Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[srw]

Unless you are using Google on an anonymous machine in an Internet cafe, isn't it the case that the position of a link in the search results is influenced by your previous browsing history, so the fact that all of us find this thread very readily when we google is (a) not surprising and (b) not necessarily predictive of what jurors would find?

(This doesn't affect the principle you are each arguing, just the evidence for it)

I believe that various factors, including browsing history, cookies, location and login are taken into account. Controlling for all apart from location using a clean private browsing tab I find very similar results. Of course private browsing (incognito in Chrome) might not be as anonymous as I think.

The reason I chucked the word "forum" in is because his comments are widely reported as having been made on a Cycling forum, and because if I want to know what the knowledgeable think I'd turn to a forum.

Actually, like @Pale Rider I suspect that jurors will typically behave responsibly. But as the stern government advice implies that doesn't absolve the rest of us from our responsibility to do the same.

The instruction to jurors typically stresses the prohibition on doing internet research about a case. I've never heard a judge tell a jury they can't read newspapers.

You've probably heard many more of these warnings than I have - the last time I did jury service was before widespread public internet access. But newspapers are written by professional journalists and editors and have legal advice on tap. I am not a journalist, but I'd expect "how not to do something illegal" would be a core part of training, So the absence of the warning reflects the stricter standards of newspapers compared with the wilds of the internet.

My suspicion is that all the newspapers already have opinion pieces ready to go immediately the verdict has been reached. More depressingly, they're all predictable, and even worse I suspect more than one has been researched by using this thread.

 

[srw]

Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, lfgss forum is holding their discussion in a members only section.

A different general interest cycling forum has discussions in a public thread headed "super-twat". The law is immature, and I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that sooner or later forums will catch up with newspapers and squish - hard - discussion of criminal cases before they're completed. All it will take is a single prosecution of a forum host.

 

[Firestorm]

A different general interest cycling forum has discussions in a public thread headed "super-twat". The law is immature, and I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that sooner or later forums will catch up with newspapers and squish - hard - discussion of criminal cases before they're completed. All it will take is a single prosecution of a forum host.

I am active on a football forum in which a recent case involving fans of the club was discussed. The thread was heavily moderated with posts being frequently deleted.

 

[User33236]

Unless you are using Google on an anonymous machine in an Internet cafe, isn't it the case that the position of a link in the search results is influenced by your previous browsing history, so the fact that all of us find this thread very readily when we google is (a) not surprising and (b) not necessarily predictive of what jurors would find?

(This doesn't affect the principle you are each arguing, just the evidence for it)

I, too, believe that results are influenced by your search history. The results got by asking my daughter, who is much more interested in make-up and fashion than cycling, to run the search of her own laptop at her home thus, hopefully, getting a more general result.

 

[srw]

[QUOTE 4922967, member: 1314"]who have 'young' males been a danger to on the roads? Themselves, their cars, their passengers, other road users?[/QUOTE]

All the above.

[QUOTE 4922967, member: 1314"]And what are these figures compared to other road users? E.g why is there a grotesque disproportionate of fatal incidents with cyclists and pedestrians involving tipper trucks driven by middle-aged men?[/QUOTE]

Because you're only looking at London. The common thread in London is the lorries and their owners, not the drivers.

 

[srw]

[QUOTE 4923009, member: 1314"]So the insurers take into account that the tipper-truck drivers who drive through London during rush-hour that they insure are employed by companies with dodgy daily targets and trucks?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Actual claims experience has a strong influence over pricing for that sort of insurance.

[QUOTE 4923009, member: 1314"]I'm still interested in looking at detail as to actually who are 'young' drivers a 'menace' to but with detail and compare this with other demographics. As an insurer I'm sure you will have the stats.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily in my company - we avoid young drivers precisely because they are high-risk, so we don't have the stats. Even if we did they'd be proprietary. You'll simply have to accept that this is a subject I know quite a lot about - young drivers are a danger both to their passengers and to other road users, so give rise to lots of expensive claims and so get hit with very high premiums. If they were safe in the same way as (say) their 40-something parents then there would be a race to provide insurance to them cheaply.

