Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

More likely the prosecution thought/hoped that if found guilty of the driving charge a guilty verdict had to be forthcoming for the manslaughter charge. From my reading one should logically follow the other. But juries don't like to convict for manslaughter in road traffic "accident" cases.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

Common to be charged with both dangerous and careless offences. Common to be acquitted of both, or given a derisory sentence IF YOU'RE A DRIVER.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

Call me old fashioned but to this competent and careful cyclist riding a fixed gear with no front brake on the roads of central London is riding in a way that would be dangerous.

 

[mjr]

As @bigjim has pointed out, the headline is not the inquest report - the "collision investigator Kevin Spiller said CCTV showed the cyclist was travelling at around 24mph on Church Road, but he was unable to tell whether Mr Pedley had just ridden past a green or red light." according to the GloucestershireLive report of the inquest proceedings, but this wasn't good enough for the Mail, which had the cyclist running a red.
"A cyclist who died after running down a pedestrian near a busy junction may have jumped a red light moments before the collision, an inquest has heard."

(OK, it says "may have", but that's good enough for Mail readers to make the obvious conclusion!)

I couldn't make this stuff up: police apparently said they would have prosecuted Pedley if he'd survived. I suppose at least it suggests TVP are open about how much they hate cyclists.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Call me old fashioned but to this competent and careful cyclist riding a fixed gear with no front brake on the roads of central London is riding in a way that would be dangerous.

That makes us both old-fashioned then since I am in agreement with you.

 

[DaveReading]

I couldn't make this stuff up: police apparently said they would have prosecuted Pedley if he'd survived.

I couldn't make it up either, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been. At best, the comment in the linked article is anecdotal. I don't recall any traffic cameras at that junction, so I'd be surprised if there is any evidence at all that the cyclist was travelling too fast(!) or had RLJ'd.

 

[snorri]

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned Presumed Liability in relation to this case.
Possibly I'm missing something? .
http://www.roadshare.co.uk/

 

[oldstrath]

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned Presumed Liability in relation to this case.
Possibly I'm missing something? .
http://www.roadshare.co.uk/

Isn't that about civil liability?

 

[GuyBoden]

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned Presumed Liability in relation to this case.
Possibly I'm missing something? .
http://www.roadshare.co.uk/

If the UK introduced "Presumed Liability" like Denmark, Germany and Holland etc, the driver (or rider if a pedestrian was involved) of the vehicle would be held liable for collisions until proven otherwise.

 

[jefmcg]

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned Presumed Liability in relation to this case.
Possibly I'm missing something? .
http://www.roadshare.co.uk/

1. Because we don't have presumed liability in the UK
2. You are missing something

a cyclist is unlikely to risk life and limb on some presumed liability point

If you want presumed liability - this is what it means.

 

[jefmcg]

In the meantime we have had so many of the more usual tragic vehicle accidents, somethat could have been prevented with real regulation.

Yes. Where is the Government's urgent review into motorway safety after a dozen people have died in two horrific crashes in the past month?

 

[snorri]

Because we don't have presumed liability in the UK

I know we don't have it, but there has been a campaign to adopt it in this country, does this case strength or weaken the case for adoption?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

In other news : "oh **** off you knee-jerking tory nobbers with your making our roads safer bollox! Where have you been the last fifty years?" screams grumpy bike rider on seeing conservative central office cashing in on social media.

 

[mjr]

In other news : "oh **** off you knee-jerking tory nobbers with your making our roads safer bollox! Where have you been the last fifty years?" screams grumpy bike rider on seeing conservative central office cashing in on social media.

Do you really think they're going to do anything to make roads safer? As in properly safer, Vision-Zero or sustainable-safety-style, not just try to reduce numbers of walkers and cyclists even further?

Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst!

 

[AndyMack]

What will happen is cyclists will have to have liability insurance, bikes will have twice yearly safety checks and will be linked by tracker/licence plate to a government scheme...all bringing revenue to the coffers and a minimal percentage of said revenue will go back into making cycling safer/providing more cycle lanes.

You heard it here first kids.