Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist facing manslaughter charge

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston...

So how come this guy is facing manslaughter charges whereas if he'd been driving a car he'd be able to say the sun was in his eyes and just walk away... (probably).

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

123 comments

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
3 likes

Cyclists do seem to be at the bottom of the social pecking order in terms of sympathy. I'm not sure how we've mananged to end up here? Was it always this way or have attitudes soured as people have got fatter and cars have got faster and the roads more populated?

 

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
1 like

In the Grauniad's coverage today, the prosecution are suggesting that the cyclist is some sort of dangerous adrenalin junkie. Now, admittedly, IMO  riding a fixed wheel track bike with no front brake takes a certain nerve (incidentally he says he didn't know that he had to have a front brake to be legal). Anyway, his own social media posts have been used against him in this argument. But, I'm sorry to report, the prosecutions main thing for showing that he's a reckless Lucas Brunelle wannabe is... Wait for it... He. Admitted. That. He. Doesn't. Wear. A. Helmet. 

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
1 like

But going back 40 comments wasn't 6 seconds thinking time in a car at 20mph. I'm not being deliberately obtuse but I think a set of lights here is the key whether you think you caught them late or not.

My crash video from Ventoux I have studied time and time again and still can't figure out what element of rider error it was  1 Wheel lost, French reverse brakes, 40mph of speed, etc. I managed to scrub perhaps half the speed off before hitting a big metal barrier but it was over many more metres. Looking at some other videos I was cornering well on the same bike using both brakes and mind was making up for the brakes being the wrong way round. Add panic to any equation and science really does go out of the window.

This is what is frustrating me about the expert advice offered up. A minimum stopping distance is fine in theory and you can beat it. But an 'appropriate' or 'definite' has variables that they have no chance of accounting for...

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
2 likes

The defence team could really gain some pointers here... Problem is, probably a car driver who hates cyclists.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
0 likes

And yes, going back to my unrelated example, thinking was definitely a problem. Grabbed brake locked back rather than scrubbing speed off the front. Something was quick enough to tell me that was wrong and release it, then I grabbed the same bloody brake again. I also seemed to 'want' to hit the barrier when there was a whole load of road to my left, partly because there was a big barrier to the right that was running out and then a drop. But sometimes I think, why didn't I just steer left.

Overload of the brain can cause strange outcomes.

Avatar
Rich_cb | 6 years ago
2 likes

Pretty straightforward case in my opinion.

If you ride a bike in the road without brakes it is illegal and therefore negligent.

If you kill someone whilst riding such a bike then a charge of manslaughter is reasonable.

It is up to the jury as to whether the negligence was sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict.

(I have long argued for manslaughter charges to be brought against motorists who kill vulnerable road users, the irony of a cyclist being charged with it is not lost on me)

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
4 likes

That's exactly the issue Rich. Not sure anyone is arguing that he is guilty of some level of crime and negligence, it's the styles of reporting, the 'expert' witnesses and the comparison to application of law in terms of motorists doing similar that is the annoyance...

Avatar
dog_film | 6 years ago
1 like

Tit (in more ways than one) for tat. 

Leicester managed to find two police offers to catch errant cyclists on a pedestrian walk. Nothing for the discgraceful numbed of drivers on mobile phones, each 5 mins, I see when riding? 

First accident in over five years? 

Even cyclists are becoming numb to the number of cyclists being killed by motorists and getting away with it? 

Again, no one takes out a will to play golf? 

Why is it the thing that makes us feel the most alive will probably be the thing that gets us killed? 

