Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[GrumpyGregry]

He wasn't scapegoated. He was prosecuted.

And he made a rod for his own back by being an ignorant, arrogant pr*ck.

You can't say that. He is young. He is a cyclist. He did nothing wrong. It was an accident.

'kin nobbers.

 

[MacB]

This is tough, I instinctively recoil from him due to his attitude but being a Nobber, apart from on CC, is no grounds for prosecution. I mentioned earlier in the thread he was 18, that wasn't to excuse him as a child but to highlight the level of ignorance and arrogance we all had at that sort of age...or at least I know I did. I know a lot has been made of his lack of remorse/empathy but that smacks of 'expectations' to me. Were he a model student, who was smart enough to blub and look distraught everything might have been different, though maybe the rampant cyclist hating media would still have had their field day.

Despite his failings intent matters to me and I actually believe he didn't know his bike wasn't street legal and that he believed in his 'skills' to an unreasonable level.

 

[PK99]

Despite his failings intent matters to me and I actually believe he didn't know his bike wasn't street legal and that he believed in his 'skills' to an unreasonable level.

The reported evidence that he told the guy he bought the bike from that he wanted it to ride on the track seems to indicate he did know it was not street legal.

 

[Yellow Fang]

There was a lot wrong. For starters he should not have been on the road. And 18mph is too fast,in pedestrian busy areas, with little braking.
However scapegoating a cyclist whilst continually letting off motorists' who kill thousands is serious prejudice.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

I read that. It sounds like some irrelevant stuff was brought up at the trial, such as him not wearing a helmet.
Why is 18 mph too fast for a cyclist when 20 mph is ok for other road traffic?

He had less than a second to react. Even if he'd had a front brake he probably could not have halted, so he might have tried to swerve anyway. OTOH, he might have halved his speed with a front brake, but she would probably still have been knocked over.

I remember at college one of my friends got knocked off his bike when an old lady stepped on the road without looking. She got all the sympathy from the by-passers, but she was not hurt, unlike my friend who was.

 

[MacB]

The reported evidence that he told the guy he bought the bike from that he wanted it to ride on the track seems to indicate he did know it was not street legal.

That's an assumption I've seen no evidence for, you may be right but I'm not sure he'd have been smart enough to make that up.

 

[slowmotion]

He had a bike that wasn't street legal. I didn't hear the evidence in court, but apart from the lack of front brakes, none of the press reports that I've read indicated that his riding was reckless. If someone steps out in front of you, you can brake or you can change course suddenly. If you try and do both, you are probably on the tarmac. He made a bad decision. I see a dozen instances of riding each day that are far more reckless than his. Fortunately they have less tragic consequences.


Edit: Sorry. Cross post with Yellow Fang.

 

[PK99]

"She was stupid and stepped out in front of a cyclist" Vs "She was stupid and rode up the inside of a left indicating HGV"

 

[MacB]

"She was stupid and stepped out in front of a cyclist" Vs "She was stupid and rode up the inside of a left indicating HGV"

We do get the 'victim blaming' point you are repeatedly making but you keep comparing apples and oranges.

 

[PK99]

He had a bike that wasn't street legal. I didn't hear the evidence in court, but apart from the lack of front brakes, none of the press reports that I've read indicated that his riding was reckless. If someone steps out in front of you, you can brake or your can change course suddenly. If you try and do both, you are probably on the tarmac. He made a bad decision. I see a dozen instances of riding each day that are far more reckless than his. Fortunately they have less tragic consequences.


Edit: Sorry. Cross post with Yellow Fang.

Reckless = heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous.

riding a street illegal bike at speed in an area busy with pedestrians seems to meet the dictionary definition square on.

 

[slowmotion]

"She was s

Reckless = heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous.

riding a street illegal bike at speed in an area busy with pedestrians seems to meet the dictionary definition square on.

I gave my opinion on his lack of brakes. I have no idea if it contributed to the accident. I don't ride down busy urban roads at 18mph but I have heard that some of those motorists out there do.

 

[lazybloke]

The only thing that amazes me about this case is the 'expert' advice about stopping distances.
Hopelessly optimistic for my road bike (Tektro dual pivot brakes).
Not even realistic for my mountain bike (disc brakes, recent change of pads).

(based on some slow speed testing after work earlier)

 

[Wobblers]

Have you got a link?

According to the CTC, there were an average of 39 pedestrians killed on footways and verges each year. There's a reference to the DfT Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2010-2012, though I don't have the time to wade through the document.

It's much better than I thought, which is good: I was probably confusing the cyclist fatality rate.

 

[Wobblers]

in no way comparable.

the case you cite involved a momentary lapse with tragic consequences.

The current case involved long term deliberate flouting of the Law.

the guy claimed he did not know it was illegal to not have a front brake yet told the bloke he bought it from he wanted it to ride on the track.

You're right. One was on the carriageway - where he should have been, and at least made some minimal effort at mitigation.

The other drove his large tipper truck onto what is supposed to be a protected space for pedestrians, where it is illegal for him to be, without due regard as to whether or not it was safe to do so.

Which is worse, do you think?

Incidentally, had an incident of this nature happened on a building site or loading bay, you can be quite sure that the HSE would have been all over it with a view to prosecuting the driver or company (or both).

 

[srw]

According to the CTC, there were an average of 39 pedestrians killed on footways and verges each year. There's a reference to the DfT Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2010-2012, though I don't have the time to wade through the document.

It's much better than I thought, which is good: I was probably confusing the cyclist fatality rate.

Thank you. In the context of 400 pedestrian deaths a year, 40 on pavements sounds more likely than 100. I do remember once finding it, because I was curious about how many pedestrian deaths occurred on the roadway and crossings.

 

[srw]

Why is 18 mph too fast for a cyclist when 20 mph is ok for other road traffic?

20mph isn't OK for other road traffic in central London. It's freakishly fast.

Anyone who's ever ridden a bike in central London will know that 18mph is far too fast to be safe to be riding near unpredictable pedestrians. That's a speed to do on a clear road with decent visibility, or when you're riding in the middle of clear-flowing traffic, as traffic.

And to clear one other thing up - Alliston spent time working as a bike courier and was a fan of alley-cat racing. If he didn't understand more than most of us here about the law on brakes and the techniques of track riding then I've got a bridge I'd like to interest you in.