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

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

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

Postby warthog1 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:36 pm

NASHIE wrote:
warthog1 wrote:
He is a cyclist in an English speaking country. What rock have you been living under?
Of course he is a member of an outgroup.
With regard to the penalty have a look at my post above.


And as tragic as it was the case you refer is irrelevant to this case.


It is highly relevant given the "penalty" meted out. I accept it is very inconvenient to your line of argument ;)


NASHIE wrote:Sorry but i don't consider myself a member of an out group.


Sure you're not mate. The shock jocks, print and television media, and driving public all love you.
They would love to see more spent on decent infrastructure for you to ride on and in the meantime are incredibly happy and accommodating toward sharing whatever road space you require.

human909
Posts: 8155
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:56 pm

biker jk wrote:I'm sure this has been covered previously so I don't know why you repeated the claim given the bald tyres were not found to have contributed to the crash.


And where has it been found that not having a front brake contributed to the crash? Nowhere.

The only 'investigation' seems to be done for the prosecution and is plainly and clearly biased with the intent of arguing a case rather than finding the truth. Basic mathematics prove that their "evidence" is wrong.

NASHIE
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:16 pm
Location: Perth, WA

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

Postby NASHIE » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:58 pm

warthog1 wrote:
It is highly relevant given the "penalty" meted out. I accept it is very inconvenient to your line of argument ;)

Sure you're not mate. The shock jocks, print and television media, and driving public all love you.


I get your whole penalty comparision and agree the driver got off very lightly. But as pointed out is was black ice and maybe a brand new set of pirellis would not have changed the outcome. Define bald tyres.....im pretty sure we are all guilty of running tyres with 4-5mm tread which could be defined as unroadworthy/bald. If he running on the canvas then yes highly negligate, but we don't know.

Given up listening/watching the print :wink: just gives me the shits.

Have no more issue's riding on the road than getting cut off, raced into merge points etc driving a 4wd on the road, so yah driving public love me :lol:

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5746
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby biker jk » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:13 pm

warthog1 wrote:
biker jk wrote:
I'm sure this has been covered previously so I don't know why you repeated the claim given the bald tyres were not found to have contributed to the crash.


The fixie rider is apparently the biggest b@st@rd on the face of the earth for riding an "unroadworthy bike without a front brake".
The fact remains he was driving an unroadworthy vehicle and he killed 4 people who were not at fault.
But hey lets give him a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce. They were only cyclists after all, they shouldn't have been there. We the jury and I the judge, are all drivers too. Such a distasteful episode could have happened to us also.
Would the penalty have been any different had the car aquaplaned on a wet road. I bloody doubt it very much.


All speculation on your part. The facts from the respective cases are that no front brake on the fixie contributed to the death of the pedestrian while the bald tyres did not contribute to the death of the cyclists.

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

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

Postby warthog1 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:36 pm

NASHIE wrote:I get your whole penalty comparision and agree the driver got off very lightly. But as pointed out is was black ice and maybe a brand new set of pirellis would not have changed the outcome. Define bald tyres.....im pretty sure we are all guilty of running tyres with 4-5mm tread which could be defined as unroadworthy/bald. If he running on the canvas then yes highly negligate, but we don't know.


So if you've accepted that the driver of an unroadworthy vehicle who killed 4 people who were in no way at fault, "got off very lightly", then surely it follows that the rider of an unroadworthy bicycle who hit and killed a distracted pedestrian who stepped out onto a roadway into his path has been somewhat dudded in receiving an 18 month jail term. It has not been proven that the lack of a btrake caused the collision any more than the bald tyre did from what I have read. The pedestrian certainly was at fault however, unlike the riders.


NASHIE wrote:Have no more issue's riding on the road than getting cut off, raced into merge points etc driving a 4wd on the road, so yah driving public love me :lol:


Yep I own a 4wd too.
I am afforded far more respect in it. Sure people try to get in front of me but they don't try to bully me off the road. They know they will come off second best.
I certainly do get bullied on the bike and have nearly come to blows several times when I've caught the culprits and confronted them.
How often have you had someone brush past you in a motor vehicle whilst on the bike. It doesn't happen in the 4wd but it does on the bike.
The car will come of second best against my 3 tonne patrol it wont against my flesh.
It should be the other way around but it aint because we are afforded no respect by a significant proportion of the Australian driving public.

We are a minority and a subject of ridicule much of the public who would prefer we got off the road and out of their way.

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

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

Postby warthog1 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:43 pm

biker jk wrote:
warthog1 wrote:
biker jk wrote:
I'm sure this has been covered previously so I don't know why you repeated the claim given the bald tyres were not found to have contributed to the crash.