Avatar
STiG911 | 6 years ago
1 like

Firstly, I call Bullshit on the guy not knowing it was illegal to ride without a front brake. The likelihood of a cyclist with even a few years experience plus all the forums this guy appears to frequent not knowing this is non-existent. (That being said, I do feel he's being made an example of despite the daily occurrences of peds stepping out into the road like zombies I'm sure we all see)

Secondly, in court yesterday he was asked why he shouted at the pedestrian. Er why wouldn't he? cars beep, bells aren't compulsory and bikes are nearly silent, what's he supposed to do, use mental projection? Christs' sake.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
2 likes

Stig, tricky one. Evans will sell you a track bike online and nowhere does it mention not legal for use on the roads, maybe the next PPI  1

But in all honesty as a non driver and 20 year commuting cyclist, there's plenty of laws, rules etc. I don't know. The pedal reflectors (ridiculous) is one I didn't know til frequenting here as was our exemption to speeding. I also use a cycle path where traffic turning into a doctors is meant to give way to the path, it took me a year to spot it and as yet no cars have. I suppose they'd need 365 trips to the doctors... Strange what you're programmed to question or not...

Avatar
beezus fufoon | 6 years ago
2 likes

things have gone downhill since Dave Prowse gave up his Green Cross Code Man outfit for Darth Vader

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
1 like

Has anything been made of the fact that he seemed unharmed by the collision but she seemed to have a eggshell for a skull? I've no idea if it can be used as a defence angle but seems odd that there's such catastrophic difference between two people? 

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 6 years ago
0 likes

Any chance of seeing any charges for this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41140279
How that can not qualify as dangerous driving is beyond me.

Avatar
ktache | 6 years ago
1 like

Head injuries, those driving helmets might have come in useful then.

Avatar
davel replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
3 likes
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Cyclists do seem to be at the bottom of the social pecking order in terms of sympathy. I'm not sure how we've mananged to end up here? Was it always this way or have attitudes soured as people have got fatter and cars have got faster and the roads more populated?

 

I think the latter.

Add to that a powerful motor lobby, a general lack of tolerance, social media echo chambers and trollumnists competing to outdo each other, and the car lobby has won, really. The world getting a motor-induced Hiroshima EACH MONTH barely raises comment.

Combine that with the cycling fightback consisting of the much quieter and less clickbaity reasonable arguments of the likes of Chris Boardman and we're seen as weirdos.

I'm working with someone from a different department on a project at the moment - perfectly rational, unassuming, bit of a petrolhead. It wasn't til our train back from London got cancelled a few weeks back and we went for a few beers that I found out he was apprehensive about working with me as he knew I was a cyclist and assumed I was an aggressive, militant stereotype. He was surprised that I was a bit of a petrolhead myself and I think he got the point that I was only militant about not being squashed purely for riding a bike on the roads.

If other conversations with some friends, family and colleagues, and the frequency of anti-cyclist diatribes in the MSM are anything to go by, that kind of shit is prevalent, and it's going to take a real movement to overturn it.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
1 like

brooksby wrote:

In the Grauniad's coverage today, the prosecution are suggesting that the cyclist is some sort of dangerous adrenalin junkie. Now, admittedly, IMO  riding a fixed wheel track bike with no front brake takes a certain nerve (incidentally he says he didn't know that he had to have a front brake to be legal). Anyway, his own social media posts have been used against him in this argument. But, I'm sorry to report, the prosecutions main thing for showing that he's a reckless Lucas Brunelle wannabe is... Wait for it... He. Admitted. That. He. Doesn't. Wear. A. Helmet. 

Surely a smart defence lawyer will ask the jury to substitute the prosecutions use of "bike" for "car",  job done. Same with the helmet as there is supporting evidence.

So the accused watched adrenaline infused cycling videos in the same way that petrol heads watched the Clarkson version of  Top Gear.

Does the jury honestly believe that buying an Atom/Lotus 7/other track car turns them into murdering animals?

Ignorance of the law is no defence either.

As a bystander, it's getting more ridiculous by the day.

Avatar
davel replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
0 likes
alansmurphy wrote:

I also seemed to 'want' to hit the barrier when there was a whole load of road to my left, partly because there was a big barrier to the right that was running out and then a drop. But sometimes I think, why didn't I just steer left.

