Page 11 of 16
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:46 pm
by Davobel
[
P!N20 wrote:He allegedly shouted at Briggs to “get out of the way” twice before their heads smashed together.
If the cyclist is traveling at 20mph that's around 29 feet per second, yelling 'get out of the way' twice takes at least 1.5 seconds and more like 2.8 seconds with a slight pause, so that's a minimum of 45 feet at 1.5 seconds or 81 feet at 2.8 seconds. Does that sound realistic to you. Usually a cyclist waits until they are until they are much closer to yell at a pedestrian.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:57 pm
by fat and old
fishwop wrote: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.
There's nothing unusual about that? As for social media, it's use has been applauded hereabouts as evidence of bad character. I'm honestly not seeing any victimisation here? Inconsistency with penalties handed down to drivers notwithstanding.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:13 pm
by human909
fat and old wrote:Weren't those comments made by the judge during sentencing, after he was found guilty?
Not all of them. But the only full transcript I had was sentencing and it certainly shows the judges state of mind.
I have previously read dubious assertions of 'facts' which weren't facts from the judge directed towards the jury. I'm sorry I cannot provide direct quotes right now. The same judge continued to assert false 'facts' in here sentencing. Quite frankly it is appalling.
We only have snippets of what the judge to the jury. So we really don't have the full picture. But all the snippets I've read in the media (not an unbiased source) have definitely sounded like she was supporting the prosecution. Her actual words afters certainly are evidence of her state of mind.
Judge Wendy Joseph QC, in summing up to the jury at the Old Bailey, said a police expert estimated Alliston was doing between 10 and 14 miles per hour just moments before the crash, which was captured on CCTV.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:37 pm
by human909
fat and old wrote:I'm honestly not seeing any victimisation here? Inconsistency with penalties handed down to drivers notwithstanding.
Had the two parties involved both been vehicles and nobody got hurt who would be deemed at fault for civil compensation?
Why is the conclusion in a criminal case so vastly different?
Why was the cyclist's speed continuously used as evidence of his recklessness when it is a normal and legal speed?
Had Charlie been the pedestrian and the mother been the cyclist with a non functioning front brake do you really think the trial would have gone the same way?
(My mother willfully and knowingly rode her bike with a poor front and rear brake. Call it naive, ignorance or whatever. But it isn't criminal. In her case she couldn't stop going down a steepish hill and had to resort to a deliberate crash to control her speed.)
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:58 pm
by ball bearing
I'll go with his mother's assessment of the situation and her appraisal of his character.
"Alliston's mother Karan today made a statement read by his solicitor Dale Beeson outside the Old Bailey following the sentence.
She said: "On behalf of my son Charlie and all his family we would like to express our sincere condolences to the Briggs family for their loss.
"We know that they bear the heaviest loss of all in this case.
"My son Charlie, whilst acquitted of the most serious charge in this case, has been sentenced appropriately.
"I would like to thank the jury for the evident care they took in this landmark case.
"I would also like to thank the judge for the fair way in which this case was conducted."..."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mu ... d-11195167
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:29 pm
by baabaa
ball bearing wrote:I'll go with his mother's assessment of the situation and her appraisal of his character.
"Alliston's mother Karan today made a statement read by his solicitor Dale Beeson outside the Old Bailey following the sentence.
Well what would his mother, the family and his solicitor know.
They really should have consulted here before making such a rash statement like that.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:46 pm
by fat and old
human909 wrote:
Had the two parties involved both been vehicles and nobody got hurt who would be deemed at fault for civil compensation?
Why is the conclusion in a criminal case so vastly different?
Why was the cyclist's speed continuously used as evidence of his recklessness when it is a normal and legal speed?
All points which can be addressed by the heirarchy of road users human. Heavy vehicle>car>motorcycle>bicycle>pedestrian.
IF presumed liability was applicable (as many here call for), the conclusion would be the same. Penalties inflicted on the cyclist. This would be deemed fair, and if the criminal outcome reflected that it would be seen as fair also.
IF we apply the "wipe off 5" campaign on speeding in a similar way using that heirarchy then the young fella may have had time to react successfully. Remember, regardless of his actual speed it was only 3km/h below the limit; and as we as cyclists like to point out the limit is not supposed to be an aspiration.
I still maintain he probably froze, and definitely didn't subsequently help himself with his own actions. Cest la vie....somebody's dead, and someone has to pay.
That mirror article is typical of that rag. I'd wager that he and his mum are copping a pile of grief and made that statement in an effort to stop it.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:36 am
by human909
fat and old wrote:All points which can be addressed by the heirarchy of road users human. Heavy vehicle>car>motorcycle>bicycle>pedestrian.
