London fixed wheel cyclist Charlie Alliston sentenced to 18 months in young offenders institution

Stumps wrote:

He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever. 

Had the roles been reversed and a cyclist was killed by someone driving a vehicle there would be pyres being built and loads of you out with your pitchforks after the driver was sentenced to 18 months.

Maybe he did 'deserve it'. Two things bother me. First, many drivers kill at least as casually and are acquitted ( Measures) or not even tried (Purcell). Second, the Briggs vengeance campaign,band the way it and the reporting of this case encourage anti cycling sentiment and probably regulation.

One horrible accident is being used to justify sweeping, probably dangerous, changes to law. Does this not trouble you?

tinguinha wrote:

"he swerved to avoid the idiot who casually walked out into traffic and clearly by the timescale given dawdled across the road without looking for even a split second."

 

Everyone makes mistakes, and this poor woman paid for hers with her life. Calling her an idiot because she got killed for the mistake of taking a step without properly looking makes you look unbelievably callous. 

If I stepped out in front of you on your morning commute but instead of colliding with me, you somehow miraculously managed to miss me, I imagine you'd be describing me in more colourful terms than "idiot". Ms Briggs death is very unfortunate. However, stepping out into the road without looking is idiotic; the fact that Mrs Briggs died as a result (at least partly) of doing so doesn't mean it wasn't an idiotic thing to do.

Alliston and Mrs Briggs both made a number of mistakes that are typically of little or no consequence. Many of us make some or all of the same mistakes every day. 

Alliston's biggest crime appears to be that he's an objectionable young man. I know lots of objectionable young men (who show no remorse about being objectionable) who appear not to have been incarcerated.  I'm relying on media reports, but anecdote would suggest that you get a second chance (so "driver will have to live with this all of his/her life") in a motor vehicle.

Stumps wrote:

 just because someone is cleared of an offence it doesn't mean they didn't do it, you know that as well as anyone.  

And just because someone was convicted of something doesn't mean they actually did it.  Ask every victim of a miscarriage of justice, ever.  Sometimes, someone is convicted because they fit into a convenient narrative (not just from the media, but the police, or the judiciary, or even the vigilante neighbours).

kitsunegari wrote:

It's worth reposting this link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-w... beacuse it sums up well the bias and double standards that we are so sick of seeing.

But that article is based on a flawed understanding of the case.  Martin Porter claims "The allegation against Alliston essentially related to the absence of a front brake on his bicycle." That's just wrong.  Sure, the unroadworthy bike was a key aspect of the case.  But it wasn't the only one.

Just as key was the fact that Alliston could have done more to prevent the collision but CHOSE not to.  He initially slowed down but then maintained his speed when he could have slowed further.  His primary motivation was not to avoid an accident, but that he felt "entitled" to go on (as he put it in court).  

As the judge's sentencing statement says: "On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident." 

surly_by_name wrote:

Alliston's biggest crime appears to be that he's an objectionable young man. I know lots of objectionable young men (who show no remorse about being objectionable) who appear not to have been incarcerated.  I'm relying on media reports, but anecdote would suggest that you get a second chance (so "driver will have to live with this all of his/her life") in a motor vehicle.

I don't dispute any of that, but it's a separate issue.

Stepping out into the road without looking may be "idiotic" but we all make idiotic or careless mistakes; one doesn't make us an idiot. Calling the victim here an idiot is callous and is the sort of thing that people will gladly seize on to attack cyclists. 

rollotommasi wrote:

kitsunegari wrote:

It's worth reposting this link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-w... beacuse it sums up well the bias and double standards that we are so sick of seeing.

 

But that article is based on a flawed understanding of the case.  Martin Porter claims "The allegation against Alliston essentially related to the absence of a front brake on his bicycle." That's just wrong.  Sure, the unroadworthy bike was a key aspect of the case.  But it wasn't the only one.

Just as key was the fact that Alliston could have done more to prevent the collision but CHOSE not to.  He initially slowed down but then maintained his speed when he could have slowed further.  His primary motivation was not to avoid an accident, but that he felt "entitled" to go on (as he put it in court).  

As the judge's sentencing statement says: "On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident." 

Well, he wasn't smart enough to just use the usual motorist defence and just claim he 'didn't see' the victim, and didn't know what happened or why. Had he done so he'd presumably have gotten off, as in the Michael Mason or Daniel Squire cases.

The chap was apparently too thick to lie, and has been punished accordingly.