Overload of the brain can cause strange outcomes.

Possibly 'target fixation' - you look at the barrier because you don't want to hit the barrier; you hit the barrier.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
2 likes

Totally agree, the comparison to the many similar cases where a motorist has killed a cyclist and not even been charged is galling.

Avatar
fatsmoker replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
2 likes

Rich_cb wrote:

Pretty straightforward case in my opinion. If you ride a bike in the road without brakes it is illegal and therefore negligent. If you kill someone whilst riding such a bike then a charge of manslaughter is reasonable. It is up to the jury as to whether the negligence was sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict. (I have long argued for manslaughter charges to be brought against motorists who kill vulnerable road users, the irony of a cyclist being charged with it is not lost on me)

Interesting comparison with the Sam Boulton case (Leicester cyclist killed last year). The driver of the van that actually ran him over was drunk, ie illegally driving, therefore negligent. He got off with a ban and a suspended 26 month jail sentence after pleading huilty to drink driving and failing to stop after an accident.  The defence argument was that he couldn't have avoided the cyclist even if he'd been sober. 

Seems like the defence in this case could make a similar argument - the dude had slowed, had chosen a line to avoid her, she stepped back into his path.

Avatar
MrB123 replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
0 likes
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Has anything been made of the fact that he seemed unharmed by the collision but she seemed to have a eggshell for a skull? I've no idea if it can be used as a defence angle but seems odd that there's such catastrophic difference between two people? 

There is in fact a legal doctrine called the eggshell skull rule. Have a Google for it.

Avatar
Woldsman replied to wycombewheeler | 6 years ago
1 like

wycombewheeler wrote:

Any chance of seeing any charges for this?

Relaxevous. DFS will so throw the book at the driver if the Scotchguard™ protection is scuffed on that bloke's sofa.

Avatar
rogermerriman replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
0 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Has anything been made of the fact that he seemed unharmed by the collision but she seemed to have a eggshell for a skull? I've no idea if it can be used as a defence angle but seems odd that there's such catastrophic difference between two people? 

 

quite apart from the eggshell legal rule.

 

In my experince people have wildly different outcomes from very simular events, people can have quite poor outcomes with out a fracture to the skull. and equally have number of fractures yet just walk away from it, it's not the skull that matters but the little grey cells.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
0 likes

@BehindTheBikesheds - I just had an opportunity to time my approximate stopping time from my Fly12. I was going around 18mph and a pedestrian light turned red that I wasn't expecting to be used (it's not a busy one - I go along that road hundreds of times and have only had to stop maybe 10 times). I spotted it late (the pedestrian was on the right of the road) and so braked quickly though it wasn't an emergency stop and the road was a little bit wet. It took me just over 3 seconds to slow to a walking pace/track stand after the light turned amber and that's including the time taken for me to notice the light changing (I only spotted it when it was red). My bike's got disc brakes so that definitely helped, but I didn't need to brake hard enough to lose any traction and I've got 25mm tyres. I reckon I used about 60% rear and 40% front brake (as far as I can estimate).

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

@BehindTheBikesheds - I just had an opportunity to time my approximate stopping time from my Fly12. I was going around 18mph and a pedestrian light turned red that I wasn't expecting to be used (it's not a busy one - I go along that road hundreds of times and have only had to stop maybe 10 times). I spotted it late (the pedestrian was on the right of the road) and so braked quickly though it wasn't an emergency stop and the road was a little bit wet. It took me just over 3 seconds to slow to a walking pace/track stand after the light turned amber and that's including the time taken for me to notice the light changing (I only spotted it when it was red). My bike's got disc brakes so that definitely helped, but I didn't need to brake hard enough to lose any traction and I've got 25mm tyres. I reckon I used about 60% rear and 40% front brake (as far as I can estimate).

