Opinion piece from Martin Porter QC:
https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
cyclist charged with "by wanton or furious driving"
(140 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
so the BBC sez
The case has raised questions about safety and responsibility on the road.
oh right.. it has now, has it?
hypocrites.. banal evil hypocrites..
Posted 6 years ago # -
Yep, boy was Convicted because of the texts he sent after the accident
Posted 6 years ago # -
oh dear. have let myself be drawn into a facebook discussion of the case which has gone a bit nasty....
Posted 6 years ago # -
Edit: oops duplicate of link above, soz
Posted 6 years ago # -
"drawn into a facebook discussion"
Safer here...
Posted 6 years ago # -
On Facebook you will be discussing with drivers who know they might kill a pedestrian who steps out in front of them, through no fault of their own. So are keen to castigate the cyclist responsible for a fraction of one per cent of the total pedestrian fatalities. Is it 2 out of 400? The cyclist is castigated to shift the focus.
The husband of the dead woman is coming on radio after 8 a.m. Our sympathies to him for sure. They have sought charges that would bring a custodial sentence. This is what we argue for the drivers who kill cyclists (the guy for example who has killed two cyclists).
Again this cyclist was painted as showing no remorse. Which was not true, he showed some remorse but not enough remorse. He texted or tweeted after the accident when if he had said nothing he would have been better off or if he had tweeted about being traumatised for the woman and her family. Fairly sure this is what swayed the jury. The manslaughter charge was only there to ensure the wanton driving.
Cue claims for cyclists being licenced to err, reduce the number of fatalities (the 2 out of 400) and shift the focus from the 398 caused by drivers out there on Facebook. (Sorry if figures wrong but think I picked them up further back in the thread?)
Posted 6 years ago # -
This is an exFT exEconomist journalist whose elderly mother was trgically killed by a cyclist.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"They have sought charges that would bring a custodial sentence. This is what we argue for the drivers who kill cyclists (the guy for example who has killed two cyclists)."
It might be neat/good idea to align laws for all types of road users but it is not really going to make much difference in rare cases like this or (probably) the level of leniency that (some/many)drivers seem to get in many cases.
Lessons from this.
1) bikes LEGALLY need two independent braking systems.
2) even less than 20mph is enough to kill people.
3) bad idea to look at a phone while crossing a road.
When bike riders get killed or injured there is always 'concern' about whether they were wearing helmets - somehow making drivers less responsible.
Big campaigns about wearing helmets, no doubt there will now be lots of public service adverts about pedestrians and screens.
Tragic case, shouldn't have happened, faults all round, another case where a road user expects people to get out of their way, another case of an 'unroadworthy' vehicle, another call for 'something must be done' by a grieving relative - given prominent media coverage, another case of misguided use of social media - partly characterised as uncaring/victim blaming but also, presumably, posted when still in shock.
Another case of blaming 'cyclists' for upsetting the natural order of the roads (they are for cars and pedestrians know to keep out of their way).
At least the manslaughter charge didn't stick. Should it have? Was it 'I could have been that cyclist/driver'?
Seems there may still be a custodial sentence, if so will that lead to more drivers being jailed?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Radio Scotland is allocating its morning phone in to this.
I can't listen - will be like a Radio 5.Posted 6 years ago # -
Sat at canal barge when a Scottish Canal worker and friend walked past discussing this case. Both fit the physical attributes of someone who might perhaps be more comfortable at the wheel or a car than on a bike, or running.
Interestingly one seemed to be suggesting that it was a disgrace that it was not manslaughter or murder, the other was calmly stating that the guy would likely receive a suspended sentance, and that that "was probably about right".
Splitting opinions.
I will be getting involved calmly in Facebook discussions as they crop up. I've already had a short discussion with a few people in person, all of whom have come around to agreeing that it is a bit mad, and that car drivers who kill need to be held more responsible as this case has demonstrated.
The question is, can we use this case to leverage with CPS further prosecution of any car going higher than 14mph which kills someone
Posted 6 years ago # -
"The question is, can we use this case to leverage with CPS further prosecution of any car going higher than 14mph which kills someone"
If only, but it's certainly worth trying - especially if the sentence in this case is 'firm'/'designed to set an example'.
It would be nice to think that people would take note of the relatively low speed in this case.
More likely to be all sorts of 'bikes are more dangerous than cars' nonsense.
