London fixed wheel cyclist Charlie Alliston sentenced to 18 months in young offenders institution

wilkij1975 wrote:

He KILLED someone or have you forgotten that? How would you feel if that was your wife/mum/daughter?

He was found NOT Guilty of Manslaughter.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

I know this has been used before but......

don't upset the Applecart....

Coat time.

Back to being serious, I think this is about what he deserves given his seeming lack of remorse and 'not my fault' attitude on social media. If he'd used social media to say how sorry he was instead of playing the victim blame route then maybe he woulnd't be where he is. He set himself up for the portrayal as thrillseeker tbh and even if you didn't know you 'had' to have a front brake it should have been pretty evident that it's useful but obviously asthetics were more important.

Don't confuse my attitude to this with driving convictions though as plenty of drivers are not getting what they deserve by a long shot.

I strongly disagree with this... 

I will accept that on occasion, genuine remorse should be reflected in reducing the legnth of custodial sentences... when appropriate.

In my opinion, in this case however, his initial (note initial) lack of remorse has been factored into increasing his sentence. 

There is a difference, and to me its not how the justice system should work.

And I'd also contest just how awful this young man has been. Yes his initial comments will absolutely be seen as remorseless now in retrospect, but many of those initial comments were made when the lady was still alive, and dare I say it, made when ignorant of the law.

In his eyes he'd done nothing wrong, because a) he saw her as stepping into his path (accurate), and b) failed to realise his legal obligations regarding braking and in his failure to adhere to these made him automatically at least partially responsible. 

If you felt you were right, and they were wrong, would your first focus be around saying how sorry you are? 

Don't get me wrong, I have little time for the chap, but I am reluctant to pander to emotional responses in situations such as this. That is a dangerous game to get involved in. 

His defence team need to be given a good slapping... wait, he didn't think he needed one did he. Now we will all suffer.

Lots of comments on here being made without any understanding that teenagers (actually, people under 25) are physically different from adults, and do not think the same.

This is also reflected in his sentencing that discounted that his lack of emotional empathy could be partly attributed to the loss of one of his parents just over a year earlier.

Instead, we get the poor widower husband (who absolutely refuses to accept that his wife walked out into the road without looking - and if they had the balls to release the CCTV the cause he is now championing would fall to pieces) now pursuing more legislation claiming that the law has failed despite the fact that it worked as expected in this case, and every cunt and their dog has come out of the woodwork spouting off against 'cyclists'.

Bollocks... I can't be fucking bothered with it any more.

HalfWheeler wrote:

Good. No sympath whatsoever. That poor woman died because he was acting like a dick.

So you don't think that crossing a road not at a pedestrian crossing when there was one a few metres away, and looking at her mobile phone whilst doing so, had no contribution to the collision? 

He may have been acting like a dick by being a typically arrogant youth and not having a front brake, but he did try to avoid her, shouted a warning and she stepped back into his path.  Please tell us what you think of the way she acted?

brooksby wrote:

Bez makes an interesting point about all this on his blog.   The CPS have to show that the actions of the motorist fall short of what a reasonable motorist would be expected to do (and we keep saying motorists are let off because the juries are mainly also motorists thinking 'there but the for the grace of god...').

If Mr Briggs gets his way and careless and dangerous cycling are introduced then surely the jury has to be composed of regular and frequent, exerienced even, cyclists, in order to be able to make a judgement on whether the behaviour of a cyclist is reasonable or not...  (Because we know that non-cyclists don't seem to be able to).

Where are they going to get all these available cyclists from, to sit on juries??

Hopefully not from Road.cc.

essexian wrote:

wilkij1975 wrote:

essexian wrote:

wilkij1975 wrote:

Applecart wrote:

Serves the arrogant little f**ker right. Same rules apply to everyone: I don't buy for a millisecond that a cyclist can't be found guilty of dangerous driving on an illegal machine as this dickhead was. (going by the general comments on this site, wherein a cyclist can never do any wrong and all motorists are crazed maniacs who get off scott-free, etc) There is an imbalance in favour of motorists, agreed, but it goes both ways. My first words were "fucking yes" when I read the headline, quite frankly as I can't stand kids on track bikes - they give the rest of us a bad name.