So you've ridden the road hundreds of times and passed through the pedestrian crossing, at which you must stop if the light is red, hundreds of times. And this is comparable how? If you'd been riding that road and a piano fell from the sky 30 metres after the crossing you'd have half a case.

Then I'd dismiss it for comparing disc brakes and a non calibrated camera as parts of your 'evidence'. What software did you use to determine the 3 metres, I've a crash to investigate that I'd like some hard, fast numbers on...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
1 like

alansmurphy wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

@BehindTheBikesheds - I just had an opportunity to time my approximate stopping time from my Fly12. I was going around 18mph and a pedestrian light turned red that I wasn't expecting to be used (it's not a busy one - I go along that road hundreds of times and have only had to stop maybe 10 times). I spotted it late (the pedestrian was on the right of the road) and so braked quickly though it wasn't an emergency stop and the road was a little bit wet. It took me just over 3 seconds to slow to a walking pace/track stand after the light turned amber and that's including the time taken for me to notice the light changing (I only spotted it when it was red). My bike's got disc brakes so that definitely helped, but I didn't need to brake hard enough to lose any traction and I've got 25mm tyres. I reckon I used about 60% rear and 40% front brake (as far as I can estimate).

So you've ridden the road hundreds of times and passed through the pedestrian crossing, at which you must stop if the light is red, hundreds of times. And this is comparable how? If you'd been riding that road and a piano fell from the sky 30 metres after the crossing you'd have half a case. Then I'd dismiss it for comparing disc brakes and a non calibrated camera as parts of your 'evidence'. What software did you use to determine the 3 metres, I've a crash to investigate that I'd like some hard, fast numbers on...

It took me longer than 3m to stop and you're right it's crappy evidence. I just thought I'd give my experience that 3.8 seconds should be plenty of time to significantly slow from 18mph.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

@BehindTheBikesheds - I just had an opportunity to time my approximate stopping time from my Fly12. I was going around 18mph and a pedestrian light turned red that I wasn't expecting to be used (it's not a busy one - I go along that road hundreds of times and have only had to stop maybe 10 times). I spotted it late (the pedestrian was on the right of the road) and so braked quickly though it wasn't an emergency stop and the road was a little bit wet. It took me just over 3 seconds to slow to a walking pace/track stand after the light turned amber and that's including the time taken for me to notice the light changing (I only spotted it when it was red). My bike's got disc brakes so that definitely helped, but I didn't need to brake hard enough to lose any traction and I've got 25mm tyres. I reckon I used about 60% rear and 40% front brake (as far as I can estimate).

So you've ridden the road hundreds of times and passed through the pedestrian crossing, at which you must stop if the light is red, hundreds of times. And this is comparable how? If you'd been riding that road and a piano fell from the sky 30 metres after the crossing you'd have half a case. Then I'd dismiss it for comparing disc brakes and a non calibrated camera as parts of your 'evidence'. What software did you use to determine the 3 metres, I've a crash to investigate that I'd like some hard, fast numbers on...

It took me longer than 3m to stop and you're right it's crappy evidence. I just thought I'd give my experience that 3.8 seconds should be plenty of time to significantly slow from 18mph.

but as i said the 3.8 seconds isn't just about coming to a stop completely, no-one, or rather very rarely does anyone come to a complete stop when someone starts to cross ahead both on bike or in a car, bus, HGV, van, person on a horse or whatever.

The rider slowed, this is accepted, that's one thinking/slowing time frame, that the deceased then does not react to audiable warnings in any rational way nor do the expected and simply continue walking forward out of the way (and they've already dawdled at best to not even cross one side of the carriageway in the 3.8seconds which is hugely unsual in itself) means the accused has to make another set of thinking decisions, that's thinking and braking plus another thinking period as to what to do with an unexpected/variable happening infront of him at about 6-9 metres away that he's trying to avoid but not sure what they are going to do.