Posted 6 years ago # -
If there had been a case where a car driver had described his vehicle as a 'speed weapon' and that vehicle was illegal to use on the road because it has an ineffective braking system. If that car driver had time to avoid a pedestrian, but instead chose to continue and swerve to just miss the person: If the car driver then yelled abuse at the person lying fatally injured in the road and subsequently blamed them, hoping that they learned a lesson.... Well after all that I would hope that most of us would be quite pleased that justice had been done and that the driver was likely to be sent down.
I do think that drivers are treated leniently by the justice system, but two wrongs don't make a right. Cyclists aren't always the victim.Posted 6 years ago # -
"I do think that drivers are treated leniently by the justice system, but two wrongs don't make a right. Cyclists aren't always the victim."
Indeed.
Essentially the bicycle is a victim! One of the issues is the age (and gender) of the road user.
Can't really ban teenagers from cycling, but KSI stats indicate that perhaps teenagers shouldn't be allowed to use motor vehicles.
(Though forcing more young people to use bikes might just create more furious cyclists.)
Posted 6 years ago # -
Matthew Briggs, Briggs’s husband, said he was calling for cycling to be incorporated into the Road Traffic Act to allow offences of death by dangerous cycling and death by careless cycling to be considered.
In the circumstances you could argue that Mr Brigg's attitude is quite restrained. However, we also know that deaths are occurring due to not cycling. Bringing bicycles under the same legal umbrella as cars (MoTs, licencing, registration, tax, specific insurance policies) has long been a desire of automotive supremacists, and would undoubtedly drive down cycling rates.
Posted 6 years ago # -
to allow offences of death by dangerous cycling and death by careless cycling to be considered
I'd argue the opposite:
That we need to remove charges of "death by careless/dangerous driving" and always charge with manslaughter (or murder where applicable) for all road deaths
Posted 6 years ago # -
Then even fewer people would be convicted.
Posted 6 years ago # -
As a devils advocate I'd welcome equivalent treatment of a cyclist to that of a driver, given that the law seems to let drivers who are in a fatal crash off far more leniently than Mr Allinson.
Given the commentary on the speed timing issues and the somewhat subjective and crude 'tests' carried out by the Police there has been some debate about the quality of the evidence and its interpretation, and whether any suitable expert witnesses were actually involved.
Given that from the description of the incident the victim carried a degree of culpability for significant causal factors in the crash, I'd be wondering about a likely appeal on verdict or sentence in the course of time.
Factors relevant to RTC
1) victim was focussed on mobile device and walked into carriageway into the path of cyclist
2) cyclist shouted 2 audible warnings of approach without the victim reacting
3) cyclist had the option of slowing down from the moment that he realised the hazard of a collision was likely
4) cyclist made decision to pass behind the victim to avoid collision
5) instead of stopping or maintaining her course the victim stepped back into the path of the cyclist
6) the lack of a second braking system on the front wheel (rendering the bike illegal for UK road use) reduced the ability of the cyclist to cut his speed before impact
7) the ability to stop a bicycle whilst turning is reduced significantly compared to a straight line stop.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Very sorry for the husband for his loss and sad that someone has died here a tragedy for the family.
There is a sense that the trial is also a debate about shared use of road - pedestrians on phones, bikes that are quieter than cars and of course drivers. The BBC news item last night did mention right at the end that most fatalities are drivers killing pedestrians and drivers killing cyclists.
The police and the prosecution service certainly went for the cyclist with the manslaughter and the wanton driving charges, the former never going to stick and the latter for drivers of horse drawn carriages. Because both charges carry a custodial sentence option.
If the cyclist goes down he should appeal
Cycling UK on the same BBc piece. Mentioned four successive transport ministers (in four years) have failed to address the way roads are now used, despite this being an item before them.
So what we now have is a public trial of an individual for a terrible accident for which he had culpability. Under presumed liability he would have introduced the pedestrian crossing the apparently empty street (to her) whilst on the phone? Under presumed innocent until proven guilty he has never stood a chance because he tweeted that it was the vicrim's fault.??
Posted 6 years ago # -
"never stood a chance because he tweeted that it was the vicrim's fault"
That was another unfortunate part of this whole thing.
Young people's use of social media is not always 'smart'. (OK - nothing to do with age!)
As I said upthread, presumably at this stage he was in shock.
He said what he thought was true (or wanted to believe was true about fault/responsibility).
The prosecution (or at least the media versions) made this to be 'proof' that he was callous and uncaring and guilty of something.
So the media/public mob 'know' that all cyclists are like that, just waiting for a similar opportunity and the real killing machines are just part of life (death) and so normal.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I didn't want to comment here as I'm primarily very sorry for the poor woman's family and their tragic loss. I can't remember though the last time a fatal collision involving a car resulted in being put as the second most important national story on the BBC news.