 

Well said that man!

 

So, you should be sent to jail for being a dickhead then... if that's the case, we are going to need a lot more prisons.  18 months for this is just playing to the crowd: something the law should never do. 

 

 

 

He KILLED someone or have you forgotten that? How would you feel if that was your wife/mum/daughter?

 

Of course I have not forgotten that someone died but please look at the verdict of the jury and what the cyclist was found guilty of and then ask if the sentence was the correct one.

 As to how would I feel that if it was one of my family members who had died: I would want justice and not revenge. I would question whether the sentence is justice or bile induced revenge? 

 

Easy to say if it's not one of your family. 

Ultimately he killed someone on a bike that didn't have the required amount of brakes just to be fashionable. What would have been a sufficient penalty to give the poor woman's family justice? A fine and some time picking up litter? How about tweeting that he was ever so sorry and it won't happen again?

wilkij1975 wrote:

essexian wrote:

wilkij1975 wrote:

essexian wrote:

wilkij1975 wrote:

Applecart wrote:

Serves the arrogant little f**ker right. Same rules apply to everyone: I don't buy for a millisecond that a cyclist can't be found guilty of dangerous driving on an illegal machine as this dickhead was. (going by the general comments on this site, wherein a cyclist can never do any wrong and all motorists are crazed maniacs who get off scott-free, etc) There is an imbalance in favour of motorists, agreed, but it goes both ways. My first words were "fucking yes" when I read the headline, quite frankly as I can't stand kids on track bikes - they give the rest of us a bad name.

 

Well said that man!

 

So, you should be sent to jail for being a dickhead then... if that's the case, we are going to need a lot more prisons.  18 months for this is just playing to the crowd: something the law should never do. 

 

 

 

He KILLED someone or have you forgotten that? How would you feel if that was your wife/mum/daughter?

 

Of course I have not forgotten that someone died but please look at the verdict of the jury and what the cyclist was found guilty of and then ask if the sentence was the correct one.

 As to how would I feel that if it was one of my family members who had died: I would want justice and not revenge. I would question whether the sentence is justice or bile induced revenge? 

 

 

Easy to say if it's not one of your family. 

 

Ultimately he killed someone on a bike that didn't have the required amount of brakes just to be fashionable. What would have been a sufficient penalty to give the poor woman's family justice? A fine and some time picking up litter? How about tweeting that he was ever so sorry and it won't happen again?

Which would be rather more than happened to the woman who killed Michael Mason, without even noticing she'd done so, or the tipper driver in Glasgow who mowed down a bunch of pedestrians while knowingly too sick to drive.

oldstrath wrote:

wilkij1975 wrote:

essexian wrote:

wilkij1975 wrote:

essexian wrote:

wilkij1975 wrote:

Applecart wrote:

Serves the arrogant little f**ker right. Same rules apply to everyone: I don't buy for a millisecond that a cyclist can't be found guilty of dangerous driving on an illegal machine as this dickhead was. (going by the general comments on this site, wherein a cyclist can never do any wrong and all motorists are crazed maniacs who get off scott-free, etc) There is an imbalance in favour of motorists, agreed, but it goes both ways. My first words were "fucking yes" when I read the headline, quite frankly as I can't stand kids on track bikes - they give the rest of us a bad name.

 

Well said that man!

 

So, you should be sent to jail for being a dickhead then... if that's the case, we are going to need a lot more prisons.  18 months for this is just playing to the crowd: something the law should never do. 

 

 

 

He KILLED someone or have you forgotten that? How would you feel if that was your wife/mum/daughter?

 

Of course I have not forgotten that someone died but please look at the verdict of the jury and what the cyclist was found guilty of and then ask if the sentence was the correct one.

 As to how would I feel that if it was one of my family members who had died: I would want justice and not revenge. I would question whether the sentence is justice or bile induced revenge? 

 

 

Easy to say if it's not one of your family. 

 

Ultimately he killed someone on a bike that didn't have the required amount of brakes just to be fashionable. What would have been a sufficient penalty to give the poor woman's family justice? A fine and some time picking up litter? How about tweeting that he was ever so sorry and it won't happen again?

