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

brooksby wrote:

Darkhairedlord wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Says the judge, "... shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way."  Erm, wasn't that him trying to get the pedestrian-who'd-walked-out-into-the-road-without-noticing-him out of the way?  Would it have been better, then, if he'd stayed silent whilst attempting to avoid them?    Custodial sentence seems a bit harsh IMO, and way worse than any motorist would have received...

perhaps if he had used his brakes instead of shouting and swerving...

But he did brake, didn't he. That was why he hit her at c10mph instead of c20mph, as I understand it.  He just didn't have enough braking capacity (the front brake that would have made his bike street-legal).  He shouted as well as slowing and as well as swerving (not, instead of).

Has been reported elsewhere that the judge stated that "you were not even trying to slow or stop" and "you expected her to get out of your way". 

As that appears to contradict other information then perhaps he should appeal.

Darkhairedlord wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Says the judge, "... shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way."  Erm, wasn't that him trying to get the pedestrian-who'd-walked-out-into-the-road-without-noticing-him out of the way?  Would it have been better, then, if he'd stayed silent whilst attempting to avoid them?    Custodial sentence seems a bit harsh IMO, and way worse than any motorist would have received...

 

perhaps if he had used his brakes instead of shouting and swerving...

Again, HE DID BRAKE, from approx 18mph to as low as 10mph, that being the ranges the PROSECUTION gave.  he swerved to avoid the idiot who casually walked out into traffic and clearly by the timescale given dawdled across the road without looking for even a split second.

if you step back into the path of a car that has slowed significantly to a crawl/honked their horn to let you know they are there, but because of the timescale of you stepping back into the path of the car that HAS SLOWED, cannot brake in time because human brains cannot work quick enough to instantaneously take action (as per ALL crash investigator papers)  you think the outcome of even the case going to court would have occured?

No it friggin' well wouldn't.

The whole thing is a monumental stitch up.

pockstone wrote:

It would appear that , according to the Judge's  comments, warning pedestrians verbally of your approach is now an aggravating factor  in the case of an accident. 

 

Hopefully the same reasoning will apply the next time a motorist uses their car horn.

wellsprop wrote:

He more or less deserves it for being a total pile of.

Let's hope tough prosecutions are the norm for ALL road users who cause KSI's due to breaking road traffic laws.

While I agree with you on your second point, with juries being made up of car drivers who are reluctant to convict one of their own, and by Judges who seem to follow the bile which pollutes the press, then this seems extremely unlikely. 

And with regards to your first point: being a pile of whatever is not a criminal offence: I have checked in the copy of Anthony and Berryman's Magistrates Court Guide which lives on my desk and nope, its not in the 1050 pages which make up this book. 

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!

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. 

essexian wrote:

18 months for this is just playing to the crowd: something the law should never do.

+1.

18 months in prison rolls off the tongue/keyboard so easily but most people don't stop to think whether this is an appropriate punishment.

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?

wilkij1975 wrote:

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

I'd feel angry, which is why we don't allow suspects to be tried by members of the deceased's family.

I've been taken out before by a dopey ped staring into a mobile phone. I wouldn't have felt a bit of guilt if they'd happened to come off worse than me.

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? 

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. 

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.

wilkij1975 wrote:

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

He did not KILL someone. He was aquitted of that.

And I would feel quite angry that he had been aquitted of that.

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.

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.

I'd take a few minutes to have a think about that generalisation, and then work out whether I can take anything else you've said seriously.

Daily Mail will be loving this though.

Couldn't agree with you more.

the nutcracker wrote:

It would be nice if sh*t drivers were given sentences like this more often

Death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. In this case the maximum was 2. I'd say it's imbalanced in favour of cyclists in this case, wouldn't you? Personally I feel the same rules should apply to all road users in terms of faulty equipment and dangerous driving. Obviously you have to protect the weaker party to a great extent, ie. cyclists so there are special provisions, ie. cyclists are treated by law as equal road users with equal right of way (much to the chagrin of motorists..) Equal right of way means equal liability, ufortunately.

gbadman wrote:

Would have got less if he'd killed her with a car...

