CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
cyclist charged with "by wanton or furious driving"
(140 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
He is charged also with the manslaughter of the woman. He denies the charges. The shout the witness heard was prior to the collision. But he then is alleged to have shouted again after the collision. Claimed he could have stopped if his bike had a front brake. Was fixie. Tragic incident.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Evidence heard from an 'expert witness' that a bike (with brakes) can stop from 18mph to stationary in 3 metres distance (half the car 20mph stopping distance in the Highway Code!). I find it very hard to believe that's possible without the rider headbutting the tarmac hard.
Posted 6 years ago # -
18mph is ~8m/s. An incredibly fast reaction time of 0.2s accounts for 1.6m of your 3m at that speed. Nobody's slowing from 18mph in 1.4m.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Deil's advocation: sounds like they aren't counting the thinking time (which would be very disingenuous). The Highway Code stopping distance for a car at 20mph is 12m (6m thinking, 6m braking).
A bike's braking distance being 3m from 18mph sounds just about believable to me. 3m is (roughly) the length of an ASL box, and I occasionally surprise myself by managing to stop within the box when putting the brakes on at the first line.
That'd still make the actual stopping distance around 9m, if we assume cyclists and drivers have similar thinking distances.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Imagine this incident had been a car, and then imagine that car had defective, or sub-standard brakes which were not road legal...
The truth is the cyclist would have no way of predicting the pedestrian would appear in front of them, however if they'd been riding a bike which was road legal, then just maybe the severity of the collision would have been less. Yes, there would still have been a collision, but at lower speed, and then who knows the outcome.
Posted 6 years ago # -
In terms of stopping distance due to braking, an average bike is roughly equivalent to that a car. Therefore it's reasonable to say that the bike's braking distance is the same as the car i.e. 12m including reaction time.
A reaction time of 0.3 seconds is considered good, 0.2secs impossible.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Let's say you have a child at school and you get a call to say that she's been knocked down. How much would you pay for the sentence to finish "...by a bicycle" instead of "...by a car"? Presumably beyond price. That's the value cyclist bring to road safety. Simple really.
Posted 6 years ago # -
From the Sky news link:
"CCTV footage played in the courtroom showed Alliston beginning to swerve as he approached Mrs Briggs at an average speed of 18mph - with crash investigator Edward Small saying she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash."
3.8 seconds at 18mph is ~30 metres. Why did he crash into her?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Tragic. Seems to be a case of angry individual who rides a bike. Makes a change from angry individual in a car result is much the same in this case.
Posted 6 years ago # -
3.8 seconds at 18mph is ~30 metres. Why did he crash into her?
Possibly a combination of fixie leg braking and target fixation.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I used to work down Old Street - its not a road you can drive fast on. Narrow street, lots of small shops on either side and pedestrians crossing to and fro. The pavement is incredibly narrow in places as well forcing folks to walk on the road.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Would he have been charged with manslaughter if he'd killed with a car rather than with a bicycle?
Posted 6 years ago # -
@fimm - there's a death by careless/dangerous driving charge, however there isn't an equivalent for cycling, which may be reason for the combined manslaughter + wanton/furious charges.
Robert
Posted 6 years ago # -
Let's say you have a child at school and you get a call to say that she's been knocked down. How much would you pay for the sentence to finish "...by a bicycle" instead of "...by a car"? Presumably beyond price. That's the value cyclist bring to road safety. Simple really.
Well, if, as in this case, my child had been fatally injured, I wouldn't draw much distinction between the two cases.Posted 6 years ago # -
Wonder how hey know he was doing 18mph
Wonder how this trial by jury will pan out?
Posted 6 years ago # -
If the 3.8seconds/18mph figures are correct and the rider impacted at close to 18mph then the lack of a front brake appears an irrelevance here. If my understanding of fixed wheels is correct then even with no front brake on a fixed wheel bike it should be possible to slow considerably and probably stop well within that distance.
We're risking hypothesising against guidelines but this seems more to have been caused by a deliberate lack of action than by negligent maintenance.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Reported on news there that he posted on line - 'yes it was her fault, but no she didn't deserve it'
That will probably lead to his conviction. Maybe not for manslaughter though. Wonder what wanton cycling carries as a penalty?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Reported on news that he shouted at the pedestrian before entering a box junction, traveled all the way across the box junction, then shouted again. Then apparently swerved to try and miss her, but didn't. The whole of a box junction is quite a distance to not stop...
Suspect he didn't try to stop till after junction, what an appalling waste of a life.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@stiltskin I was responding to the backlash against cyclists not defending the idiot.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"Wonder what wanton cycling carries as a penalty?"
Up to 2 year's imprisonment.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Jury now out. Good summary of legal position on both charges at 44 minutes into R4 PM programme.
My summary of summary:
Manslaughter: Jury must find
1. Defendant was riding unlawfully without a front brake (this is accepted)
2. This unlawful act was dangerous in the circumstances
3. Both the unlawful act and the dangerous behaviour caused the death.Wanton and furious driving: Jury must find
1. Defendant while in charge of vehicle caused bodily harm, whilst recognising there was a risk, but nevertheless going on to take that risk, and that this wilful misconduct caused bodily harm.Posted 6 years ago # -
An interesting article contrasting the media coverage of this case with others.
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/
Posted 6 years ago # -
@stickman, this was my point on the other thread where I suggested that pedestrians being killed by drivers is acceptable except if jihadis involved.
It is sad but normal that pedestrians are killed by drivers. But 0.5per cent of fatalities caused by cyclists now that is worth covering and it is abnormal. Emphasising the normality of pedestrians being killed by drivers.
Posted 6 years ago # -
It's worth repeating this post originally from Tuylar (my bold):
--> If a cyclist causes a death in a collision what is the charge?
I guess we are about to find out...
-----------------
Let's draw back slightly and ask why in civil, and criminal law we have to have 'special' offences pertaining solely to the use of motor vehicles.
Cyclelaw & I had a friendly chat at the Scottish (Un) Cycle Show at the Glasgow velodrome, and remembered the term Burden of Proof, which links to another term Duty of Care, which crop up in many civil claims, especially where one party is using equipment that can 'cause harm'.
There is a Duty of Care on the driver, and operator of a truck used on a building site to recognise the major harm that it can cause and thus bear the greater liability if any crash occurs. Move over to the road and the whole picture changes.
The parallel continues when people are killed or injured kill someone with truck on a building site and its manslaughter. Only when it is using a motor vehicle on the road do we have the euphemism 'causing death by' to hide from the true gravity of the act. If a cyclist causes a death in a collision what is the charge?
This pervades even other road crimes - speeding, running red lights .. not 'proper crimes because they are committed by everyday people like you and me....Hmm
There is a huge elephant in the corner of that room.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Cleared of manslaughter, guilty of wanton and furious driving.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I think tbh this is a fair result. The key was probably that he recognised the risk of injury (saw the woman in the road) but nevertheless went on to ignore that risk (carried on riding for 3.8 seconds without significant attemps to stop).
The front brake issue was not a factor because this argument took place over the manslaughter charge. The evidence, as summed up by the judge, was that he was doing between 10 and 14 mph - not very fast.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