Which would be rather more than happened to the woman who killed Michael Mason, without even noticing she'd done so, or the tipper driver in Glasgow who mowed down a bunch of pedestrians while knowingly too sick to drive.

What they did and their punishment doesn't excuse this lad. The whole system and punishments for these things needs sorting. 

But this lad lad took a life, the life of a mother/wife/daughter and to say he should get off with virtually no punishment is beyond mind boggling. 

pockstone wrote:

Mrs. Briggs' death was  a tragedy,  and as I've said in a previous post, as tragic as all unnecessary road deaths. However the Law's response seems to have been different to that which we are used to seeing in Driving cases.

I am perplexed by the background to the charging of Alliston. He couldn't be charged for Causing death by dangerous cycling, as that offence does not exist. He was charged with Manslaughter instead. Why then was he also charged with causing bodily harm (in this case, death) by wanton and furious cycling ?

Is it common for drivers charged with, for example Dangerous driving, to be also charged at the same time with a lesser offence of Careless driving? And is it common for drivers charged with Causing death by dangerous/careless driving to be also charged with Manslaughter

He could have been charged with dangerous cycling, the definition of which seems to fit with his lack of a front brake, but wasn't.

He could have been charged under Construction and Use legislation, but wasn't.

As for sentencing, the guidelines for Dangerous driving allow for mitigation where the actions of the victim are in some way contributory, yet the Judge makes no reference to this in her comments on sentencing. Presumably this means that it wasn't taken into account. Why not?

I know from previously being involved and knowing things about other court cases that have hit the headlines that the press miss out facts. Some of this is delibrate while other times they have to due to reporting restrictions.

In this case because the women died, she wasn't elderly and has a vocal husband I would say this is delibrate.

kil0ran wrote:

pockstone wrote:

Mrs. Briggs' death was  a tragedy,  and as I've said in a previous post, as tragic as all unnecessary road deaths. However the Law's response seems to have been different to that which we are used to seeing in Driving cases.

I am perplexed by the background to the charging of Alliston. He couldn't be charged for Causing death by dangerous cycling, as that offence does not exist. He was charged with Manslaughter instead. Why then was he also charged with causing bodily harm (in this case, death) by wanton and furious cycling ?

Is it common for drivers charged with, for example Dangerous driving, to be also charged at the same time with a lesser offence of Careless driving? And is it common for drivers charged with Causing death by dangerous/careless driving to be also charged with Manslaughter

He could have been charged with dangerous cycling, the definition of which seems to fit with his lack of a front brake, but wasn't.

He could have been charged under Construction and Use legislation, but wasn't.

As for sentencing, the guidelines for Dangerous driving allow for mitigation where the actions of the victim are in some way contributory, yet the Judge makes no reference to this in her comments on sentencing. Presumably this means that it wasn't taken into account. Why not?

If a driver is charged with Dangerous Driving they are also charged with the lesser offence (careless). So juries will be asked to consider first whether evidence supports conviction for DD and second whether it supports it for CD.

Driver would only be charged for Manslaughter in exceptional circumstances but it is possible. Its also possible to be charged with Murder if there is proof your action was deliberate and pre-meditated. Only aware of one conviction for that in recent years. Even the lad who killed the police officer on Merseyside recently avoided a murder conviction I recall. There was a gross negligence manslaughter conviction earlier this year for the tipper truck that had defective brakes in Bath. 

These are all exceptions to the rule though, just as Alliston is an exception.

It would be interesting to see if vehicle defects (e.g. no MOT, bald tyres) will be considered in future cases and see the charge be elevated to manslaughter, which to my mind would be appropriate. Might be difficult to prove that driver knew vehicle was defective though.

You clearly never owned a car.

Just because your car has a valid MOT doesn't make it roadworthy and vice versa.   All an MOT means is that on the day it was tested it was roadworthy.  

So people can be driving death traps and I know people who have in the past with valid MOTs. 