Since when is that a sole guiding principle? I completely agree with increasing responsibilities but that does not negate responsibility. Nor should somebody be sent to gaol due to a pedestrian stepping in front of your path.
fat and old wrote:IF presumed liability was applicable (as many here call for), the conclusion would be the same. Penalties inflicted on the cyclist. This would be deemed fair, and if the criminal outcome reflected that it would be seen as fair also.
Ummm. No it wouldn't. For starters why presume when there was CCTV and other witnesses. We know the sequence of events. Even in Holland you don't go to gaol for such things.
fat and old wrote:IF we apply the "wipe off 5" campaign on speeding in a similar way using that heirarchy then the young fella may have had time to react successfully. Remember, regardless of his actual speed it was only 3km/h below the limit; and as we as cyclists like to point out the limit is not supposed to be an aspiration.
What does that have to do with anything?
Besides wipe off 5 wasn't about going 5ks below the speed limit. In the words of the TAC "In August 2001, the TAC launched the first phase of its Wipe off 5 campaign targeting the issue of low-level speeding and dispelling the myth that traveling even a few kilometres over the legal limit is safe."
(The whole campaign IMO is a joke as it still implies that greater speed limit is magically unsafe yet less speed limit is safe 
I'm sorry TAC, safety is not binary, only the law is.)
fat and old wrote:I still maintain he probably froze, and definitely didn't subsequently help himself with his own actions. Cest la vie....somebody's dead, and someone has to pay.
He warned her twice. It isn't about freezing it is about choosing what he saw as the most effective way to avoid a collision.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:38 am
by human909
fat and old wrote:All points which can be addressed by the heirarchy of road users human. Heavy vehicle>car>motorcycle>bicycle>pedestrian.
Since when is that a sole guiding principle? I completely agree with increasing responsibilities but that does not negate responsibility. Nor should somebody be sent to gaol due to a pedestrian stepping in front of your path.
fat and old wrote:IF presumed liability was applicable (as many here call for), the conclusion would be the same. Penalties inflicted on the cyclist. This would be deemed fair, and if the criminal outcome reflected that it would be seen as fair also.
Ummm. No it wouldn't. For starters why presume when there was CCTV and other witnesses. We know the sequence of events. Even in Holland you don't go to gaol for such things. If a truck driver runs over a cyclist year the book is thrown at him, but the book isn't nearly as heavy as this one.
Wasn't it last week you were arguing in favour of a bus driver that ran over a cyclist with no consequence whatsoever?
fat and old wrote:IF we apply the "wipe off 5" campaign on speeding in a similar way using that heirarchy then the young fella may have had time to react successfully. Remember, regardless of his actual speed it was only 3km/h below the limit; and as we as cyclists like to point out the limit is not supposed to be an aspiration.
What does that have to do with anything?
Besides wipe off 5 wasn't about going 5ks below the speed limit. In the words of the TAC "In August 2001, the TAC launched the first phase of its Wipe off 5 campaign targeting the issue of low-level speeding and dispelling the myth that traveling even a few kilometres over the legal limit is safe."
(The whole campaign IMO is a joke as it still implies that greater speed limit is magically unsafe yet less speed limit is safe I'm sorry TAC, safety is not binary, only the law is.)
fat and old wrote:I still maintain he probably froze, and definitely didn't subsequently help himself with his own actions. Cest la vie....somebody's dead, and someone has to pay.
He warned her twice. It isn't about freezing it is about choosing what he saw as the most effective way to avoid a collision.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:07 pm
by eeksll
maybe the video will come out at some stage.
Charlie Alliston is going to jail for "wanton or furious driving" which to me is dangerous cycling. Now from my POV I can agree that he was cycling dangerously.
BUT he was doing it on a road, where his dangerous cycling is not worse than driving a car safely. A
video was produced by police saying his stopping distance would have been 9m. A car driving at
40 kmph has a 9m stopping distance.
(yes 40kmph is faster than Charlie Alliston was cycling, but it would be deemed perfectly safe and in such a collision I am confident the driver would not be going to jail)
The result just doesn't pass my common sense/fairness test. Maybe the video will be more enlightening.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:34 pm
by BJL
eeksll wrote:
Charlie Alliston is going to jail for "wanton or furious driving" which to me is dangerous cycling. Now from my POV I can agree that he was cycling dangerously.