The fixie rider is apparently the biggest b@st@rd on the face of the earth for riding an "unroadworthy bike without a front brake".
The fact remains he was driving an unroadworthy vehicle and he killed 4 people who were not at fault.
But hey lets give him a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce. They were only cyclists after all, they shouldn't have been there. We the jury and I the judge, are all drivers too. Such a distasteful episode could have happened to us also.
Would the penalty have been any different had the car aquaplaned on a wet road. I bloody doubt it very much.


All speculation on your part. The facts from the respective cases are that no front brake on the fixie contributed to the death of the pedestrian while the bald tyres did not contribute to the death of the cyclists.



From what I have read the cyclist made the not unreasonable expectation, that a yelled warning would be sufficient to halt the pedestrian from entering the roadway at a place not designated as a crossing and into his path.
She was at fault.
The four cyclists who were killed were not.
The perpetrator in that case was undertaking an activity in common with that of the judge and jury however.

NASHIE
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:16 pm
Location: Perth, WA

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

Postby NASHIE » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:13 pm

warthog1 wrote:
NASHIE wrote:I get your whole penalty comparision and agree the driver got off very lightly. But as pointed out is was black ice and maybe a brand new set of pirellis would not have changed the outcome. Define bald tyres.....im pretty sure we are all guilty of running tyres with 4-5mm tread which could be defined as unroadworthy/bald. If he running on the canvas then yes highly negligate, but we don't know.


So if you've accepted that the driver of an unroadworthy vehicle who killed 4 people who were in no way at fault, "got off very lightly", then surely it follows that the rider of an unroadworthy bicycle who hit and killed a distracted pedestrian who stepped out onto a roadway into his path has been somewhat dudded in receiving an 18 month jail term. It has not been proven that the lack of a btrake caused the collision any more than the bald tyre did from what I have read. The pedestrian certainly was at fault however, unlike the riders.


NASHIE wrote:Have no more issue's riding on the road than getting cut off, raced into merge points etc driving a 4wd on the road, so yah driving public love me :lol:


Yep I own a 4wd too.
I am afforded far more respect in it. Sure people try to get in front of me but they don't try to bully me off the road. They know they will come off second best.
I certainly do get bullied on the bike and have nearly come to blows several times when I've caught the culprits and confronted them.
How often have you had someone brush past you in a motor vehicle whilst on the bike. It doesn't happen in the 4wd but it does on the bike.
The car will come of second best against my 3 tonne patrol it wont against my flesh.
It should be the other way around but it aint because we are afforded no respect by a significant proportion of the Australian driving public.

We are a minority and a subject of ridicule much of the public who would prefer we got off the road and out of their way.


As if said before i really don't want to compare the 2 cases and if you read back i don't disagree the ped was at fault and to honest have no comment on the jail term. Jailing or jail terms are another thread.

Getting way of track but what you may consider a close pass may differ to what i consider a close pass. 20+ yrs racing/training on the road and maybe I've been lucky or position well but have very little issue's with motorist. Im not a commuter so cant comment on dealing with peak hour daily. But having raced a track bike and knowing the braking capabilities feel my comments on the rider being a moron for taking the decision to ride one on the road fully justified. Trying to bring maths and this and that in to it are irrelevant. The kid may have been best to just shut his gob and try to avoid her....who knows ?

human909
Posts: 8155
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:38 pm

warthog1 wrote:From what I have read the cyclist made the not unreasonable expectation, that a yelled warning would be sufficient to halt the pedestrian from entering the roadway at a place not designated as a crossing and into his path.

For what it is worth I've been in that situation numerous times. Sometimes by silly motorists, sometimes by silly pedestrians.

Many times I've also emergency braked. Other times I've decided the safest reaction was to shout and swerve rather than brake. Thankfully my decision making has avoided an incident. But all this is emergency decision making made in split seconds.

Charlie was faced with a similar decision. Maybe his decision was the best, maybe in that split second he could have made a better decision. I don't know. It doesn't even seem to have been appropriately considered in the court case despite being CRITICAL to the incident.

Instead it seems that the whole case was based on his personality and the victim's personality rather than the actual events.

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

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

Postby warthog1 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:21 pm

human909 wrote:
Instead it seems that the whole case was based on his personality and the victim's personality rather than the actual events.


His personalty yes, and you can't help but feel that the perception/assessment of his personality was negatively influenced by him being one of those self-entitled bicycle riders.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 8134
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:42 pm

Crikey, this is going round in more circles than the MHL thread.

At the end of the day, he was given a fair trial and found guilty. He made it worse by the way he approached the case and his post incident behaviour. Both people were at fault, and one suffered MUCH more than he did.
In the end, it seems that the prosecution did their job better, but whether the result was correct, I can't say, as I don't know the details in full, and only those in the court (prosecution and defence) do.
Both sides lost.