Likewise some people get their car serviced at a different time to the MOT as some parts need servicing at a different  mileages,  and if they then forget to MOT it on time their car would still be considered roadworthy.

kil0ran wrote:

As to mitigation I doubt that's available under the Wanton and Furious legislation. I think the RTA enshrines mitigations as part of the Act rather than as part of sentencing guidelines.

I expect most of us have "been there" with peds stepping out, it will be interesting to see what happens with the recent Oxford St fatality and also the one on Ride London.

Some nasty part of me hopes there are more car accidents with dumb walkers so there is a campaign to get people to look up from their damn smartphones when attempting to cross the road. 

Bluebug wrote:

Just because your car has a valid MOT doesn't make it roadworthy and vice versa.   All an MOT means is that on the day it was tested it was roadworthy.  

Doesn't even mean that. Last garage I took my car to for an MoT said they were intimidated by it and gave me a 12 month ticket without even moving it into a bay.

wilkij1975 wrote:

But this lad lad took a life, the life of a mother/wife/daughter and to say he should get off with virtually no punishment is beyond mind boggling. 

Again, no he did not. He was found not guilty of manslaughter. Take some time to readjust your thinking and then your mind will be less boggled.

burtthebike wrote:

HalfWheeler wrote:

Good. No sympath whatsoever. That poor woman died because he was acting like a dick.

So you don't think that crossing a road not at a pedestrian crossing when there was one a few metres away, and looking at her mobile phone whilst doing so, had no contribution to the collision? 

He may have been acting like a dick by being a typically arrogant youth and not having a front brake, but he did try to avoid her, shouted a warning and she stepped back into his path.  Please tell us what you think of the way she acted?

She wasn't on her phone, that allegation was withdrawn. She jaywalked. Like me at leat a dozen times today. And all of us.

Kadinkski wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

HalfWheeler wrote:

Good. No sympath whatsoever. That poor woman died because he was acting like a dick.

So you don't think that crossing a road not at a pedestrian crossing when there was one a few metres away, and looking at her mobile phone whilst doing so, had no contribution to the collision? 

He may have been acting like a dick by being a typically arrogant youth and not having a front brake, but he did try to avoid her, shouted a warning and she stepped back into his path.  Please tell us what you think of the way she acted?

She wasn't on her phone, that allegation was withdrawn. She jaywalked. Like me at leat a dozen times today. And all of us.

Dont tar the rest of us with the shitty brush youve given a going over with.

I have awareness when crossing the road because Im am sinbgularly aware that at least  1500kg steel boxes will be hurtling towards me that do so with impunity.

If you cant cross the road using the 5 fucking senses you were given (until the day we have presumed liability and it is strictly enfroced), then its best you just stay in your fucking hovel and stop passing the buck onto everyone else to stop you being a Darwinain statistic

[quote=burtthebike]<p>[quote=Copsframecyclist]Clearly miscarriage of justice and Alliston framed for Kim Briggs's death despite everyone knowing she also contributed to the accident and actually, endangered herself but a lot of prople remain in denial.[/quote]</p>

<p>But everybody doesn't know, because the media is whitewashing the whole thing.&nbsp; No mention in MSM of the fact that she was on her phone or that she was crossing near a pedestrian crossing but not at it.&nbsp; Most people who have seen the MSM reports will blame the cyclist 100% because it will not present facts that don't support its view that pedestrians can do no wrong and cyclists can do no right.</p>

<p>People aren't in denial because the media keep them ignorant of the facts.&nbsp; They can't deny what they don't know.</p>[/quote]

You're right. The media only reported on what Alliston did and demonised him which is why he went all defensive. But the same media portrayed Kim Briggs as completely innocent, vulnerable mother of 2 and a wife..so i ask was she drinking and impaired to be on the road?

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remar...

Worth reading in full before making any comments (for or against)

[double post for some reason]

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's harsh. I would've expected a suspended sentence would be sufficient.

"That's harsh" Are you serious???!!  I can't believe that someone could actually think a suspended sentence sufficient, for someone who killed a pedestrian whilst riding a bike at speed and without brakes........and who apparently showed little remorse at his trial.  What's even more saddening is that the above comment attracted so many 'Likes'. What's happening to the world. 