In what way was he riding dangerously? Because of the missing front brake? If so, can we agree that ANY road user driving or riding ANY unroadworthy vehicle should be charged with dangerous driving? If your car blows a headlight and you drive at night, you should be pulled over and charged with dangerous driving in addition to 'driving an unroadworthy vehicle'? What about those driving around with noisy exhausts or VW's that don't comply with pollution laws?
Whether or not an accident results from this dangerous driving is irrelevant. We don't penalize speeding motorists only if they get involved in an accident. But it would be highly appropriate that they be charged with dangerous driving as well. In fact, the charge of 'dangerous driving' should be imposed in addition to just about every traffic infringement notice I can think of!
But, we have seen on this thread the example of a motorist driving around on bald tyres killing FOUR cyclists and he doesn't even lose his license. There is a vast difference in the way that motorists and cyclists are treated on the roads, with users of safer forms of transport like cyclists being treated a lot harsher than people using more dangerous forms of transport, like motor vehicles. The penalties imposed for some traffic infringements are completely inappropriate when compared to the penalties for far more dangerous behaviour.
And when is the estate of the deceased going to be charged with 'wanton or furious walking'?
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:51 pm
by eeksll
BJL wrote:But, we have seen on this thread the example of a motorist driving around on bald tyres killing FOUR cyclists and he doesn't even lose his license. There is a vast difference in the way that motorists and cyclists are treated on the roads, with users of safer forms of transport like cyclists being treated a lot harsher than people using more dangerous forms of transport, like motor vehicles. The penalties imposed for some traffic infringements are completely inappropriate when compared to the penalties for far more dangerous behaviour.
This is definitely my issue with this case. Cyclist don't seem to get "just" decisions when they are the vulnerable road user. And in this case is overly penalised when the more dangerous road users don't get similarly penalised.
BJL wrote:And when is the estate of the deceased going to be charged with 'wanton or furious walking'?
This thought did run across my mind as well.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:01 pm
by human909
BJL wrote:In what way was he riding dangerously?
Exactly. This really hasn't been demonstrated with the available information. Yes his bike didn't have the legally required front brake (which isn't even legally required on ALL bicycles), but that in of itself does not create dangerous driving.
The fact that the prosecution went to exceptional lengths talking about his speed, his attitude and the fact that he yelled out warnings to the pedestrian smacks of desperation to paint a picture that doesn't exist based on the lack of a front brake alone.
The thing is that his speed, his attitude and his warning ARE plainly NOT dangerous driving or cycling. In fact yelling a warning indicates he was paying attention and trying to prevent an incident.
It seems he was judged on his unlikable character rather than the facts of the case.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:09 pm
by hamishm
I went away on holiday and 5 weeks later this discussion is still going with the same posts over and over?!
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:33 pm
by baabaa
Couldn't bear to wade through "this discussion" but this must have been posted what, four or five times in the past 11 pages?
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:13 pm
by biker jk
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:58 pm
by human909
baabaa wrote:Couldn't bear to wade through "this discussion" but this must have been posted what, four or five times in the past 11 pages?
The thing is I don't see much humour in somebody being sent to the slammer for 1.5 years.
Had the guy been facing big fines or community service, I'm not sure there would be the same issues. Instead he ended up facing manslaughter charges which is beyond a joke.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:45 pm
by uart
The Alliston case seems to have been the "perfect storm" of a very likeable (and it goes without saying, undeserved) female in-group victim and an unlikable out-group male perpetrator. The majority of public comments on the case are still expressing the opinion that the sentence was grossly inadequate, with a surprising number even expressing the hope that he is raped or assaulted in gaol.
I thought that the following reader comment from a London cyclist on the Alliston case was interesting. Personally I doubt that in this person's case he would even have been charged had the pedestrian died, but the circumstances were not all that greatly different to the Alliston case, so TBH I really do wonder.
Reader comment from here"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cha ... 59626.html
Terence Bates (London cyclist).
This case has opened a can of worms. I have been in a similar situation on my bike when a pedestrian ran from the pavement as I was approaching Dalston Junction on my fixie with coaster brake . He did not look my way as he ran across the road (he was running across to catch a bus) as a result he took me clean off my bike and both of us fell into the path of a bus that fortunately just managed to stop in time. We both survived. The scenarios that could have unfolded; a) I could have been killed or injured b) We both could have been killed or injured or c) He could have been killed or injured.
So who in each scenario would have been charged with what?
Clearly to me the pedestrian raced out without looking I caught his action for around 1-2 seconds, no brakes would have stopped this happening front rear or otherwise, I had no chance whatsoever to react. Had he died it looks like I could have faced the same charge as Charlie Alliston which too me would have been wholly wrong. It is this that makes me wonder about this case involving Charlie Alliston being driven by publicity more than facts.
