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

fat and old
Posts: 3223
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:34 am

I really wanted to see page 10....but I got nothing. :cry:































































































































:lol:

Scott_C
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

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

Postby Scott_C » Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:10 pm

The counterfactual of "what would have happened if the pedestrian survived and the rider died" has seemingly been answered with an enquiry into the death of a cyclist in March.

The pedestrian was apparently not charged with manslaughter (nor anything else).

warthog1
Posts: 7042
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

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

Postby warthog1 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:55 pm

10 pages.
An imperial century is easier. lol

human909
Posts: 8559
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:15 pm

Scott_C wrote:The counterfactual of "what would have happened if the pedestrian survived and the rider died" has seemingly been answered with an enquiry into the death of a cyclist in March.

The pedestrian was apparently not charged with manslaughter (nor anything else).


Game, Set, Match.

Between this and the other example of a unroadworthy car killing several cyclists it is pretty clear about the heavy police and judicial bias against cyclists in the UK. (And I don't consider it much different here.)

I'm not about to argue for strong criminal punishments against pedestrians causing cyclists to have accidents. There really isn't much justification for it from a criminal law perspective. Civil compensation however.... Go for it!

Cyclophiliac
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:48 am

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

Postby Cyclophiliac » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:50 am

http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-invo ... t-proposal

This will no doubt get the usual anti-cyclist mob pretty hot under the collar, but some of it had to be said.

BJL
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

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

Postby BJL » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:19 am

Cyclophiliac wrote:http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal

This will no doubt get the usual anti-cyclist mob pretty hot under the collar, but some of it had to be said.


People STILL don't get it. So far everyone is going on about how fast the cyclist was riding and the fact he was riding a bike without a front brake, and the writer of this article has fallen for it, discussing whether or not those factors were the 'primary' cause of the fatality.

When all along, the PRIMARY cause of the fatality was the pedestrian walking onto the road without looking.

This is the simple truth of the matter.

It wasn't as if the cyclist couldn't stop whilst riding down a hill and ended up on the footpath hitting and killing a pedestrian. THEN you can talk all you want about speed and lack of brakes because it would be the cyclist's fault. But that's not what happened.

fishwop
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: St Marys NSW

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

Postby fishwop » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:39 am

This case absolutely cries out for an appeal, especially if the rider is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The young bloke couldn't afford it but there must be a cycling friendly law firm somewhere in England who will take it on pro bono, considering the precedents that are being set here.


eeksll
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:36 pm

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

Postby eeksll » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:12 pm

Cheesewheel wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

:shock:


that is ridiculous. I note they didn't mention if it was a suspended sentence or not. I just can't believe there isn't a twist to it of some sort yet.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 3744
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:22 pm

For anyone who hasn't read it there's
antigee wrote:a well written piece on the topic here:
https://roubaixcycling.cc/2017/08/24/cr ... ixie-case/


I personally can't see grounds for a successful appeal against either the conviction nor the sentence.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

human909
Posts: 8559
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:49 pm

Meanwhile if you drive a car..... :

:( :(

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug ... port.world

[i]The driver in a crash that killed four cyclists when his car spun out of control was yesterday fined £180 and given six penalty points on his licence.
Robert Harris, 47, was driving on the A547 near Abergele, north Wales, in January when his Toyota Corolla skidded on black ice and collided with riders from Rhyl Cycling Club who were out on an early morning training exercise. The car hit the riders with such force that two of them were thrown over a wall into a field.

Those killed were Maurice Broadbent, the club's chairman; Dave Horrocks, 49; Wayne Wilkes, 42; and 14-year-old Thomas Harland. The teenager's father, Jon, also part of the group of 12, suffered a broken leg and saw his son die.

Yesterday Llandudno magistrates gave Harris the fine and penalty points on his licence for driving with defective tyres.

