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

uart
Posts: 963
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 4:28 pm

human909 wrote:"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.

Well that's another interesting aspect to the case. Initially they wanted to represent Alliston as being as reckless as possible, so they used the "upper end" estimate of the speed he could have been travelling to present to the jury.

Later however when they did the stopping distance tests they wanted to prove that he could have stopped easily if he was on a police mountain bike. But to make this more convincing they needed a lower speed so as to get the shortest stopping distance possible. So suddenly they changed their story on his speed to about 12 MPH when she stepped out onto the roadway. Hence they did the stopping tests at a slower speed.

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.

Yes, some false evidence on that police stopping distance test has now been confirmed on another site (will try to find a link later). Anyway, you know how I posted a link to the police video earlier in this thread, and mentioned that in the mountain bike stopping test that he appears to start slowing well before the actual cones (marking the stopping zone). Well a guy on another site has done a frame by frame analysis of that video, and looked at the position of the wheel reflectors at 4 frame intervals to infer the wheel rotation and distance travelled. As we suspected the wheel turned further (about 2/3 of a rev) at the 4 frames taken back near where the speed was measured, and only about 1/2 a turn in the 4 frames prior to him hitting the stopping zone! in other words, proof that they fudged that test!

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 5:20 pm

uart wrote:
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 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.


Are you saying that when Alliston said himself that he lied he lied about that?

Not social media, not the judge, jury or Joe blow. Charlie Alliston. He admitted he lied. Not missing footage or grainy video. Charlie Alliston.

I don't get it. Either we believe him or we don't?

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 5:25 pm

BJL wrote:
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.


I pick #2. She saw a pushy, figured big deal and lost the bet. OR didn't notice the pushy, figured no one would run her down as is usual with the usual self centred moron ped and lost the bet. Either way, she lost. Sucks to be her.

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 6876
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 5:30 pm

Well I have classified her as an izombie which looks like it was wrong and doesn't fit the picture I had.
I apologise for that and attribute less blame to her and more to the cyclist.

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 5:53 pm

Just in case

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... liston.pdf

Human posted this 5 or 6 pages back. Maybe it should have been read by more people. I'm sure someone will ask for evidence.

uart
Posts: 963
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 6:26 pm

fat and old wrote:Are you saying that when Alliston said himself that he lied he lied about that?
Not social media, not the judge, jury or Joe blow. Charlie Alliston. He admitted he lied. Not missing footage or grainy video. Charlie Alliston.


Sorry I missed that. The last I heard on the issue was that the cct was inconclusive as to whether she was using (or looking at) her phone due to being partially obscured.

Can you post a link to where Charlie admitted to lying about that. I haven't seen it.

Edit. Ok I see that he has recanted the claim that she was on the phone.
Last edited by uart on Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 6:49 pm

The post before yours mate. Human provided it.

Further reading for those who feel the Judge over reached in her sentencing remarks.....

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/

Maybe look at the little Sentencing for Dummies vid. Hey....I'm including myself in that cohort so don't be upset :lol: Reading that it seems that she wasn't really out of line in her comments at all. IF people remain adamant that she was, and that the use of social media to illustrate the young fella as a prick was unjust and unfair, I refer you to this case

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-0 ... fmredir=sm

And the Judges comments on the devastation wrought by this bloke. People hereabouts were happy enough with this.

human909
Posts: 8271
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 7:01 pm

uart wrote:Well that's another interesting aspect to the case. Initially they wanted to represent Alliston as being as reckless as possible, so they used the "upper end" estimate of the speed he could have been travelling to present to the jury.

Later however when they did the stopping distance tests they wanted to prove that he could have stopped easily if he was on a police mountain bike. But to make this more convincing they needed a lower speed so as to get the shortest stopping distance possible. So suddenly they changed their story on his speed to about 12 MPH when she stepped out onto the roadway. Hence they did the stopping tests at a slower speed.

So that clarifies that.

Instead of being incompetent and ignorant about their investigation. They were picking and choosing mutually exclusive scenarios to suit their "expert" "evidence". So deliberately misleading which is worse than simply being incompetent and ignorant.

NASHIE
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:16 pm
Location: Perth, WA

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

Postby NASHIE » Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:21 pm

human909 wrote:So that clarifies that.



You really need to read the link you posted. Approx 18mph when he saw her steep from the kerb, slowed to approx 12mph.....shouted a bit and then went on to hit her in the middle of the road. Its not like she just jumped in front of him.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5863
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 7:58 pm

NASHIE wrote:
human909 wrote:So that clarifies that.