I cycle, drive and walk. It seems their is some kind of surreptitious pecking order in terms of who carries more responsibility on our roads and that the errors of judgement on the lesser 'responsibility' mode seems to count for little.
1. Lorry
2. Car
3. Motorbike
4. Cyclist
5. Pedestrian
In defence of coaster brakes I actually found paradoxically that it improved my alertness on the bike and made me anticipate more on the road and allow more time (I am not one of the charge of the bike brigade lot). I genuinely never realised that a coaster brake on its own without front brake is illegal, the bike dealer who sold me the bike with no front brake gave me no advice on this. I took the bike in later months to be serviced and no comments came back from them either. By the time I found out my bike was technically illegal it had been stolen. A lot has been written and said in the media about cyclists and this case and it as usual has polarised opinion instead of looking at intelligent ways of making our roads safer for all, whatever your mode of transport.
The only positive that I see coming from this tragic case is the publicity torch on bikes and what is legal and not legal. Maybe it is time to introduce some kind of 'MOT' for bikes that then gives them a certificate for being road worthy. Quite what we do with pedestrians who are not road worthy will still remain.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:20 pm
by baabaa
The thing is I don't see much humour in somebody being sent to the slammer for 1.5 years.
So with flooding in the Dominican Republic, drought in the Horn of Africa, Rohingya Muslims, earthquakes in Mexico, shelling in the civilian areas along the International Border in the Arnia and Ramgarh sectors of Jammu and one white bloke in the UK kills someone on a bike which even the manufacturer / seller also from the UK (Planet X) state.......The XYZ Pro Track bike is designed for track racing only and should not be used on the road due to not having provision for front or rear brakes.
Much the same as panel beaters across Australia who laugh when they see the insurance claim notes..."It was the kangaroos fault!", please tell me how your conviction of this bloke being very hard done by for 11 pages is not humour?
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:50 pm
by Philistine
baabaa wrote:The thing is I don't see much humour in somebody being sent to the slammer for 1.5 years.
So with flooding in the Dominican Republic, drought in the Horn of Africa, Rohingya Muslims, earthquakes in Mexico, shelling in the civilian areas along the International Border in the Arnia and Ramgarh sectors of Jammu and one white bloke in the UK kills someone on a bike which even the manufacturer / seller also from the UK (Planet X) state.......The XYZ Pro Track bike is designed for track racing only and should not be used on the road due to not having provision for front or rear brakes.
Much the same as panel beaters across Australia who laugh when they see the insurance claim notes..."It was the kangaroos fault!", please tell me how your conviction of this bloke being very hard done by for 11 pages is not humour?
It appears to have escaped your attention that this is a cycling blog. The contributors are cyclists and the various threads are items of interest to cyclists. If you want to post threads about Rohinga Muslims, Kim Jong Un's sabre rattling or Adelaide's chances in the grand final, you can, with minimal effort, find a forum to suit your needs -
but this is not that forum! Has someone got your arm twisted up your back forcing you to read these posts?
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:35 am
by human909
I find it curious that people in this thread are so easily persuaded to hate on the out group. Possibly because he was a young fixie rider which is not a common cohort here??
In contrast a pedestrian was killed in Melbourne not too long ago after stepping in front of a lycra clad cyclist. He got plenty of support from people posting here and he ultimately wasn't charged with a thing.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:30 am
by fat and old
human909 wrote:
In contrast a pedestrian was killed in Melbourne not too long ago after stepping in front of a lycra clad cyclist. He got plenty of support from people posting here and he ultimately wasn't charged with a thing.
Not from me.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:52 am
by find_bruce
Impressive - if he can make a fixed gear coast, what else can Terrence achieve.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:06 am
by biker jk
find_bruce wrote:
Impressive - if he can make a fixed gear coast, what else can Terrence achieve.
He might understand it in simpler language.
Fixie-no brakie-crashie-ouchie.
Re: Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:41 am
by uart
find_bruce wrote:Impressive - if he can make a fixed gear coast, what else can Terrence achieve.
He was no doubt referring to a "flip hub" type fixie - they are quite popular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flop_hub
I presume he was riding it in coaster hub mode at the time. From a legal standpoint however, he was in the same situation as Alliston, no front brake.
biker jk wrote:
He might understand it in simpler language.
Fixie-no brakie-crashie-ouchie.
Wrong. Please reread what was actually posted. Coaster hub (back pedal brake). No time to brake.