 

[Will Spin]

I'm enjoying myself reporting each new thread with a new word. We're up to sextuplication now.

Hope you're keeping on the trail then!

 

[Origamist]

Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, lfgss forum is holding their discussion in a members only section.

There are two threads where this subject is being discussed on lfgss - one in the members only area, the other in a non-members area...

I'll save my armchair pontificating until the verdict is in...

 

[Drago]

Good heavens above. This is news to me!

 

[Drago]

Didn't have time to brake, yet had time to shout at her in the hope that she had time to avoid him.

And as she lay on the ground fatally injured he gobbed off at her.

Send him down, lock him up, throw away the key.

 

[srw]

He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.

Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.

This thread is on page 1 of the Google results for "Charlie Alliston forum", and is result number 3 for "Charlie Alliston cycling forum." Given the reporting, both are likely search terms. No other public discussion appears until page 3 of either search.

We are not a quiet, private, discussion.

Another control experiment now that I'm at home. Microsoft Edge (a browser I never use), using "InPrivate" browsing (a functionality I never use on that browser) and Bing search (a search engine I never use). About as close to a clean civilian search as you can get.

This thread is on page 2 of the results for "Charlie Alliston". The specific post of mine I'm quoting is now number 1 result for "Charlie Alliston forum". Which is scary. Using other plausible search terms like "cyclist killed pedestrian" other cycling forums appear higher than this one.

 

[KnackeredBike]

Didn't have time to brake, yet had time to shout at her in the hope that she had time to avoid him.

And as she lay on the ground fatally injured he gobbed off at her.

Send him down, lock him up, throw away the key.

If you've ever had an accident you will know that your first reaction is rarely the one you follow through with.

Last time I was knocked off my bike.

1. Pull out into centre of road to make myself more visible.
2. Try to swerve out of path.
3. Swear as the sodding car pulls across the entire road.
4. Try as far as possible to hit the rear wing at an angle rather than dead one.
5. Retract limbs so only my foot gets run over by the car.

However, pretty much everything you do is instinctive rather than carefully thought through.

All that in the space of a few seconds. Often shouting out is enough to avoid an accident.with a ped or other cyclist.

 

[classic33]

Another control experiment now that I'm at home. Microsoft Edge (a browser I never use), using "InPrivate" browsing (a functionality I never use on that browser) and Bing search (a search engine I never use). About as close to a clean civilian search as you can get.

This thread is on page 2 of the results for "Charlie Alliston". The specific post of mine I'm quoting is now number 1 result for "Charlie Alliston forum". Which is scary. Using other plausible search terms like "cyclist killed pedestrian" other cycling forums appear higher than this one.

Done a similar search, using the victims name(firefox & bing), TV & Newspapers take the first 8 pages.

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 4923326, member: 1314"]You haven't answered my questions. Take it into another separate thread for reasons outlined earlier.[/QUOTE]
Most under 18 would be stopped, if they were driving by themselves. As to who they're a danger to, @srw has already answered. I'm not in London by the way. Local figures on vehicles stopped for speeding, show that the drivers tend to be newly qualified and/or young.

There's a straight stretch of road nearby. A few years ago it had a car that was "only doing thirty" according to the driver, leave after hitting an unseen patch of black ice, drivers description, fly through the air for close on 50 yards before coming to rest on the remains of the roof of the garage next to the house. Destroying two cars and the garage they were parked in. He was a teenager at the the time, aged 19.

 

[bladesman73]

"Kid" doesn't mean "person below the age of legal responsibility". It means "young person". And I'm afraid it is absolutely true that "kids" on the road are a menace. The most dangerous road users bar none are young men in cars - there's a reason it costs an arm and a leg to insure them.

i disagree. in my experience the most dangerous drivers are the elderly and middle aged men. the former as i have seen plenty at junctions pull out totally oblivious to other traffic. almost all near misses i have had involved old biddies who were simply not concentrating. the latter as they are the ones who i see are aggressive towards cyclists and treat us with contempt.