Cyclists should take a leaf out of the motorist's book and cultivate the habit of just not looking where they are going. If you make sure you don't notice the person you hit you can't be held responsible for hitting them. If you foolishly look where you are going then you can. That seems to be how it works.

tinguinha wrote:

surly_by_name wrote:

Alliston's biggest crime appears to be that he's an objectionable young man. I know lots of objectionable young men (who show no remorse about being objectionable) who appear not to have been incarcerated.  I'm relying on media reports, but anecdote would suggest that you get a second chance (so "driver will have to live with this all of his/her life") in a motor vehicle.

 

I don't dispute any of that, but it's a separate issue.

Stepping out into the road without looking may be "idiotic" but we all make idiotic or careless mistakes; one doesn't make us an idiot. Calling the victim here an idiot is callous and is the sort of thing that people will gladly seize on to attack cyclists. 

Again, for the hard of reading;

If a cyclist pulls out into a busy road, part ways crosses, hears the sound of a horn, ignores it, still dawdles to cross (when it wasn't clear to cross in any case but still let's carry on with the similarities) then a second or so later hears a horn again, pedals backwards into the path of the car a few metres before the car would be at that collision point.

Firstly, the drivers brain cannot compute fast enough to even hit the brake, an unexpected scenario like a cycllist coming back into their path takes around 1.5seconds (this is the accepted timescale for a good/alert driver to react to an unknown event). You haven't even taken into account mechanical action time (another 0.4seconds) before the brakes actually start to function.

So the car despite going only 10mph will continue to go 10mph until well past the collision point, say the cyclist dies, the cyclist is at fault for the incident and frankly is an idiot. Sad for the cyclist but they would be at fault for ignoring what was going on around them, not making normal progress across the road and for salmoning back into harms way.

The motorist has slowed right down, sure, honking the horn isn't ideal but they've slowed to a very slow speed and trying to take avoiding action to avoid a collision. When many mistakes by one part occur in a short space of time it's often too much for the other party to overcome even if they have the best brakes in the world and the best intentions, having being in a very similar situation (but I ended up being the injured party and the idiotic ped got off scott free) I know full well how things unfold and that you cannot always account for the stupid and idiotic decisions made by others.

Stumps wrote:

He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever. 

Had the roles been reversed and a cyclist was killed by someone driving a vehicle there would be pyres being built and loads of you out with your pitchforks after the driver was sentenced to 18 months.

Do please let us know when a person on a bike pulled out into oncoming traffic without looking, hung around so long that the driver having slowed (because they thought you were crossing normally) steers to avoid at 10mph and the person then salmons back into the path of the car inexplicably and is killed.

In that scenario the person riding a bike is at fault.
More importantly people on bikes are rarely if ever killed in that way in the UK. Certainly of all the cases ive read in the last few years (of cyclist's being killed) none have been anything like that.
So whatever nonsense your spouting is exactly that.

Stumps wrote:

700c - just because someone is cleared of an offence it doesn't mean they didn't do it, you know that as well as anyone.  

As for the braking distance test done by the Police i wholeheartedly agree its totally crap but if the defence are unable to show that then thats hardly the fault of the prosecution. 

 

But it does point to a problem with the justice system, that it is so dependent on a defendent having the financial resources (and, to be fair, brainpower) to challenge such pisspoor police 'evidence'.

Stumps wrote:

Behindthebikesheds - please dont try and twist things, you know exactly what i meant by my comments but if its to difficult to understand i'll say it again-

"had a cyclist been killed by a vehicle and the driver was given 18 months people would be up in arms saying the sentence was to lenient."

There now does that make it more simple for you to understand. 

 

 

That's not really true, unless you add the clause "on this forum" after "people". The media in general would not give a toss.

Stumps wrote:

He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever. 

Cleared of manslaughter he did not kill anybody.

It's a tragedy that this collision resulted in somebody's death. Could have been his own if they'd fallen a little differently and extremely unlucky and rare outcome in any case. He deserved to be prosecuted for the negligence of not having adequate brakes. The contribution of this to the poor woman's death is not as clear cut as the prosecution made out. You can die from a head injury falling from 5 foot high onto the pavement.

What people are angry about is the double standards, the biased media coverage and the anti cyclist / hipster BS which seems to have influenced the CPS and the judge in this case.

Interesting that you don't address any of these issues in your response including the dodgy 'expert evidence' on braking distances, given by the police.

