Oh, the fine gentlemen in Cell Block H are gonna love him

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

1) he has obviously behaved like a c##t throughout BUT

2) how many pedestrians step in to road on phone

I have not seen the video but it strikes me that whilst he may have behaved at the time of the accident and throughout the trial like an arsehole IF the pedestrian was on the phone there is a degree of responsibility she bears for simply being a idiot. That does not exscuse him but the husband whining about changing the law........to what? If she was on the phone and he was doing less than the marked speed limit all they have really done is got him for not having a front brake.

If you are using a bike (or any vehicle) on a public road that does not meet safety standards of the law then you are putting people's life in risk. If someone then dies you should be punished.

If you step in to the road distracted you are partly culpable

As a motorcylist was cleared of killing a child who came out between two cars

As i said. They did him for the front brake. If she was on the phone she has a responsability to be aware and not behave stupidly. That does not mean he also did not have a responsibility to have a front brake

Absolutely. We are in agreement then. I just read 'all they have really done is got him for not having a front brake' differently. In general someone stopped purely for not having a front brake isn't going to get the same punishment that this guy, hopefully, is. But that isn't what you meant.

Andrewmc wrote:

That does not exscuse him but the husband whining about changing the law........to what? If she was on the phone and he was doing less than the marked speed limit all they have really done is got him for not having a front brake.

I think you're drastically over-simplifying the legal process here.

The "wanton and furious driving" charge that he was convicted on dates back to 1861 and was designed for horse-drawn carriages; the UK now has specific laws for careless and dangerous driving charges with regard to motor vehicles, but nothing relating to cycling-related incidents, despite there being numerous government recommendations over the last decade for reform.

To ensure that both the defendants and victims receive appropriate justice in future cases, it would make sense to update these laws and associated sentencing guidelines to something that actually reflects the modern world.



Alliston claimed this in his original statements to police but admitted at trial that he wasn't sure if this was actually the case; having followed this case quite closely and the lines of inquiry pursued by both the prosecution and defence, it appears there is no evidence that she was using a mobile phone when the collision occurred.

The cyclist is clearly an arsehole, but that's not a crime.

Not having a front brake is both dangerous and against the law and he should rightly be punished for it.

The manslaughter charge was ridiculous and it's right that he was found not guilty of that. Motorists in the UK regularly kill pedestrians as a result of not giving way or speeding, and face reckless driving charges, not manslaughter charges.

I don't understand how he can be found guilty of "wanton and furious" driving. From what I understand he was doing 18mph, he wasn't on a pavement, he hadn't jumped a red light. That's not wanton or furious, he had every right to be where he was at the speed he was, his sole crime was not having a front brake and that's all he should have been convicted for.

In my view the pedestrian stepping out bears more responsibility here than the cyclist. Even if he'd had a front brake, if he'd been closer when she stepped out and/or the road had been wet then there would still have been an unavoidable collision.

And lastly I don't think enough attention has been given to the phenomenal amount of bad luck here. 10% of pedestrians hit by a car at 20mph are killed. A cyclist has less than a tenth of the kinetic energy of a car at the same speed, and it's estimated that the collision took place at "up to 14mph". It was a freak accident. 999 times out of 1000 they'd have both walked away from that crash with nothing worse than a few bumps and bruises and some choice words to each other.

Unfortunately in London collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are a common occurrence. As a city with a very high number of both making their respective ways about their daily business with both groups responsible for careless acts. Add in a large number of visitors/tourists and the presence of a large number of cycle routes that allow cyclists to be travelling from both directions alongside motor vehicles traveling along a main roadway in just one day recently in London I observed multiple times pedestrians step out directly in front of cyclists because they were either looking the wrong way or just blindly followed when other pedestrians crossed when the traffic had a green light.

With that said - and knowing that those are the conditions you encounter daily, which as he had been working as a courier for 8 months(?) he would have, he did not choose the right equipment for his job and the conditions. If you knowingly drive a vehicle that you know is un-roadworthy and get in an accident you would expect to get treated differently than if the vehicle was fit for its purpose.

