patience for comparisons with irrelevancies that don't routinely kill thousands per year due to mundane carelessness

Nice bit of avoidance there...
Why does it matter about the numbers? Someone being killed is someone being killed. If you dislodge a rock when you're climbing due to being feckless, then you're as culpable as a driver that makes a mistake due to a similar momentary loss of attention.
Yes/No? If you're willing to demonise Killer Drivers for making mistakes, then surely you have to apply the same to yourself?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Depends on the Force.

WMP prosecuted more than 350 drivers using public footage, as a result of the excellent, ground-breaking 'operation close pass'

http://www.itv.com/news/central/2017-09-18/undercover-operation-to-catch-dr...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Dispiriting

It does put me off cycling on the road more- I tend to stick to MTBing off road as much as possible because I've seen too much risky driving around cyclists on the roads round here...

In reply to captain paranoia:

Thanks - that's encouraging. Wish they would do it in West Yorkshire!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


As I said, close passes HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. Every journey. About 1 in 4 drivers, IME. It's not careless. It is knowing, reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Then there are those driving towards you, on your side of the road, either overtaking another car, or passing parked cars. They simply use their relative invulnerability to force you to get out of the way. Not lapses of concentration, but deliberate action.

In reply to FactorXXX:




Because it is stupid to prioritise small numbers over large numbers.
Convince me this happens often enough to bystanders that the law should change otherwise it is an irrelevancy.


Why would my driving have any special immunity?

In reply to oldie:


In collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, both are equally vulnerable (using the tiny numbers of fatalities for such incidents). Cyclists aren't protected by a metal box, with crumple zones and airbags. Neither are pedestrians.

In reply to captain paranoia:
I'd like to see it treated with the same seriousness as drink driving, with very high profile national campaign, severe penalties (starting point being a driving ban), and proper enforcement, including with video evidence from road users.

Your experience is the reason i don't cycle on the road more; I would if it was safer.

I can't see any problem with the verdict or sentencing; but I agree that the alliston case is a distraction from this much bigger and more serious issue.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


So would I. But it seems that 'public information' films are no longer in vogue. Maybe because there are so many channels now, and changing is no effort at all.

TalkingPicturesTV have been showing a brilliant example of the genre:

Six Candles

"Made in 1960 by the British Insurance Association, this short film warns of the dangers of driving a motor car."

Repeated 9pm tomorrow, 11am Sunday.


http://m.imdb.com/title/tt4868338/reviews?ref_=m_tt_urv#showAll

In reply to FactorXXX:


It paints a very different picture to any other reports I had seen, and makes the brakes, or lack thereof, somewhat moot. It appears she stepped out well before the oft-quoted 6.55m, but he chose not to stop, expecting his shouts to make her get out of his way, presumably by stepping back onto the pavement (cf honking a horn).

I am imagining the move/counter move approach that sometimes happens as two pedestrians approach each other, and almost collide as they try to avoid each other.

No sane cyclist wants to hit a pedestrian; as above, you are just as vulnerable.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

































Interesting that the judge seems to all but discount the illegal brakes and focuses on the mental approach.
This reminds me vividly of a case from a few years ago where a 70 year old grandfather dress in hi vis and obeying all the rules of the road was knocked off his bike and killed by a driver who felt that he bore no responsibility for the action and showed no remorse because he stated ' a bike should not have been on that road' He pleaded not guilty and put the family of the deceased through a court case even though there was enough evidence to make it an 'open and shut case' He was found guilty as expected but the judge decided community service was punishment enough as 'imprisonment in this case would serve no purpose'

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I wouldn't say so: '2. It is against the law to ride any bicycle on a public road without a front-wheel brake. It must be obvious to anyone that this is not an arbitrary rule designed to spoil the pleasures of the Charlie Allistons of this world. It is a law designed for the safety of all road users including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.'

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Nor would the judge " If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have
stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not. "

The apologists seem to have an amazingly selective blindness. I do wonder what they would be saying if a car with no front brakes had hit and killed a cyclist in similar circumstances. I somehow doubt they would be blaming the cyclist.

In reply to MG:

Some apologists write off the half a dozen who will die on the roads today with "Such is life (or death)".

In reply to Mike Highbury:

And the dead man's relatives will find you trivialisation of their case so comforting.

In reply to captain paranoia:


But she didn't, read the judges summing up, she was in the road long enough for him to shout at her TWICE so it's not like she spring out at him and he didn't see her.


They both have some responsibility, I'm not sure it's shared, the simple fact is he shouldn't have been on the road in the first place, same as anyone who's pissed driving a car. If they weren't on the road, then problem solved, no one dies.
You might end up blaming her parents for having sex and creating a child, if they had used a condom, she wouldn't have been killed and he'd still be free.

I didn't say you did, where did you get that from>

In reply to elsewhere:

Except of course I didn't write anything off. I clearly explained that risk should be reduced as far as reasonably possible. Quoting snippets like that is just dishonest.

In reply to captain paranoia:

(Re: Other road users need to make maximum allowance for them and often the pedestrian is the party suffering most..)

No argument with that....I was making a general reference to all road users.
I suppose the more lethal (bigger/faster) a vehicle becomes the more we expect from its operator. Obviously reflected in different types of licence, insurance costs, time meters for lorries etc. Perhaps use longer or lifetime bans especially for repeat dangerous offences.
Relevant but slightly off post it amazes me that some gun holders have been allowed to keep their weapon after threatening unarmed people, which should have proved them totally unsuitable to hold a licence.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


This is an important point to address. It seems (as best as I can work out) that when Briggs stepped out, Alliston, reasonably or not, decided not to stop entirely. At this point he could probably have come to a complete halt regardless of the missing front brake but chose instead to slow, presuming either that Briggs would notice him and retreat to a safer position behind the lorry, or that she would have already crossed in front of him.

The way you've written it sounds like Alliston just ploughed on regardless, but from what the judge has said, it sounds like the final collision course was set much closer to the point of collision when Briggs either stopped moving or moved back into his path (I can't tell which from the various reports).

In reply to Trevers:

That he could have stopped does seem so, yes. It's the further comment that, 'I was entitled to go on', that seals his fate, no?

'but I am satisfied on the evidence that you 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.... 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 f*cking 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....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.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


But from what I can work out, at this stage they weren't on a collision course. It wasn't his decision to continue at this point that made the collision unavoidable.

In reply to MG:


Such is life (or death).