The front brake in itself is immaterial unless you are going to apply the same set of braking rules (of coming to a complete stop ALL the time whenever it looks like or that a pedestrian does cross in front of you unexpectedly at ANY given distance AND that you transit along the highway at a speed at least 1/3 less than the indicated if not half at all these times. Again, that rarely happens if ever in normal conditions, to expect this person to adhere to rules that are not applied every day for all types is ludicrous at best. That's on top of there being form for the law ignoring the braking capability of a vehicle type known to kill and maim by the tens of thousands each year (precedence set then) and that the police apparently only enforce the law/rules or enforce the law with a totally different set of rules when they see fit and particularly against people on bikes.

You cannot start applying rules/laws differently, not change physics/how humans think and how fast they think and how often they have to re-assess what's happening infront of them in a high stress situation, it was obviously a high stress situation by mere fact of how the defendant reacted directly afterwards. Overloading the brain means you can't act out perfect lab test scenarios on the road otherwise cycle helmets would be closer to being 86% effective at reducing head injuries which they aren't, not even close.

Avatar
kevvjj replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
3 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

The rider slowed, this is accepted, that's one thinking/slowing time frame, that the deceased then does not react to audiable warnings in any rational way nor do the expected and simply continue walking forward out of the way (and they've already dawdled at best to not even cross one side of the carriageway in the 3.8seconds which is hugely unsual in itself) means the accused has to make another set of thinking decisions, that's thinking and braking plus another thinking period as to what to do with an unexpected/variable happening infront of him at about 6-9 metres away that he's trying to avoid but not sure what they are going to do.

The front brake in itself is immaterial unless you are going to apply the same set of braking rules (of coming to a complete stop ALL the time whenever it looks like or that a pedestrian does cross in front of you unexpectedly at ANY given distance AND that you transit along the highway at a speed at least 1/3 less than the indicated if not half at all these times. Again, that rarely happens if ever in normal conditions, to expect this person to adhere to rules that are not applied every day for all types is ludicrous at best. That's on top of there being form for the law ignoring the braking capability of a vehicle type known to kill and maim by the tens of thousands each year (precedence set then) and that the police apparently only enforce the law/rules or enforce the law with a totally different set of rules when they see fit and particularly against people on bikes.

You cannot start applying rules/laws differently, not change physics/how humans think and how fast they think and how often they have to re-assess what's happening infront of them in a high stress situation, it was obviously a high stress situation by mere fact of how the defendant reacted directly afterwards. Overloading the brain means you can't act out perfect lab test scenarios on the road otherwise cycle helmets would be closer to being 86% effective at reducing head injuries which they aren't, not even close.

Bullshit. The prosecuting case is simple. If the cyclist had a front brake then the whole scenario would have been different. Without a front brake AND with a fixed gear you cannot slow down anywhere near as quickly. You talk about high stress situations? IF the cyclist had a front brake there is little doubt he would have grabbed a fistful of it and things would have been different. The fact is, all of the scenario/reactions/stress outcomes you have speculated/described are not just a result of a pedestrian stepping out carelessly onto a road, they are a result too of the vehicle involved. In this a case one which was defective and illegal and, without doubt, contributed to the outcome.

Avatar
davel replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
4 likes
kevvjj wrote:

IF the cyclist had a front brake there is little doubt he would have grabbed a fistful of it and things would have been different.

While we're on hypotheticals, if he'd grabbed his front brake, gone over the bars, landed on his head and ended up dead, one thing is certain: the (much smaller) story would be the idiot cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet.

Something's rotten in Medialand...

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
0 likes

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

The rider slowed, this is accepted, that's one thinking/slowing time frame, that the deceased then does not react to audiable warnings in any rational way nor do the expected and simply continue walking forward out of the way (and they've already dawdled at best to not even cross one side of the carriageway in the 3.8seconds which is hugely unsual in itself) means the accused has to make another set of thinking decisions, that's thinking and braking plus another thinking period as to what to do with an unexpected/variable happening infront of him at about 6-9 metres away that he's trying to avoid but not sure what they are going to do.