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

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

Postby warthog1 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:11 pm

MichaelB wrote:Crikey, this is going round in more circles than the MHL thread.

At the end of the day, he was given a fair trial and found guilty. He made it worse by the way he approached the case and his post incident behaviour. Both people were at fault, and one suffered MUCH more than he did.
In the end, it seems that the prosecution did their job better, but whether the result was correct, I can't say, as I don't know the details in full, and only those in the court (prosecution and defence) do.
Both sides lost.


Agree it is going around in circles.
A few big statements there Michael.
A fair trial? Given the result it didn't seem too objective and was skewed by emotion imo
Both people were at fault and one suffered much more than he did.
If the izombie hadn't walked out onto the road due to not paying any attention at all in a dangerous environment, she'd still be alive.
An objective person would hardly place anywhere near the same level of fault on the rider.

human909
Posts: 8155
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:00 pm

MichaelB wrote:At the end of the day, he was given a fair trial and found guilty.

Misleading and downright false evidence to the jury from the prosecution isn't what I call fair.
A judge that in the same breath as telling the jury to put aside their feelings personalities the victim.

That doesn't sound fair. The judges own prejudices are well on display in her sentencing remarks. Do you think a motorist or pedestrian would be judged on the basis of whether or not they were wearing a helmet? Yet in the UK cyclists...

MichaelB wrote:Both people were at fault, and one suffered MUCH more than he did.

I'm confused. If both people are at fault what is the point of a strong punishment? Had the cyclist died should the pedestrian receive an 18month gaol sentence?

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 8134
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:04 pm

warthog1 wrote:Agree it is going around in circles.
A few big statements there Michael.
A fair trial? Given the result it didn't seem too objective and was skewed by emotion imo
Both people were at fault and one suffered much more than he did.
If the izombie hadn't walked out onto the road due to not paying any attention at all in a dangerous environment, she'd still be alive.
An objective person would hardly place anywhere near the same level of fault on the rider.


Fair trial in that it was conducted in an open manner and not some dictatorship. If it was grossly unfair, there is an appeal process. Has that option been taken up ? maybe funds are an issue, dunno ?
If neither had gotten out of bed that morning, if neither had walked slower/faster or ridden slower/faster, it wouldn't have happened. But it did, and a person died and the other will suffer the lifelong consequences as well. ergo, both lost.

I cannot be objective, as mentioned before, I don't have all the facts, and neither do any of those passing judgement on both sides. The only ones that have ALL the FACTS are those directly involved with the trial.

We need to remember at the end of the day, someone lost their life. Fault is on both sides.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 8134
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:10 pm

....
Last edited by MichaelB on Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 8134
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:11 pm

At human909

Were you in court ? No. If the evidence was that false, a good defence lawyer would have been able to prove that. That's their job. Prosecution job is to prosecute. Each will present facts that help their case, they will not lie. They'll be as grey as they can be (a la "I genuinely had asthma and needed cortisone part way through the TdF....)

But as you were not there (do you have a court transcript ?), how can you unequivocally state what you think is a fact, but is actually opinion ?

I said nothing about whether punishment was just/fair or otherwise. Just that both have a level of fault and both have suffered the consequence of their actions, one more than the other.

[/bailout] :roll:

human909
Posts: 8155
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:20 pm

MichaelB wrote:If the evidence was that false, a good defence lawyer would have been able to prove that.

It would seem apparent that there was not a "good defence lawyer".

MichaelB wrote:Prosecution job is to prosecute.

Their job is alot more than that.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stat ... rosecutor/

The prosecution and the investigators prior have legal, professional and ethical responsibilities beyond simply to prosecute. The stopping distance evidence is atrocious, neither the investigators nor the prosecution should a have presented it. Presenting stopping distance evidence that is not at all realistic would seem grossly unprofessional. Some of the reported "evidence" doesn't seem to align with basic physics.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 8134
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby MichaelB » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:23 pm

human909 wrote:
MichaelB wrote:If the evidence was that false, a good defence lawyer would have been able to prove that.

It would seem apparent that there was not a "good defence lawyer".


As already mentioned.

human909
Posts: 8155
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:29 pm

The police and the prosecution have a duty not to produce false or misleading evidence. In fact knowingly doing so can have significant professional ramifications.

Yet some of the evidence is PLAINLY false. So either they are ignorant/incompetent or worse.

"Expert evidence from the police for the prosecution was that Alliston had been going at 18mph (8 m/s) and that his braking distance was 12 metres. 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"

This is plainly impossible as has been described in this thread and independently elsewhere.