Well I'm sure the CPS would have prosecuted him on a charge of "Wanton riding of a pedal cycle without functional brakes" if such a crime existed under UK law, but obviously it does not. The most applicable law was the one he was charged with and is defined as follows:

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

As stated above, there have been numerous requests to update the law in this area, but the scarcity of cases means that its not been looked at as quickly as it perhaps should have been. Even so, it should be obvious how the circumstances of this case meet those criteria.

Furthermore, the CPS don't proceed with "ridiculous" charges, there were very good grounds for the charge of manslaughter, although in this case the jury decided the offense fell short of the conditions required.

You might be better served doing some reading about the legal background of this case before sounding off about it, or at least leave those comments in the Daily Mail comments section where they can be safely ignored.

Precisely, and it was a key point in the prosecution's argument that both the bike and his behaviour were wilfully reckless given the conditions he was riding in and contributed significantly to the outcome of that situation.

I've done a bit of background reading, still haven't seen any good grounds for manslaughter charges. Happy to be enlightened if you can point me in the right direction. Motorists kill over 400 pedestrians a year in the UK and very few face manslaughter charges. Cyclists kill on average about 1 pedestrian per year, so for a cyclist to be charged with manslaughter seems very odd.

Based on the rare occasions I've ventured onto a Daily Mail article about cyclists, I suspect the vast majority would be quite happy to put this guy in jail and throw away the key. But it wouldn't be based on what he did, it would be based on a general hatred of cyclists, the way this guy looks, and his shitty behaviour since the crash. So if you think that me holding the pedestrian to account and feeling the cyclist has possibly been treated too harshly makes me a Daily Mail reader then you're very wrong.

I'm also a regular London cycle commuter. I see stupid behaviour from all sides every day. I have the utmost sympathy for the family of the lady who was killed. But still hold the view that she is primarily responsible for putting herself into harms way, the cyclist's stupidity in not having a front brake made a bad situation worse, and that far and away the biggest factor was incredibly bad luck. I have 2 good brakes and I ride sensibly in busy areas. I've still had several fairly robust collisions with pedestrians over the years (and regular close calls), I suspect at similar speeds to this incident, and nothing worse than bruises. As I said before and it's worth repeating - this was a freakishly unfortunate accident.

Hello cartsman and All,

My personal preference term (and also for most crash investigators)..... this was a freakishly unfortunate 'crash'.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12224806

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Holy shyte this happened on old street in shoreditch? This dude is either reckless or clueless. There is a bike lane shared with the buses. Buses don't usually overtake cyclists (besides a bike is faster than a city bus) but cyclists overtake buses all the time and there are a lot of bike commuters in that part of London. Well London in general really. The street is narrow - just one more lane each direction besides the bike/bus lane - and there are regular pedestrian crossings. What this dipshit did was downright suicidal.

I agree this should not be manslaughter for the simple reason that car drivers kill pedestrians too and they aren't charged with manslaughter.

He was also caning it, 30km/hr+ which is just plain stupid on the streets of London. Plus the fact he was on a fixie. I'm not sure whether he should go to jail or not. If she stepped out in front of him on her phone then maybe not.

There are billions of us interacting in life. Freak accidents happen. This is one of those. Yes he was irresponsible. She also sounds equally inattentive/irresponsible. My question is why should it matter if the fault of not having a front brake caused death or not? He should be penalized for no front brake irrelevant of the tragedy. Just like someone who didn't hurt anyone should be punished for the same crime. Just because stars align in a terrible freak situation, one should not be punished drastically more than the simple (dangerous) fact that he was riding an unbraked fixie. prayers her family and the young kid

Not sure about British law, but in Australia you're breaking the law riding a bike of any kind without functioning brakes.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

 

I've never been on a fixie and I'm too old to start. So school me: why does a front brake make it safer? I mean, if you stop pedaling, you're going to stop, right? I don't understand how a front brake makes it stop much faster (unless the chain breaks of course).

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

Hello Rider17 and All,

The case (in London) being discussed may not get the detailed investigation required to arrive at a fair judgment for the involved parties and remedial facility/equipment/policies recommendations.

With scant information as to the circumstances of this case I think we are speaking of hypothetical solutions/judgments.