Stumps wrote:

He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever. 

Had the roles been reversed and a cyclist was killed by someone driving a vehicle there would be pyres being built and loads of you out with your pitchforks after the driver was sentenced to 18 months.

The chances of a motorist driving well under the speed limit getting 18 months for killing a pedestrian who walked out into the road in front of them with six metres stopping distance = zero. Remember as a motorist you don't even get charged if you drive right over and kill a cyclist riding in front of you in full compliance with the law and lit up with lights and hi-viz,  and offer literally no explanation whatsoever for having done so. 

rollotommasi wrote:

I've seen several comments here complaining that Alliston has been treated more harshly than a driver would in similar circumstances.  But none of these comments showcase examples which  compare like with like.

Alliston's crime wasn't being involved in an incident that resulted in someone's death.  It's because he chose to act and behave in ways which were clearly dangerous, as the judge's statement makes clear.  Riding what he knew (or should have known) was an unroadworthy bicycle, unsafe for street conditions.  Riding recklessly and failing to take all reasonable steps to slow down or stop to prevent the accident - which included trying to force his way through a narrow gap between a parked lorry and the victim.  And failing to show remorse for his actions.

Perhaps these apologists for Alliston need to consider this.  As the judge said, Alliston was an accident waiting to happen.  In the end, it was a pedestrian who got in his way and lost her life.  But it could just as easily have been another cyclist. 

 

I see what you done there.

don simon wrote:

he chose to act and behave in ways which were clearly dangerous, as the judge's statement makes clear.

Something which applies to any number of killer drivers, a third of whom end up not doing any jail time at all.

Heck, choosing to drive a car at all, for any journey that could be undertaken by a different mode, is 'chosing to act and behave in ways which are clearly dangerous'. Almost all those road deaths that are determined not to be anyone's fault (but rather blamed on that wicked weather or the malevolent sun, etc), would not happen if the motorised party hadn't decided to drive that journey. Their choice to drive created the danger.

(Not even mentioning the _certainty_ of adverse health effects for people as a result of choosing to pump crap into the air by choosing to drive).

The problem is, because the tolerated level of danger for driving is set so high, it takes a lot to attract any special penalty. This doesn't appear to be the case for cycling, where the acceptable level is apparently much lower.

The double-standard is quite obvious.

don simon wrote:

rollotommasi wrote:

I've seen several comments here complaining that Alliston has been treated more harshly than a driver would in similar circumstances.  But none of these comments showcase examples which  compare like with like.

Alliston's crime wasn't being involved in an incident that resulted in someone's death.  It's because he chose to act and behave in ways which were clearly dangerous, as the judge's statement makes clear.  Riding what he knew (or should have known) was an unroadworthy bicycle, unsafe for street conditions.  Riding recklessly and failing to take all reasonable steps to slow down or stop to prevent the accident - which included trying to force his way through a narrow gap between a parked lorry and the victim.  And failing to show remorse for his actions.

Perhaps these apologists for Alliston need to consider this.  As the judge said, Alliston was an accident waiting to happen.  In the end, it was a pedestrian who got in his way and lost her life.  But it could just as easily have been another cyclist. 

 

I see what you done there.

it was also the judge that claimed

1. Not wearing a helmet showed irresponsibility

2. He did not slow (in 6m he slowed from 18mph to 12 mph according to the evidence).

3. His shouting warnings was an aggravating factor.

If driving an illegal bike and in such a manner that it will take 12 m to stop is "furious driving" then surely any driver caught driving a much heavier car in a built up area at over 30mph is much worse.

All you are likely to get for that is points on a licence which are ignored even when you get to 30 points or more if you can say you need your car for work.

There seems to be a lot of effort to convict this cyclist despite not really fitting into any crimes and just as much effort not to even try to convict drivers for at least equally dangerous acts.

ooldbaker wrote:

it was also the judge that claimed

1. Not wearing a helmet showed irresponsibility

2. He did not slow (in 6m he slowed from 18mph to 12 mph according to the evidence).

3. His shouting warnings was an aggravating factor.

If driving an illegal bike and in such a manner that it will take 12 m to stop is "furious driving" then surely any driver caught driving a much heavier car in a built up area at over 30mph is much worse.

All you are likely to get for that is points on a licence which are ignored even when you get to 30 points or more if you can say you need your car for work.

There seems to be a lot of effort to convict this cyclist despite not really fitting into any crimes and just as much effort not to even try to convict drivers for at least equally dangerous acts.