The front brake in itself is immaterial unless you are going to apply the same set of braking rules (of coming to a complete stop ALL the time whenever it looks like or that a pedestrian does cross in front of you unexpectedly at ANY given distance AND that you transit along the highway at a speed at least 1/3 less than the indicated if not half at all these times. Again, that rarely happens if ever in normal conditions, to expect this person to adhere to rules that are not applied every day for all types is ludicrous at best. That's on top of there being form for the law ignoring the braking capability of a vehicle type known to kill and maim by the tens of thousands each year (precedence set then) and that the police apparently only enforce the law/rules or enforce the law with a totally different set of rules when they see fit and particularly against people on bikes.

You cannot start applying rules/laws differently, not change physics/how humans think and how fast they think and how often they have to re-assess what's happening infront of them in a high stress situation, it was obviously a high stress situation by mere fact of how the defendant reacted directly afterwards. Overloading the brain means you can't act out perfect lab test scenarios on the road otherwise cycle helmets would be closer to being 86% effective at reducing head injuries which they aren't, not even close.

Bullshit. The prosecuting case is simple. If the cyclist had a front brake then the whole scenario would have been different. Without a front brake AND with a fixed gear you cannot slow down anywhere near as quickly. You talk about high stress situations? IF the cyclist had a front brake there is little doubt he would have grabbed a fistful of it and things would have been different. The fact is, all of the scenario/reactions/stress outcomes you have speculated/described are not just a result of a pedestrian stepping out carelessly onto a road, they are a result too of the vehicle involved. In this a case one which was defective and illegal and, without doubt, contributed to the outcome.

He DID slow down, to 10mph, this would be a reasonable speed to be able to simply pass behind any ped walking across the road in any normal fashion with an element of safety in mind, that he did not have a front brake for when the pedestrian walked back into his path makes is utterly meaningless. he simply would not have had the time to reavaluate again and be able to do anything.

I've being in this situation myself, teenage lad sprints out despite me adjusting my road position early (in case he stepped off the kerb), eyeballed him, reducing speed and still he sprang out and we collided. he was uninjured, yet I had a fractured elbow, fractured hand and a damaged bike. What then if he'd suffered a serious head injury or died, what if I had died, would he or I be at fault? I have very powerful brakes, was covering them, had done all I could safety wise and still I could not avoid the collision. if you had watched it it would have looked like he deliberately aimed his run to knock me off (it wasn't obviously) If that had being a motorvehicle he'd have being seriously injured at best. yes I did shout at him and give him a sound telling off and in front of his dad who'd got out of his car (to where he was crossing to) he was bloody lucky it was just a bike, I was not so fortunate that someone made an error I could not account for

Yesterday whilst turning into my estate a guy on a BSO had turned just ahead, i rode wide to overtake him and just as I was coming past he decided to turn across the lane to get to the other side of the road without looking but pulled back as he saw me pretty much on the dividing line and he apologised. This was an occasion that the distance/his speed and direction and my positioning worked out.

You simply cannot know if having a front brake would have made any difference, you can't know that for the reasons I gave. Motorvehicles have brakes on all four corners, they still hit things that have gone into their path and done the unexpected and blame not allayed to the driver. Simply because of thinking time, outcomes that are unexpected/not logical, panic and other factors which make the collision unavoidable.

Why do F1 cars with amazing brakes still crash into each other? It doesn't matter if you have the best brakes in the world some situations cannot be avoided. this is also why disc brakes won't work from a safety POV for people on road bikes.

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

I haven't actually seen any reporting of why the woman took so long to cross, or went back and forth before freezing, or whatever; has anyone seen any? (pretty much all the coverage I've seen has been about the cyclist). (edited to tidy up 21/08/2017)

Pages

Latest Comments