For my part it is very upsetting as I can see myself in a situation where a pedestrian stepping out in front of me causing me to collide. To claim you should always be able to stop I don't think is realistic, as people can walk out only a few feet in front of you. Sometimes I do shout to alert pedestrians to my presence - not angrily, but when negotiating turns, tramtracks and being aware of closely following traffic it's not always possible to ring your bell, and the voice is immediate. In short - I can envisage a collision between myself and a pedestrian - not necessarily in the manner of this story - but I can see it happening, and I consider myself righteously considerate for the transitive reason that I want to be given consideration when I am the more vulnerable road user.
A London vlogger has made this video...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Well, London looks like a horrible place to walk and cycle!
This seems to be the next phase. Now the cyclists turn on the pedestrians, as the pedestrians have turned on the cyclists.
That'll keep the attention away from the important things.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I can't remember though the last time a fatal collision involving a car resulted in being put as the second most important national story on the BBC news
To be fair, this sometimes does happen, but usually it is due to multiple pile-ups on the motorway. For example, the multiple pile-up on the bridge to Sheppey(?) due to drivers ploughing into fog too fast (no fatalities), or the smoke from a display near the M5 that drivers went too fast into, causing a pile-up...
^^^ Did you see how I chose my language there to avoid implying it was "the fog" or "the cars" that caused the crashes? Unlike the media.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Regards London vlogger:
What is needed there is one of those bells like they have on the Indian rickshaws - dual bells attached to the front wheel, where you pull a lever on the handlebars and the bells ring continuously and loudly.
rickshaw bells by Ed, on Flickr
Posted 6 years ago # -
Having parity in terms of law, and enforcement seems fair. Why don't we already, why do we have to rely on an antiquated law to convict a cyclist when they kill?
Sure there's lots of argument around the likelihood of a cyclist killing someone, but that doesn't detract from the fact that when it does happen, it's as catastrophic for those involved as any other vehicle being involved.
There is also the question of parity, and sentencing when these things do happen. I'm not sure cyclists are dealt with any more leniently by law than anyone else, and I know the motorist perception is that we are. I think we also have a perception motorists are getting away with blue murder. I don't believe this to be true either, I believe it to be perceived.
In cases where there is a death, I think the law is loaded towards intent, and then lack of regard. 'Mistakes' are largely leniently dealt with.
I guess the equivalent motorist scenario would be someone tooting horn in warning, then tooting again, and only then trying to avoid. I can't imagine a motorist getting away with that. We'll have to wait to see what the cyclist gets, but one comment above puts the maximum at 2 years for the charge. This also seems pretty lenient for an obvious disregard for a situation, and consequences....
Posted 6 years ago # -
@Baldcyclist Largely in agreement, though drivers have the difference of being licensed to operate their machinery, which should theoretically require holding them to a higher standard.
Posted 6 years ago # -
The question is something like, if an 18 year old man driving an old banger with dubious brakes was driving at 35mph in a 30 and hit and killed someone:
1) what would he have been charged with? and
2) would he have been jailed?Posted 6 years ago # -
Why 35mph in a 30? 27 in a 30 would be the comparison to 18/20 in the cycling case?
In answer to your question, speeding apart, I doubt it would have seen the inside of a courtroom.
Posted 6 years ago # -
This is the sentences available if prosecuted for killing whilst driving:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/Basically 1 - 14 years, unless manslaughter which is up to life.
There does appear to be disparity with the maximum 2 years available to deal with the cyclist.
Here's some (non official, and not all types of case) stats on drivers who kill, about 2/3 go to prison.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9636991/Third-of-drivers-who-kill-and-maim-avoid-jail.html
Posted 6 years ago # -
Quoted from twitter (https://twitter.com/steinsky/status/900852888397897729)
So a young, innocent pedestrian was struck and killed by a man while crossing Old Street early last year and we all want justice, right? A man who later attacked his victim, and who lied about what happened, but who got away without any punishment...A man described as going at inappropriate speed, with a vehicle that it many circumstances isn't legal on the road. We want to stop that happening again, right?The pedestrian was Osman Ebrahim. He was killed by Zanah Mohamed, who fled the scene and said he didn't realise he'd hit anybody. Then when CCTV was shown, illustrating how implausible his story was, he got into a fight with the other guy he hit.
You didn't get an entertaining Old Bailey case for this, because the CPS never even prosecuted.
A couple of links (taken from that twitter thread) here and here.
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