However the case may highlight the increased positive separation required for pedestrians ... cyclists .... and motorists ...... noting that some pedestrians are getting more distracted than motorists these days and pedestrian casualties are on the increase.

Pedestrians may need more overpasses and barriers to protect them from themselves and from motorists and cyclists.

Also any vehicle operator needs to be fully in control of their lawfully equipped vehicle ..... and my preference would be strict liability for vehicle operators ... similar to the Netherlands.

In the sense that many pedestrians are being killed and even more seriously injured .... I would argue that this is not a freak accident.

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/19/pedestrians_are_hit_by_more_bicycli.php

Excerpt:

"Earlier research, based on a sample of hospitals nationwide, estimated that there were approximately 1,000 pedestrians hit by a cyclist each year in the United States who needed to obtain medical treatment at a hospital. This present study, based on every hospital in New York State, has found that in New York State alone, there were approximately 1000 pedestrians struck by cyclists each year necessitating medical treatment at a hospital."

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/.../factsheet_crash.cfm

Excerpts:

"In 2015, 5,376 pedestrians and 818 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts). These two modes accounted for 17.7 percent of the 35,092 total U.S. fatalities that year.

"In 2015, 5,376 people were killed in pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes, nearly 15 people every day of the year (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts). This represents the highest number of pedestrians killed in one year since 1996. Though total traffic fatalities in the US fell by nearly 18 percent from 2006 to 2015, pedestrian fatalities rose by 12 percent during the same ten year period."

"According to the 2012 National Survey on Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behaviors, poor quality facilities are the leading cause of pedestrian injury."

The case being discussed may not get the detailed investigation required to arrive at a fair judgment for the involved parties and remedial facility/equipment/policies recommendations ..... but on a more positive note ..... it may highlight the need for improved pedestrian separation from vehicles.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

The fixed gear only acts as a brake on the rear wheel, so you have half the stopping power of somebody who can brake both front and rear wheel. In practice, it's worse than that as when you brake hard your rear wheel starts to lift and loses traction and hence braking power. With good tires and brakes on a dry road, the limiter on how hard you can brake is going over the handlebars, not skidding. So if you had to only choose one brake for maximum stopping power it would be the front not the rear.

I feel qualified to answer this. I rode a fixie around London for 8 years. With a front brake.
The problem is that if you are pedaling you can either slow down your pedaling by resisting. Oil tanker captains compare a difficult to control ship to a brakeless fixie.
With skill you can pick up the back wheel and your stopping distance is not good. If you're feet are moving quickly it may not be possible to lock up. The pedals then kick your legs around. I've injured myself when this happens.
A front brake helps a huge amount in stopping and stopping with control.

My view that it was a freak accident wasn't based on the improbability of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian - that happens all the time - it was the improbability of somebody getting killed in such a collision at <14mph.

I think we could all cite cases the cps have dropped that were arguably ridiculous or should never have been pursued

Pedestrians are responsible for their safety. Stepping off the pavement, being unaware make her partly responsible. It does not exscuse him for failing to have a front brake

He's a bloody arse riding a track bike with no brakes in London.

Both are at fault but his actions do little for cyclists who get little sympathy or legal redress from wreckless and dangerous drivers who endanger cyclists every day.

I think in the UK we need more road safety awareness.

Too many people barely bother to look when crossing the road.

An informed (legal ) opinion on the matter

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge




In my opinion he is a complete arse, to put it lightly, but that isn't illegal.


I am amazed how little has been said in the mainstream press (in the UK) about pedestrians being responsible for their actions and not stepping into the road.
You don't step into the road expecting a cyclist to stop for you, the rules of the road don't work like that. The woman is also an idiot.


18mph is far slower than the speed limit (30) and many bikes travel at that speed, it was not excessive apart from when framed as such either for sensationalism or by a lawyer trying to secure his/her case.


The obtuse law used for prosecution was because that was all the was available that might secure a conviction to provide the (potential) maximum punishment. Something I also find a little odd, that they (they being the CPS and the police) try to find the strongest possible law that has been broken rather than the most reasonable. I know the jury ultimately decides on this but it also smacks of some bias.