You really need to read the link you posted. Approx 18mph when he saw her steep from the kerb, slowed to approx 12mph.....shouted a bit and then went on to hit her in the middle of the road. Its not like she just jumped in front of him.


Yes I couldn't understand why so many were saying the pedestrian jumped out in front of the cyclist when it was clear that he had plenty of time to stop or swerve around her. That's why I said early that shouting warnings rather than slowing was his modus operandi given he had no front brake.

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 8:00 pm

Yeah, she was actually trying to cross, got part way then was blocked by cars. It seems that the young fella then attempted to ride between her and a parked car, which is not her "stepping out in front of him".

That's why I sympathise with him. He made a bad choice through inexperience, not malice. What's rooted him is his subsequent behaviour....which is taken into account when sentencing.

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 8:03 pm

uart wrote:
Edit. Ok I see that he has recanted the claim that she was on the phone.


Recanted the claim? Oh....you mean admitted he'd lied.

Yeah.

eeksll
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:36 pm

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

Postby eeksll » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:11 pm

human909 wrote:
uart wrote:Well that's another interesting aspect to the case. Initially they wanted to represent Alliston as being as reckless as possible, so they used the "upper end" estimate of the speed he could have been travelling to present to the jury.

Later however when they did the stopping distance tests they wanted to prove that he could have stopped easily if he was on a police mountain bike. But to make this more convincing they needed a lower speed so as to get the shortest stopping distance possible. So suddenly they changed their story on his speed to about 12 MPH when she stepped out onto the roadway. Hence they did the stopping tests at a slower speed.

So that clarifies that.

Instead of being incompetent and ignorant about their investigation. They were picking and choosing mutually exclusive scenarios to suit their "expert" "evidence". So deliberately misleading which is worse than simply being incompetent and ignorant.


OR the sources we are reading from thesun and the mirror are selectively reporting ...

uart
Posts: 963
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 8:20 pm

fat and old wrote:
uart wrote:
Edit. Ok I see that he has recanted the claim that she was on the phone.


Recanted the claim? Oh....you mean admitted he'd lied.

Yeah.

Not necessarily, He may have recanted because there was insufficient evidence to show it, and because he was heavily under fire for "blaming the victim" at that stage.

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 9:42 pm

uart wrote:
fat and old wrote:
uart wrote:
Edit. Ok I see that he has recanted the claim that she was on the phone.


Recanted the claim? Oh....you mean admitted he'd lied.

Yeah.

Not necessarily, He may have recanted because there was insufficient evidence to show it, and because he was heavily under fire for "blaming the victim" at that stage.


Why did you use the quotation marks there? Do you think he was unfairly accused of doing so?

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 10:00 pm

An interesting link here on an appeal by the cyclist convicted on the same charge in 2015...only two years ago.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-gittoes

Worth looking at the aggravating and mitigating factors used to decide on the initial (and upheld) sentence.

uart
Posts: 963
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 10:42 pm

fat and old wrote:An interesting link here on an appeal by the cyclist convicted on the same charge in 2015...only two years ago.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-gittoes

Worth looking at the aggravating and mitigating factors used to decide on the initial (and upheld) sentence.


2. The facts are these. At about 3 pm on 30th July 2014, Mary Evans, who was 73 years old, was walking with a friend through a pedestrianised area of the City Centre of Hereford. The pedestrian area was clearly marked and no vehicles or bicycles are permitted to use that area between 10.30 am and 4.30 pm. There were a number of members of the public walking through the pedestrianised area. The appellant rode his bicycle through the pedestrianised area. He can be seen on the CCTV weaving between pedestrians as he cycled. The bicycle was not roadworthy. It had no brakes. It had no bell. It had no lights and had a cracked tyre. The appellant knew that bicycles were not permitted in that area. Indeed he had been told by a police officer to push his bicycle along there and not to cycle there on a previous occasion.

And there in lies the very big difference between this and the Alliston case. Charlie was on the road and riding under the speed limit for that road.