The road safety charity Brake criticised the leniency of the sentence. Mary Williams, its chief executive, said: "Four innocent cyclists were killed and their families' lives were devastated. It is an outrage that Robert Harris has not even lost his licence yet four people have lost their lives. He made irresponsible decisions to drive in hazardous conditions and not to check the state of his tyres."

Harris, a security guard, pleaded guilty to three counts of driving with defective tyres. He was not at yesterday's hearing.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 3744
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:26 pm

human909 wrote:Meanwhile if you drive a car..... :


Agree with the thrust of your argument.

However the prosecution said that the tyres weren't to blame. I've no (known) experience with black ice beyond knowing that if you expect it you should really, really slow down. A lot.

The question not raised in the article is: "Would a reasonable person have expected black ice on that morning in that location?"

If the answer is "yes" then there should have been grounds for dangerous driving charges.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

Scott_C
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

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

Postby Scott_C » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:01 pm

Thoglette wrote:For anyone who hasn't read it there's
antigee wrote:a well written piece on the topic here:
https://roubaixcycling.cc/2017/08/24/cr ... ixie-case/


I personally can't see grounds for a successful appeal against either the conviction nor the sentence.

I find the judge's statement of fact during sentencing that, "if your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not" somewhat dubious if we accept the claim that the pedestrian stepped back into his path 6m in-front of him.

Whilst the police showed a video that a mountain bike can stop in 3m that was apparently at a pre-determined stopping point and did not make allowance for reaction time (and seemed to have little control of the actual speed approaching the stopping point). I would think that the cyclist can make a viable claim that they made a reasonable initial avoidance measure (calling out and steering to pass behind the pedestrian) and the pedestrians' decision to step back into his path with 6m to go resulted in an unavoidable collision considering reaction times and minimum acceptable brake performance, i.e. if he installed the flimsiest legal rim brake on his front wheel.)

Considering the degree of fault that can be argued to lay with the pedestrian I find it excessive that he has received 75% of the maximum penalty for the offence.

I couldn't image a car driver receiving an equivalent penalty if I stepped out into the road in front of them within their reaction + braking distance but it turns out they had bald tyres and the cops produced a video at trial showing that a formula 1 car could have stopped in that distance.

Edit to add: From the full sentencing remarks (my emphasis added):

You were cycling at approximately 18 mph down Old St as you approached the traffic lights at the junction with Charlotte Rd. Mrs. Briggs was walking towards you on the other side of the junction. Traffic lights were green in your favour. Mrs. Briggs decided to cross Old St. 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.


That's quite a difference in responsibility between UK road rules and Australian Road Rules (where there is no defined duty of care). It doesn't seem to be enforced consistently though.

Additionally, it is interesting that the riders maximum speed of 18mph is below that seemingly recommended as a 'slow speed' in the UK Highway Code for driving around vulnerable pedestrians:
Rule 207
•children and older pedestrians who may not be able to judge your speed and could step into the road in front of you. At 40 mph (64 km/h) your vehicle will probably kill any pedestrians it hits. At 20 mph (32 km/h) there is only a 1 in 20 chance of the pedestrian being killed. So kill your speed
Last edited by Scott_C on Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 3744
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

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

Postby Thoglette » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:36 pm

Scott_C wrote:Considering the degree of fault that can be argued to lay with the pedestrian I find it excessive that he has received 75% of the maximum penalty for the offence.


Grounds to lodge an appeal, perhaps. Odds of it succeeding? Good Question

Scott_C wrote:I couldn't image a car driver receiving an equivalent penalty if I stepped out into the road in front of them within their reaction + braking distance but it turns out they had bald tyres and the cops produced a video at trial showing that a formula 1 car could have stopped in that distance.

<IANAL> That poor defence (as pointed out by roubaixcycling) and not grounds for appeal</IANAL>
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

uart
Posts: 1323
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

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

Postby uart » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:42 pm

Scott_C wrote:Considering the degree of fault that can be argued to lay with the pedestrian I find it excessive that he has received 75% of the maximum penalty for the offence.