Kadinkski wrote:

She wasn't on her phone, that allegation was withdrawn. She jaywalked. Like me at leat a dozen times today. And all of us.

No she didn't. Jaywalking is not a thing in the UK.

Bluebug wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

pockstone wrote:

Mrs. Briggs' death was  a tragedy,  and as I've said in a previous post, as tragic as all unnecessary road deaths. However the Law's response seems to have been different to that which we are used to seeing in Driving cases.

I am perplexed by the background to the charging of Alliston. He couldn't be charged for Causing death by dangerous cycling, as that offence does not exist. He was charged with Manslaughter instead. Why then was he also charged with causing bodily harm (in this case, death) by wanton and furious cycling ?

Is it common for drivers charged with, for example Dangerous driving, to be also charged at the same time with a lesser offence of Careless driving? And is it common for drivers charged with Causing death by dangerous/careless driving to be also charged with Manslaughter

He could have been charged with dangerous cycling, the definition of which seems to fit with his lack of a front brake, but wasn't.

He could have been charged under Construction and Use legislation, but wasn't.

As for sentencing, the guidelines for Dangerous driving allow for mitigation where the actions of the victim are in some way contributory, yet the Judge makes no reference to this in her comments on sentencing. Presumably this means that it wasn't taken into account. Why not?

If a driver is charged with Dangerous Driving they are also charged with the lesser offence (careless). So juries will be asked to consider first whether evidence supports conviction for DD and second whether it supports it for CD.

Driver would only be charged for Manslaughter in exceptional circumstances but it is possible. Its also possible to be charged with Murder if there is proof your action was deliberate and pre-meditated. Only aware of one conviction for that in recent years. Even the lad who killed the police officer on Merseyside recently avoided a murder conviction I recall. There was a gross negligence manslaughter conviction earlier this year for the tipper truck that had defective brakes in Bath. 

These are all exceptions to the rule though, just as Alliston is an exception.

It would be interesting to see if vehicle defects (e.g. no MOT, bald tyres) will be considered in future cases and see the charge be elevated to manslaughter, which to my mind would be appropriate. Might be difficult to prove that driver knew vehicle was defective though.

You clearly never owned a car.

Just because your car has a valid MOT doesn't make it roadworthy and vice versa.   All an MOT means is that on the day it was tested it was roadworthy.  

So people can be driving death traps and I know people who have in the past with valid MOTs. 

Likewise some people get their car serviced at a different time to the MOT as some parts need servicing at a different  mileages,  and if they then forget to MOT it on time their car would still be considered roadworthy.

kil0ran wrote:

As to mitigation I doubt that's available under the Wanton and Furious legislation. I think the RTA enshrines mitigations as part of the Act rather than as part of sentencing guidelines.

I expect most of us have "been there" with peds stepping out, it will be interesting to see what happens with the recent Oxford St fatality and also the one on Ride London.

Some nasty part of me hopes there are more car accidents with dumb walkers so there is a campaign to get people to look up from their damn smartphones when attempting to cross the road. 

I've owned more cars than bikes No MOT by default means that the car is unroadworthy and uninsured in the eyes of the law. A vehicle inspection after the accident shouldn't remove that contributing circumstance.

The logical outcome of this won't be anything that inconveniences car drivers. Expect jaywalking laws or a bunch of victim-blaming of pedestrians on phones. Peds vs drivers get even less protection from the law than cyclists.

alansmurphy wrote:

Maybe wilk, but we are an out group. Day after day motorists are killing people whilst drunk, using a mobile, driving without sunglasses, visually impaired or in cars not fit for the road. We barely hear a mention. This story is being repeated on the radio every half hour with vitriol, "thrill-seeking", "aggressive" et al interchanged. Apparently we are all a dangerous menace and those travelling beyond the speed in 2 tons of metal are all good!

I was behind a little old lady driving a Honda Jazz this morning, utterly incompetent. Every corner was taken like a 50p piece, weaving all over the road, no idea of the width of her car. When I went past her she could barely see over the steering wheel. Accident waiting to happen, there should be compulsory tests every 3 years for the over 70s.