1. The judge referred to not wearing a helmet only once, and in passing, and it had no bearing on her judgment.  She referred to it in the context of Alliston himself making parallels between his cycling and the dangerous riding in Lucas Brunelle movies.

2. He slowed to between 10-14 mph at the junction.  He had plenty of opportunity to slow further, but he made the conscious decision not to, stating in court "I was entitled to go on".

3. His shouting warnings were an aggravating factor, because he was placing the full onus on Mrs Briggs to get out of his way. He was doing nothing more to try to avoid the accident.  He could have tried to slow himself down, but he decided not to.

Most crimes require both deed (an offence to be committed) and underlying intent to commit a felony.  It's clear from the judgement that Alliston displayed the intent of someone who was driving furiously.

rollotommasi wrote:

ooldbaker wrote:

it was also the judge that claimed

1. Not wearing a helmet showed irresponsibility

2. He did not slow (in 6m he slowed from 18mph to 12 mph according to the evidence).

3. His shouting warnings was an aggravating factor.

If driving an illegal bike and in such a manner that it will take 12 m to stop is "furious driving" then surely any driver caught driving a much heavier car in a built up area at over 30mph is much worse.

All you are likely to get for that is points on a licence which are ignored even when you get to 30 points or more if you can say you need your car for work.

There seems to be a lot of effort to convict this cyclist despite not really fitting into any crimes and just as much effort not to even try to convict drivers for at least equally dangerous acts.

1. The judge referred to not wearing a helmet only once, and in passing, and it had no bearing on her judgment.  She referred to it in the context of Alliston himself making parallels between his cycling and the dangerous riding in Lucas Brunelle movies.

2. He slowed to between 10-14 mph at the junction.  He had plenty of opportunity to slow further, but he made the conscious decision not to, stating in court "I was entitled to go on".

3. His shouting warnings were an aggravating factor, because he was placing the full onus on Mrs Briggs to get out of his way. He was doing nothing more to try to avoid the accident.  He could have tried to slow himself down, but he decided not to.

Most crimes require both deed (an offence to be committed) and underlying intent to commit a felony.  It's clear from the judgement that Alliston displayed the intent of someone who was driving furiously.

Thought i should respond to you as below:
I've had similar experiences as Alliston where even the best of brakes would not have made an outta of difference let alone having an opportunity or time to even apply them as in 1 instance, where only swift actions of steering left to right in the opposite directions to the pedestrian movements avoided a collision and the road free of cars allowed me to do that. Here again pedestrian neglected to use a lit zebra crossing only few metres ahead. 2nd instance was when a pedestrian appeared directly in my path despite myself in hi-vis. This happened so suddenly and unexpectantly that the only way to decribe it was is that i went into autopilot and it was not me making the decisions as i recall applying brakes and releasing them, simultaneously shouting out 2 audible warnings and pedestrian still in my path, not even looking to his right as i approached. I probably slowed to about 15mph from about 18mph and it was only when i was about a meter or 2 from impact, did he notice and jump out of the way. I can now officially say that actually, depending on your skills and experience, your auto reactions will takeover and do whats necessary to save harm to yourself..you will not be able to make ANY conscious decisions yourself. As a teenager i have tipped over during panic braking and other times back wheel lifting during heavy breaking. So i have learnt emergency braking can be dangerous on 2 wheels which is why i can say for certain i automatically released the brakes to remain in control for my own safety. That cop video stopping test is a fraud and too scared to do an actual reconstrution of the accident. To stop in 3metres from 18mph no human on any bike could possibly acheive without cheating which is what cops did as the back wheel did not lift therefore cop braked many meters before the cone..serious skulduggery. Any such tests should be government approved as are stopping distances for cars. I hope courts do not use this much critised test as a benchmark in future cases.

tinguinha wrote:

Something that needs to be repeated a lot more widely is that his bike, even without a front brake and based on the apparently very sloppy police tests, had pretty much the same stopping distance as cars driving at that speed (large cars presumably have longer stopping distances than that, and of course cars, unlike bicycles, often travel at much greater speeds).  A properly functioning car under the same circumstances would also have hit the unfortunate victim, with a lot more force. 

Thank you.  I'll just repeat that again.  Also, notice in the sentencing remarks linked previously, that that judge claims that the absence of a front brake increased the stopping distance four fold.  I would wager that most commuters do _not_ know how to do a Quick Stop.