I agree Scott. The ironic thing about the pedestrian being partly at fault however is that it's actually been used against Charlie, with the Judge making it quite clear that his insistence of the pedestrian's fault exacerbated his crime and necessitated a harsher sentence.

Charlie Alliston, 20, who collided with Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street, was told by judge Wendy Joseph QC at the Old Bailey (during sentencing) that the victim “could have been any pedestrian” and that he had shown no remorse for her death. “You have throughout sought to put your blame on her,” the judge said.

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

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

Postby antigee » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:13 pm

18months or so in a juvenile detention centre may not be the end of press hounding

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4t7atviVU

User avatar
London Boy
Posts: 733
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:43 pm

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

Postby London Boy » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:41 pm

Thoglette wrote:For anyone who hasn't read it there's
antigee wrote:a well written piece on the topic here:
https://roubaixcycling.cc/2017/08/24/cr ... ixie-case/


I personally can't see grounds for a successful appeal against either the conviction nor the sentence.

Sentence manifestly excessive? A motorist driving carelessly with worn tyres kills 4 cyclists and loses points off his licence. No gaol time, no loss of licence. Seem fair?

As to conviction, a long bow would be inadequate representation (failing to challenge prejudicial but not probative evidence). A similar long bow would be to challenge the conviction on the basis that, on the evidence given, no reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict. Also consider whether the judge gave adequate direction, for example, about causation (but for the pedestrian carelessly stepping into the path of the cyclist there would have been no collision and therefore no offence).

I could see an appeal against sentence, but probably not against conviction.

fishwop
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: St Marys NSW

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

Postby fishwop » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:44 pm

Thoglette wrote:
I personally can't see grounds for a successful appeal against either the conviction nor the sentence.

This case is unprecedented in the UK. It will therefore form case law. Someone will take this on pro bono, hopefully they will be somewhat more competent than his previous defence. The film Trial and Error (also known as The Dock Brief) starring Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough comes to mind.

Not only is the sentence very close to the maximum considering the accident was caused in the first instance by the deceased woman failing to look where she was going, but the expert evidence on stopping distance appears to have gone completely unchallenged, and ignores reaction distance. From what I can gather of this case, I will be very surprised if the conviction is not completely overturned.

human909
Posts: 8559
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:59 pm

fishwop wrote:
Thoglette wrote:
I personally can't see grounds for a successful appeal against either the conviction nor the sentence.

This case is unprecedented in the UK. It will therefore form case law. Someone will take this on pro bono, hopefully they will be somewhat more competent than his previous defence. The film Trial and Error (also known as The Dock Brief) starring Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough comes to mind.

Not only is the sentence very close to the maximum considering the accident was caused in the first instance by the deceased woman failing to look where she was going, but the expert evidence on stopping distance appears to have gone completely unchallenged, and ignores reaction distance. From what I can gather of this case, I will be very surprised if the conviction is not completely overturned.


I'm well out of my depth here but for the reasons outlined above I would have thought that there would great avenues for appeal.

The judge himself seemed to prejudice the case and misdirect the jury. His own sentencing has remarks with no basis in fact. Quite frankly the whole thing is appalling.

JUDGE: "“You chose to ride at a speed and on a bike which you could not stop, your attitude being that everyone else would just have to get out of your way”
Neither the first or the second statement is fact nor even likely. One would question how he managed to ride without incident for so long if that was the case. Or how other fixie rider manage it.

JUDGE: Alliston’s “whole manner of driving” caused the accident. “If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not.

Another assertion of fact that remains unproven and couldn't possible be proved.

JUDGE: "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."
A sensible choice when a vehicle cannot swerve or stop in time for an obstruction. If I stepped out in front of a train the train driver would blast his horn and expert the same thing.

uart
Posts: 1323
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

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

Postby uart » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:47 pm

human909 wrote:The judge himself herself seemed to prejudice the case and misdirect the jury. His own sentencing has remarks with no basis in fact. Quite frankly the whole thing is appalling.