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:58 am

My mates being a lazy sod and sleeping in, so here I am :lol:

I posted that entire report in fairness. I never claimed there were similarities in the actual conditions; it was done in order to show the differences in the factors taken into account when sentencing occurs. Since we're cherry picking, I'll highlight the section I refer to

7. In his sentencing remarks the judge made the following observations. He noted that the offence contributed to the death of an innocent person. That was an aggravating factor making the offence an extremely serious one. There were other aggravating factors. First, the cycling was too fast for the number of pedestrians that were in that area. Secondly, the bicycle had a number of defects and was not roadworthy. Thirdly, he referred to the appellant's record of criminal offences and the fact that he was on bail at the time at which the present offence was committed. The sentence judge also took into account the mitigating factors. This included the fact that the appellant would have to live with the fact that his actions had caused or contributed to the death of another person. He took account of the appellant's age, 20 years at the time of the offence; he had regard to the fact that the appellant had shown remorse and regret and he had regard to the evidence of the appellant's involvement with the young person's project.


It's been said that Allison did not receive a fair trial; one of the supporting arguments used the sentencing remarks as an example of personal bias on the part of the judge. In fact there was nothing unusual about those remarks at all. They summed up the case and Alliston's history before, during and after the case. They outlined the court's (and by default as their agent the public's) feelings of waste and outrage at the outcome of his actions. This is common with all cases I have looked at, one of which I have linked. In R v Gittoes, the Judge took into account and gave credit to the defendant for his remorse, efforts to assimilate into society and guilty plea. Alliston would have received the same credit if it was able to be given.

We have been told repeatedly that Alliston has been unfairly treated

It shows what a great job that the prosecution did to throw mud at him, when even after 11 pages and on a cycling website that people are still reciting the garbage that was used to tar him instead of the facts.




When it has taken 15 pages to ascertain that the "facts" used to support him have been shown to be somewhat different from reality. Not only that, the evidence of this is in a document linked by one of his supporters.

There is the point about who you attribute blame to. The stupid izombie walks out onto a roadway without looking and the cyclist is deemed at fault despite her being oblivious to her surroundings and his warnings.


No, she wasn't on a phone. He lied and admitted that he lied when faced with a lack of supporting evidence.

Instead of being incompetent and ignorant about their investigation. They were picking and choosing mutually exclusive scenarios to suit their "expert" "evidence". So deliberately misleading which is worse than simply being incompetent and ignorant.


No, they were not picking and choosing mutually exclusive scenarios. Read your link. He saw her at 18mph, had slowed to 12mph when he tried to ride between her on his right and a parked vehicle on his left, placing her between him and moving vehicles. Which by the way experience will tell you that she will almost certainly try to move back to the relative safety of a stationary vehicle.

Yes I think that was a mistake on the cyclist's part. My interpretation is that he probably did see the pedestrian moving toward the curb and began yelling then. He may have tried yelling as a first course of action and avoidance as a second course only after the pedestrian stepped out anyway. Witnesses described the yell as "a panicked warning" so


An interpretation so far from what happened it may as well be in Swahili.....yet no retraction from the poster.

This really is a stupid thread.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby find_bruce » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:31 am

uart wrote:
fat and old wrote:An interesting link here on an appeal by the cyclist convicted on the same charge in 2015...only two years ago.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-gittoes

Worth looking at the aggravating and mitigating factors used to decide on the initial (and upheld) sentence.


2. The facts are these. At about 3 pm on 30th July 2014, Mary Evans, who was 73 years old, was walking with a friend through a pedestrianised area of the City Centre of Hereford. The pedestrian area was clearly marked and no vehicles or bicycles are permitted to use that area between 10.30 am and 4.30 pm. There were a number of members of the public walking through the pedestrianised area. The appellant rode his bicycle through the pedestrianised area. He can be seen on the CCTV weaving between pedestrians as he cycled. The bicycle was not roadworthy. It had no brakes. It had no bell. It had no lights and had a cracked tyre. The appellant knew that bicycles were not permitted in that area. Indeed he had been told by a police officer to push his bicycle along there and not to cycle there on a previous occasion.

And there in lies the very big difference between this and the Alliston case. Charlie was on the road and riding under the speed limit for that road.

You missed a couple of important differences, one of which is that Gittoes accepted responsibility for his actions & expressed remorse, a mitigating factor completely absent from Alliston.

One of the purposes of sentencing is specific deterrence ie what will it take to deter the person from continuing to offend.

Appeals against sentencing are hard to win. While there are a number of ways you could argue the judge erred in sentencing, a simple comparison with one other case is unlikely to succeed.

I'm not going to express a view on whether an appeal against sentence is succeed, because none of us have seen all of the evidence such as the video and forming an opinion without regard to the evidence is the essence of bias.

BJL
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

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

Postby BJL » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:17 am

NASHIE wrote:
human909 wrote:So that clarifies that.