Applecart wrote:

Death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. In this case the maximum was 2. I'd say it's imbalanced in favour of cyclists in this case, wouldn't you? Personally I feel the same rules should apply to all road users in terms of faulty equipment and dangerous driving. Obviously you have to protect the weaker party to a great extent, ie. cyclists so there are special provisions, ie. cyclists are treated by law as equal road users with equal right of way (much to the chagrin of motorists..) Equal right of way means equal liability, ufortunately.

The equivalent of Death by dangerous driving would be the manslaughter charge that the jury cleared him of.

The law seems perfectly able to punish cyclists the same as drivers at the mo, just needs to be done in a roundabout way.  The law might be tidied in a bid by the government to please Daily Mail readers, but sentancing options for judges unlikely to change.

Applecart wrote:

Death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. In this case the maximum was 2. I'd say it's imbalanced in favour of cyclists in this case, wouldn't you? Personally I feel the same rules should apply to all road users in terms of faulty equipment and dangerous driving. Obviously you have to protect the weaker party to a great extent, ie. cyclists so there are special provisions, ie. cyclists are treated by law as equal road users with equal right of way (much to the chagrin of motorists..) Equal right of way means equal liability, ufortunately.

gbadman wrote:

Would have got less if he'd killed her with a car...

I'm not commenting on if what he got was appropriate or not. He shouldn't have been riding a bike that wasn't road legal on the road in my opinion. But then I wonder how much time is spent checking cars are in road legal condition after accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians.

I was just commenting that it is likely he would have got a shorter sentence if he'd killed her with a car. We've seen this time and time again recently with cyclists killed by drivers.

Personally, I'd also like to see this offence and death by careless/dangerous driving all completely scrapped. And then everything just done as murder or manslaughter if someone died as a result of the accident, depending on whether there was intent or not. I think that would clear things up much more.

gbadman wrote:

Applecart wrote:

Death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. In this case the maximum was 2. I'd say it's imbalanced in favour of cyclists in this case, wouldn't you? Personally I feel the same rules should apply to all road users in terms of faulty equipment and dangerous driving. Obviously you have to protect the weaker party to a great extent, ie. cyclists so there are special provisions, ie. cyclists are treated by law as equal road users with equal right of way (much to the chagrin of motorists..) Equal right of way means equal liability, ufortunately.

gbadman wrote:

Would have got less if he'd killed her with a car...

 

I'm not commenting on if what he got was appropriate or not. He shouldn't have been riding a bike that wasn't road legal on the road in my opinion. But then I wonder how much time is spent checking cars are in road legal condition after accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians.

I was just commenting that it is likely he would have got a shorter sentence if he'd killed her with a car. We've seen this time and time again recently with cyclists killed by drivers.

Personally, I'd also like to see this offence and death by careless/dangerous driving all completely scrapped. And then everything just done as murder or manslaughter if someone died as a result of the accident, depending on whether there was intent or not. I think that would clear things up much more.

Death by (insert) was a direct consequence of it not being at all simple or easy to charge as manslaughter or murder.

Applecart wrote:

Death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. In this case the maximum was 2. I'd say it's imbalanced in favour of cyclists in this case, wouldn't you? Personally I feel the same rules should apply to all road users in terms of faulty equipment and dangerous driving. Obviously you have to protect the weaker party to a great extent, ie. cyclists so there are special provisions, ie. cyclists are treated by law as equal road users with equal right of way (much to the chagrin of motorists..) Equal right of way means equal liability, ufortunately.

gbadman wrote:

Would have got less if he'd killed her with a car...

Oh please, give the petrol-head defense-squad stuff a rest, will you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9636991/Third-of-drivers-who-ki...

Quote:

Some 408 people were convicted of causing death or bodily harm while driving dangerously, driving under the influence of drink or drugs or while stealing a car in 2011, but 153 avoided jail.

Among them, 75 were handed a community punishment, 5 were given fines, punishments and 63 handed suspended prison sentences.

Critics say that even killer drivers who are sent to prison often receive unduly soft sentences.

Out of the 255 motorists who went to prison, 21 were given less than six months and 104 were jailed for under two years. Just 37 - around one in seven - got sentences of over five years.

One offender who killed a person while stealing a car was jailed for between 12 and 18 months.

No driver has been handed a 14-year term since Parliament lengthened the maximum sentence from 10 years in 2004.