Yes, she basically took every single assertion that the prosecution made and then reiterated it as fact to the jury. The prosecution and judge definitely worked like "tag team" in this case didn't they. :?:

human909
Posts: 8559
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:56 pm

uart wrote:
human909 wrote:The judge himself herself seemed to prejudice the case and misdirect the jury. His own sentencing has remarks with no basis in fact. Quite frankly the whole thing is appalling.

Yes, she basically took every single assertion that the prosecution made and then reiterated it as fact to the jury. The prosecution and judge definitely worked like "tag team" in this case didn't they. :?:


Here are the sentencing remarks:

Some great gems including commenting on his lack of wearing a helmet as an indication of hisk risk taking attitude. :roll:

" I am satisfied that in some part it was this so-called thrill that motivated you to ride without a front brake, shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way. "
I am shocked that his attempt of warning the pedestrian is being used as a aggravating factor in sentencing! :evil:

Apparently riding for pleasure isn't approved either.
"You were not then working as a courier, and rode it only for the pleasure you got from doing so. "


I also find this sickly ironic:
Judge Joseph said: ‘It’s hard to think of a case that’s more likely to rouse your emotions.
‘A young man who was 18 at the time. A woman in her 40s with her life ahead of her.
‘Put to one side feelings of emotion, feelings of sympathy, feelings of revulsion, feelings of prejudice.’


Why is the judge using emotive language in the very same breath directing juries to put aside such feelings? Why mention that "a woman in her 40s with her life ahead of her" at all? Why mention the number of children the lady had or the fact that she was on her lunch break. What relevance does all that have? The judge is as bad as the tabloids.

fat and old
Posts: 3223
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:09 am

Weren't those comments made by the judge during sentencing, after he was found guilty?

fishwop
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: St Marys NSW

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

Postby fishwop » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:24 pm

fat and old wrote:Weren't those comments made by the judge during sentencing, after he was found guilty?

The sentencing comments of the judge could be construed as an indicator of bias, in particular her comments of non wearing of a helmet, where helmet use is not required by law, and also her comments on his speed, which was in fact well under the speed limit, quite typical of bicycle speeds in the area, and well under speeds attained by other vehicles in the area.

Social media might be seen to have influenced both the judge and jury as well.

uart
Posts: 1323
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

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

Postby uart » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:07 pm

fishwop wrote:The sentencing comments of the judge could be construed as an indicator of bias, in particular her comments of non wearing of a helmet, where helmet use is not required by law, and also her comments on his speed, which was in fact well under the speed limit, quite typical of bicycle speeds in the area, and well under speeds attained by other vehicles in the area.


There may have also been some factual errors in what she said, which could definitely open the way for an appeal of the sentence. I have to admit that I don't know this for certain, but the witness accounts that I've read did not have him swearing at her to get out of his way. I'll double check but the witness account I read was something like "look out" (and then repeated with some panic or urgency in his voice).

Yes, after the incident he did go online to a BMX forum to try to explain what happened and said something like "and I yelled at her to get the f*ck out of my way but she ...", however that might have been embellished for his BMX buddies. It's not like young guys don't sometimes exaggerated stuff online is it? Anyway, the witnesses on the scene didn't have him saying that (swearing), and to be honest, in the urgency of the moment it would make more sense that he did go for something simpler like "look out" or "watch out".

I am satisfied that in some part it was this so-called thrill that motivated you to ride without a front brake, shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of your way.
Last edited by uart on Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

uart
Posts: 1323
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

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

Postby uart » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:18 pm

Also, what is it with the Judge's comment that: "You were not then working as a courier, and rode it only for the pleasure you got from doing so."

It has been reported that at the time of the incident that he was riding to the shops to pick up some food for himself and his girlfriend.

When the hell has a motorist EVER had a driving charge considered worse because he/she was only driving to the shops at the time and not driving for work related purposes. I have absolutely never heard of such a thing before!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AdelaidePeter, Cyclophiliac, Newcastle Dave