Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[Venod]

Do you really imagine it's in any way sensible to make a new law because one person unluckily died but not surprisedand the man responsible had to be tried under an old law?

I have posted up thread somewhere that I think the Wanton and Dangerous cycling law needs bringing into the 21st century, I am just appalled but not surprised that it took the death of a pedestrian for it to be considered, I agree this is not sensible.

 

[Venod]

No pedal reflectors dangerous?

Not as dangerous as no brakes, and only needed during lighting up hours, but it is the law to have them and no doubt it would be used against you if you was without and someone rear ended you.

 

[Venod]

Nothing has been brought about, yet.

Except the fact that it is been considered.

 

[Venod]

An awful lot of things are considered.

I have edited my post to suit.

 

[Venod]

No they didn't. They used the manslaughter charge to do that.

Yes you are right, but I think the prosecution knew if he was found not guilty of manslaughter he was still likely to receive a jail sentence if convicted of Wanton or Furious driving.

 

[oldstrath]

Yes you are right, but I think the prosecution new if he was found not guilty of manslaughter he was still likely to receive a jail sentence if convicted of Wanton or Furious driving.

So how is this different from someone charged with death by dangerous driving, with the fallback of death by careless?

 

[Venod]

So how is this different from someone charged with death by dangerous driving, with the fallback of death by careless?

Because as I have already pointed out riding without a brake could be considered as dangerous cycling, I don't see how riding without a brake can be considered as Wanton or Furious Driving.

Definition of Wanton or Furious Driving.

"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.

I suppose you could argue that neglecting to have a front brake is covered.

 

[Dan B]

As a matter of curiosity, I wonder what the braking distances were of the horse-drawn carriages that the authors of the "wanton or furious" legislation presumably had in mind when that legislation was enacted.

 

[oldstrath]

Because as I have already pointed out riding without a brake could be considered as dangerous cycling, I don't see how riding without a brake can be considered as Wanton or Furious Driving.

Definition of Wanton or Furious Driving.

"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.

I suppose you could argue that neglecting to have a front brake is covered.

Wilful misconduct -he rode a bike that he (should) know was not legal for road use.
Wilful neglect - he rode close to a pedestrian, arguably too quickly.
Bodily harm - did that.

I really don't see your problem. He was judged to have breached the law, was sentenced accordingly. If the only concern is to ensure that people who do such things are punished, why does this need to be changed?

 

[Venod]

I really don't see your problem

I don't have a problem, if the law wasn't changed I still wouldn't have a problem, but I think it does no harm to bring laws that were formed in the nineteenth century up to date, one of the main differences is the maximum sentence allowed, (I am not suggesting it should be more in this case) but I think it should be the same as the dangerous driving guideline.

 

[oldstrath]

I don't have a problem, if the law wasn't changed I still wouldn't have a problem, but I think it does no harm to bring laws that were formed in the nineteenth century up to date, one of the main differences is the maximum sentence allowed, (I am not suggesting it should be more in this case) but I think it should be the same as the dangerous driving guideline.

So how would you ensure that the test of 'competent and experienced cyclist' is applied in the same way, and with no more stringency, than the current competent and experienced driver test?

Think about this - I haven't driven for 20 years, so to me any mistake , however trivial most regular drivers might think it, would be careless at least. I'd happily hold drivers to almost impossible standards - I have no recent experience to temper my zeal. But most jurors aren't like me with respect to driving, so many drivers are acquitted. But most jurors will be like me for cycling. That's the big risk.

And by the way, the manslaughter charge he faced carries a higher maximum than death by dangerous.

 

[Milkfloat]

I don't have a problem, if the law wasn't changed I still wouldn't have a problem, but I think it does no harm to bring laws that were formed in the nineteenth century up to date, one of the main differences is the maximum sentence allowed, (I am not suggesting it should be more in this case) but I think it should be the same as the dangerous driving guideline.

In an idea world we would have perfect laws to suit each case - in reality we need to work on priorities. In this case a knobber did something bad and was punished using an adequate law. Rather than wasting resources changing that law, perhaps they could be used to enforce the 400 times more likely situation of a motorist killing a pedestrian?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

as I have already pointed out riding without a brake could be considered as dangerous cycling

No, the relevant legislation doesn't provide for that, whereas it is specifically mentioned in the offence of dangerous driving. Dangerous cycling, at present, refers only to the manner of riding.

 

[mjr]

I'm not sure why that is an issue. Alternative charges are a common things - including for motorists.

Are they common for motorists? http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...arising_from_driving_incidents/index.html#a19 contains things like "Unlawful act manslaughter should, therefore, only be charged instead of causing death by dangerous driving where there is evidence that the driver either intended to cause injury to the victim or was reckless as to whether injury would be caused" and "Gross negligence manslaughter should not be charged unless there is something to set the case apart from those cases where a statutory offence such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving could be proved."

There doesn't seem much suggestion of using manslaughter as an alternative charge to the motorist-specific driving offences, only "instead of". I'm sure I read allegations somewhere that the CPS guidance currently means few motorists face manslaughter charges.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

No they didn't. They used the manslaughter charge to do that.

Remind me when the Act that created GBH and ABH was passed please....