Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)

[BJL]

I think the jail sentence was too harsh. I consider the fact that the pedestrian died as a result of a low speed collision with a cyclist to have been extremely unlucky, almost freakish.

I think a few hundred hours of community service would have been sufficient here.

[warthog1]

Fellas this has turned into another MHL thread inasmuch that even though I agree with the core point...the pedestrian caused the accident (I'm against MHL's fwiw).....I find myself on the "opposing side" due to my inability to accept sloppy, misleading, incorrect or plain stupid statements. I also fail the "cyclists are never wrong and it's always someone else's fault" test. I don't care that a car driver got off after killing 4 people in comparison. I don't care whether or not he's being picked on because he has Tatts or a stupid look about him by the media. I care that he sees justice served, and it appears that it has been. Most of his supporters professed the same sentiments initially; the sticking point was the manslaughter charge. Well, he got off that yet here we are. So what exactly should happen?

Uart, Human, BJL ( who has been consistent from the start btw) , Warty and anyone else...what should the outcome be? I'm really interested to be honest.

Because from where I stand, you appear to believe that as he is a cyclist and is by definition an oppressed, targeted minority that bears the brunt of the western world's evils he deserves to walk away with a compensation package for the injustice of it all. If that's the belief then fine. Say so and stop trying to argue points that are wrong ( actually I think Warty may have said that, so good on him)

A simple, non conditional answer is possible and would be appreciated: what should happen to Charlie Alliston, based on what we know?

I fell for the she was on her mobile phone line as it fitted with a distracted pedestrian crossing a roadway in the path of traffic.
She couldn't cross the road due to traffic in the far lane travelling the other way. What was she thinking?
She was otherwise distracted it appears. Whilst I place proportionally less blame on her than previously she still shoulders most of it IMO.
What should the penalty be?
I don't know.
The bloke appears to be an immature d1 ck but he has people around him that appear more human. At some point the realization will come on him (if it hasn't already and the fact that it hasn't publicly appears to have bearing on sentencing) and he will spend the rest of his days living with the knowledge that his actions contributed to the death of another human.
I don't subscribe to the cyclists can do no wrong line, I do subscribe to the cyclists are an out-group amongst the general public. Too much personal experience there to change that opinion
The relative penalty he has received appears excessive in any comparison yet posted.
Find_Brice gave some perspective on the purpose of sentencing, maybe it is just that he appears a selfish twat and needs forcible behavioural change. I don't see the sentence achieving that any more than the victim impact statement would.
It is difficult not to make the connection between him being a member of a cohort that is seen as selfish and self-righteous by the general public and the length of sentence received. It seems populist to me and I don't see it serving any purpose for the greater good.

[fat and old]

I think the jail sentence was too harsh. I consider the fact that the pedestrian died as a result of a low speed collision with a cyclist to have been extremely unlucky, almost freakish.

I think a few hundred hours of community service would have been sufficient here.

I copped 300 hrs of C/S back in the early 80's. Completed 80 before I and whoever ran it lost interest and I never went back. One of the other blokes was a convicted petty thief and used to break into the schools we were "maintaining". The rest of us used to just smoke joints all day and do nothing I'm obviously not a fan, but fair enough on the call.

[uart]

Uart, Human, BJL ( who has been consistent from the start btw) , Warty and anyone else...what should the outcome be? I'm really interested to be honest.

Because from where I stand, you appear to believe that as he is a cyclist and is by definition an oppressed, targeted minority that bears the brunt of the western world's evils he deserves to walk away with a compensation package for the injustice of it all. ?

Not at all. I do think he deserved some punishment. As BJL said, a few hundred hours of community service would have been more appropriate.

It's definitely not a question of "cyclist can do no wrong" in my mind. My main problem with the whole thing is this: He was probably travelling at no more than 20 km/h at the time of the collision. He had very little more than his own body weight behind that. His power was about 1/4 of a HP and his momentum about 1/3 kN-second. However, he seems to have been held to a higher level of accountability (or at least as high) as a 2000 kg car with 100+ HP and momentum 50 to 100 times that of Charlie.

Also, his one mitigating circumstance (that the pedestrian stepped out into the road in a non crossing area) has been basically used against him more than anything else, as it led him to claim it to be her fault (which I'm absolutely certain is a very big part of the harsh sentence).

[ColinOldnCranky]

Unless the story has changed since early postings then we had a cyclist riding at 20kph thru a pedestrian rich zone. And on top of that no brakes.

You don't need to have the weight of a car to make 20+ kph reckless or dangerous. If Usain Bolt ran at that speed thru the Murray Street Mall it would still be reckless and inexcusable.