You really need to read the link you posted. Approx 18mph when he saw her steep from the kerb, slowed to approx 12mph.....shouted a bit and then went on to hit her in the middle of the road. Its not like she just jumped in front of him.


What's your point? The speed at which the rider was traveling at the time he saw her is only part of the story. How FAR AWAY from the rider was the pedestrian when she decided to walk out in front of him? He slowed down. He probably expected her to HEAR the warning and either stop or step back onto the kerb and tried to swerve in front of her in anticipation. But no, idiot pedestrian with her head in the clouds keeps on walking forwards.

In any case, the rider had a green light, the pedestrian SHOULDN'T have been out on the road. Simple as that. This guy has to go to jail for a mistake made by an idiot pedestrian, all because of a missing front brake. Something a motorist would have received NOTHING more than a traffic infringement for and they'd be off on their way, business as usual.

NASHIE
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:16 pm
Location: Perth, WA

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

Postby NASHIE » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:30 am

Over and out on this one fellas

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:17 pm

It's obviously necessary to post this. From Human's linked Sentencing Remarks

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. 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 !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! 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


That would be the facts as they stand; not a media report, not a forum theory. It's worth keeping that in mind when discussing the subject.

Street view of the intersection

https://www.google.com.au/maps/place//(AT) ... 0?hl=en-au

BJL
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

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

Postby BJL » Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:44 pm

fat and old wrote:It's obviously necessary to post this. From Human's linked Sentencing Remarks

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. 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 !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! 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


That would be the facts as they stand; not a media report, not a forum theory. It's worth keeping that in mind when discussing the subject.

Street view of the intersection

https://www.google.com.au/maps/place//(AT) ... 0?hl=en-au


Okay, I'm was wrong in my previous post. But if it's the responsibility for road users to ensure they don't run into pedestrians, then why didn't the women just keep walking across the road? Surely it's the responsibility of ALL road users not to run into other road users? Didn't the oncoming traffic see the women, realize she was in danger and EVERY road user in the vicinity slow down or stop until she was safely on the other side of the road? Or are only cyclists responsible for anything that happens on the roads? It would appear so.

Obviously pedestrians have no requirements regarding being responsible for their OWN safety.

uart
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

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

Postby uart » Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:51 pm

find_bruce wrote:You missed a couple of important differences, one of which is that Gittoes accepted responsibility for his actions & expressed remorse, a mitigating factor completely absent from Alliston.


Yes, but in my opinion Gittoes had more to feel remorseful about.

fat and old wrote:Yeah, she was actually trying to cross, got part way then was blocked by cars. It seems that the young fella then attempted to ride between her and a parked car, which is not her "stepping out in front of him".

Thanks FAO, that helps explain how he had time to call out twice, but in the end have so little time to react when she tried to move back towards the curb. The six metres they are referring to is probably from the point that she tried step back towards the curb, and into his path.

There are still some issues that I think were used against him somewhat unfairly. Given his age much of the historical stuff they had, like when he took the brakes off of a previous bike and bragged about it online, was something done as a minor. Personally I think that should have been out of bounds. I rode billy carts without brakes when I was a ten year old, I certainly hope that never gets used against me in a reckless driving charge.

Also I'm certain that the eye (ear) witness said that he called "look out" twice. Once initially and then again (with a sense of fear or urgency) just before the impact. The only time that the "get the f#ck out of my way" statement came up was Charlie recounting the incident online on a BMX forum. It sounded better and tougher for his BMX buddies like that, but it's not what he said! The judge's sentencing remarks quite cleverly say "you instead choose, in your own words, to just yell get the f#ck out of my way". You see what she did there, it was his own words, but in an online forum and after the event. This is a very significant difference in my opinion.

Also a somewhat more minor point, but being helmetless was used against him. Now I am 100% certain that if he had been helmeted (particularly if it was a hard outer shell helmet) then it would also have been used against him - due to the nature of the head clash. The exact words would probably have been : "You, on your speed machine, and with all the protection for your own head afforded by your helmet, had no regard at all for the safety of anyone else." Don't try to tell me that they wouldn't have used that against him because I know that they would have. And any case where a you have an action or circumstance, and then the hypothetical complete opposite of that circumstance, which are both equally potent as evidence for guilt, then that is just wrong.

fat and old
Posts: 2905
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 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:35 pm

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?

Return to “General Cycling Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andrewjcw, Aussie Bruce, CKinnard, jasonc, Quency, Warin