How can you claim that is fair?

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5746
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby biker jk » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:34 pm

human909 wrote:
biker jk wrote:I'm sure this has been covered previously so I don't know why you repeated the claim given the bald tyres were not found to have contributed to the crash.


And where has it been found that not having a front brake contributed to the crash? Nowhere.

The only 'investigation' seems to be done for the prosecution and is plainly and clearly biased with the intent of arguing a case rather than finding the truth. Basic mathematics prove that their "evidence" is wrong.


Given the moron didn't have a front brake, he clearly had adopted the method of not slowing down when pedestrians were in his way but instead shouting warnings.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5746
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby biker jk » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:38 pm

warthog1 wrote:
biker jk wrote:
warthog1 wrote:
The fixie rider is apparently the biggest b@st@rd on the face of the earth for riding an "unroadworthy bike without a front brake".
The fact remains he was driving an unroadworthy vehicle and he killed 4 people who were not at fault.
But hey lets give him a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce. They were only cyclists after all, they shouldn't have been there. We the jury and I the judge, are all drivers too. Such a distasteful episode could have happened to us also.
Would the penalty have been any different had the car aquaplaned on a wet road. I bloody doubt it very much.


All speculation on your part. The facts from the respective cases are that no front brake on the fixie contributed to the death of the pedestrian while the bald tyres did not contribute to the death of the cyclists.



From what I have read the cyclist made the not unreasonable expectation, that a yelled warning would be sufficient to halt the pedestrian from entering the roadway at a place not designated as a crossing and into his path.
She was at fault.
The four cyclists who were killed were not.
The perpetrator in that case was undertaking an activity in common with that of the judge and jury however.


I don't find that a reasonable expectation given the frequency of pedestrians crossing while distracted by listening to music and/or texting. I have rung my bell and shouted a warning to no avail as the pedestrian cut across the shared path so I was already slowing of course which works amazingly well when you have a front brake.

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

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

Postby warthog1 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:56 pm

MichaelB wrote:
We need to remember at the end of the day, someone lost their life. Fault is on both sides.


I may come across as insensitive.
I see death on a regular basis and have lost count of the different varieties of stupid where this has been the result..
Had she walked in front of a train or truck the result would have been the same. It is beholden on us all to apply some level of attention to our daily actions. This lady did not and as a result is dead.
I place a very small proportion of that blame on the cyclist from the specifics I have read.

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

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

Postby warthog1 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:05 pm

biker jk wrote:I don't find that a reasonable expectation given the frequency of pedestrians crossing while distracted by listening to music and/or texting. I have rung my bell and shouted a warning to no avail as the pedestrian cut across the shared path so I was already slowing of course which works amazingly well when you have a front brake.


Do you make a habit of walking out onto a roadway whilst absorbed by your phone.
I don't, because I realise the result will inevitably be severe.
I have used a loud verbal warning numerous times to good effect and find my voice a good warning device.

fat and old
Posts: 2795
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 29, 2017 3:28 pm

To all and sundry....

Please find and post evidence that the woman was using her phone. FWIW, the only thing I can find are reports that he actually lied about it which was confirmed in court by Allisons own admission.

Thanks. I knew I wouldn't last. :roll:

BJL
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

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

Postby BJL » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:02 pm

fat and old wrote:To all and sundry....

Please find and post evidence that the woman was using her phone. FWIW, the only thing I can find are reports that he actually lied about it which was confirmed in court by Allisons own admission.

Thanks. I knew I wouldn't last. :roll:


I for one never said anything about the woman using a phone. However, it is quite plain that she walked out onto a road into oncoming traffic without a care in the world. Either she was distracted by something and completely oblivious to her surroundings or she was aware of her surroundings and walked out anyway which is incredibly stupid.

Take your pick.

uart
Posts: 891
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 29, 2017 4:11 pm

fat and old wrote:To all and sundry....

Please find and post evidence that the woman was using her phone. FWIW, the only thing I can find are reports that he actually lied about it which was confirmed in court by Allisons own admission.


The evidence that she was looking at or using her phone at the time could couldn't be verified because in the cct footage she was partially obscured by a van as she approached the curb (so they couldn't say one way or another). This has been "paraphrased" on social media as proof that Alliston lied about it.

This highlights an issue when the prosecution is pretty much just tunnel vision hell bent on revenge (for the woman's death). They (prosecution) have way more power to collect evidence than Alliston or his representatives, but if the prosecution fails to look for any exculpatory evidence, then certainly none will be found. I'll bet that they didn't bother to even look at her phone records.
Last edited by uart on Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “General Cycling Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: familyguy, fat and old, Gness, malnar, uart