Stripping away any tribal loyalties any reasonable assessment would say that the cyclist was a selfish prat who should not be on a bike. It matters little if the law and the community gives sports stars, billionaires, media personalities or motorists free tickets elsewhere. Trotting that out is a last ditch excuse that indicates a lack of any substantial defence.

For the record I am always happier to not see custodial sentences, as I would be in this case. They cost me a lot of money and seldom have any benefit according to evidence.

But, from what we have to go on, the rider is still an undeserving prat and unworthy of the level of support that is being offered on this forum.

[human909]

Unless the story has changed since early postings...

It hasn't quite changed but your summary needs correcting....

we had a cyclist riding at 20kph thru a pedestrian rich zone.

Pedestrian rich.... You could say that about countless of out CBD streets which have a 50-60kph speed limit.

And on top of that no brakes.

He had a rear brake. Both in the physical and legal sense.

You don't need to have the weight of a car to make 20+ kph reckless or dangerous. If Usain Bolt ran at that speed thru the Murray Street Mall it would still be reckless and inexcusable.

This was not a pedestrian mall. This was a roadway. There were cars bumper to bumper along it at the time. At other times cars going far above 20kph is perfectly, normal, legal and acceptable.

Stripping away any tribal loyalties any reasonable assessment would say that the cyclist was a selfish prat who should not be on a bike.

That sounds like an entirely unreasonable assessment. Even if you think being a selfish prat is a unbiased opinion it is not a reason to deny somebody a driver's licence let alone deny them the access to far less harmful transportation.

But, from what we have to go on, the rider is still an undeserving prat and unworthy of the level of support that is being offered on this forum.

Good idea. Lets forget what is just and judge somebody on their personality. Great work.

[human909]

The very fact that people are somehow thinking this was some pedestrian mall show how much influence the tabloid reporting seems to have.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@51.5267 ... 312!8i6656

I ride roadways far more pedestrian busy quite often. I travel 15kph, 25kph or even 40kph.... But I'm still being over taken by cars when they are not stuck in their own traffic.

Had the pedestrian stepped out in front of a lorry then there really would not have been a case to answer for.

[fat and old]

This was not a pedestrian mall. It was a roadway. There were cars bumper to bumper along it at the time. At other times cars going far above 20kph is perfectly, normal, legal and acceptable

Please provide evidence that there were "cars bumper to bumper along it at the time". An explanation of how 32kph is far above 20kph would be good too.

[uart]

Unless the story has changed since early postings then we had a cyclist riding at 20kph thru a pedestrian rich zone. And on top of that no brakes.

On top of what? On top of riding on the road where he was supposed to be, and under the speed limit. It's difficult to imagine how such recklessness could be topped.

[BJL]

E.T. was on last night.

Authorities are bracing themselves today for the expected increase in cyclists riding around in a 'wanton or furious' manner.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Unless the story has changed since early postings then we had a cyclist riding at 20kph thru a pedestrian rich zone. And on top of that no brakes.

On top of what? On top of riding on the road where he was supposed to be, and under the speed limit. It's difficult to imagine how such recklessness could be topped.

I can LEGALLY drive on the Kwinana Freeway at 100kph. But to do so at 7am in peak traffic on a weekday into Perth CBD is stupid, irresponsible, dangerous and the action of a pratt. And in doing so not I am not worthy of your support if it goes pear shaped.

Figure it out.

Not entitled, btw, to disconnect my brakes before I head out into that traffic.

[human909]

Figure it out.

Its hard to figure it out.

First you compare the road to a pedestrian mall which it isn't. Then you compare it to what I presume is a standstill or slow moving freeway. Neither are good comparisons.

[uart]

I can LEGALLY drive on the Kwinana Freeway at 100kph. But to do so at 7am in peak traffic on a weekday into Perth CBD is stupid

As it is only a 20 MPH (approx 30 km/h) speed limit on that road, I'll bet that most of the other traffic was doing about that speed (that is, faster than Alliston). Of course with his impaired braking it is fair to say that he should have been more cautious (or not there at all).

I have to admit that I had previously thought that the pedestrian stepped out (from the curb) in front of him without much warning. Given that we now know that the pedestrian had crossed to the centre of the road before moving back into his path at the last moment, I now suspect that Alliston saw her early enough that he could have slowed down a lot more (even without a front brake) but chose instead to "yell and dodge".

I therefore think that this accident would probably have played out the same way even if Alliston had a front brake - I really don't think he would have used it. I think it was very poor riding on his part, to not be more cautious and slow down more upon seeing the pedestrian "stranded" in the middle of the road, but I think that the ultimate cause was more to do with his brash "young guy" attitude than anything else.