Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[thirdcrank]

horizon

I don't share your doubts. I don't think I've ever been slow to criticise the system generally, but within the system this defendant had what appears to me to have been a proper trial. If anything, I suspect he has benefited from the known reluctance of juries to convict for manslaughter, but he was acquitted and fair enough, he's innocent of that charge.

From what I've seen, the forum members who have been troubled by the implication of the case have largely been relying on inaccurate claims suggesting that the deceased stepped off the pavement into the riders path giving him no chance to avoid a crash which doesn't seem to accord with the evidence eg as noted by the judge. ie Many are worried that their own presumably careful behaviour may still not be enough to save them from charges such as these.

There is, of course the wider matter of better enforcement across the board in respect of traffic offences. Something about which I feel strongly and post often. It seems pretty clear to me that finding excuses for this defendant while pretending not to do so isn't a good way of advancing what is already a difficult cause.

BTW, on your cyclists as saints theory (my words) where do you stand on pedestrians? I can't claim to have read every word posted so perhaps I overlooked your comments above on the benefits to society of people choosing to be pedestrians. Not normally something I'd ask but I've felt a bit lonely on the "why aren't jaywalkers prosecuted for manslaughter?" theme.
==============================================
PS The point you are answering in your immediately preceding post was not directed at you.

[horizon]

horizon

on your cyclists as saints theory (my words) where do you stand on pedestrians?

The reason I focus on cycling is because I see cycling as a remedy for a social ill, that is to say the dominance of the motor car and its attendant effects. While walking might also be of benefit, the bicycle appears to be an utterly practical alternative. Where for instance walking and cycling conflict (as in Hereford) I side with cycling as walking is usally an adjunct of motor car use while cycling isn't in that context.

If society agrees (and parts of it do) and encourages the use of the bicycle it should at least mitigate the consequences for those who take up its call. And it also therefore cannot say to its new adherents: well, you cycle purely for your own convenience and selfish reasons so you will be subject to the strict application of the law on that basis. Well, no actually - society (and I include myself) has asked every irresponsible young man to get on their bike and emulate the much-lauded heros of the nation, if not in their choice of bike. If we insist on standing in complete moral judgement and condemnation over the defendant in this case then I suspect some sniggering behind the hands of those in power.

[bovlomov]

horizon

IMO

The fact of doing what we might call the right thing, isn't an excuse for breaking the law.

There are good reasons to break the law on matters of principle (not that Alliston's choice to ride without a front brake was a taken on a point of principle).

I really do think we are talking about different things. In a case like the one we are discussing, being otherwise "good" is mitigation and nothing more.

I feel obliged to suggest that the exception you make to your own point shows it's quite irrelevant in this context. ie He wasn't doing it on a "matter of principle." I'm rather sad that your judgment of my understanding of that wider point should be so be so low as to feel the need to make it here.

Sorry TC, I was making no judgment about your understanding - of either the narrow or the wider point. It's only that your sentence in its entirety (albeit in a particular context for you) exactly corresponds with what many people think. I hear it so often that it has become a trigger for me. My reply should have been put in brackets, because, as you say, it wasn't relevant. All the same, I reckon it can't be said to often, that breaking the law is sometimes justifiable.

On this point

...I've felt a bit lonely on the "why aren't jaywalkers prosecuted for manslaughter?" theme.

Meic expressed similar views to yours, today. I concurred, perhaps elliptically.

[The utility cyclist]

... But as I say, I'm just repeating what others have said.

The start of many an urban myth.

The first aspect of the incident, a pedestrian walking out in front of the person on a bike takes approx 1.5s thinking time to react to, mechanical action time is 0.4s give or take. That's 1.9seconds, after that 1.9s the person on a bike slows from approximately 18mph to 10mph, this is given as ranges by the prosecution.
So, we have a person cycling slowly in a direction that is not in line with the person who has crossed unexpectedly ahead and is aiming to go through a gap, that for a bicyclist and one that is again replicated up and down the country every day of the week is not unreasonable at a slow speed, i.e. being cautious.

10mph just before the cyclist is near the pedestrian would/should be considered to have being a cautious speed given the circumstances. As I've explained very early in the thread, rarely do road users of any type, pedestrian, bicyclists or motorvehicle come to a complete halt (never mind do an emergency stop to the maximum braking capacity of their brakes as portrayed by the MET police) when a person ahead starts walking across the road.

One usually slows and the person crosses, as a road user Alliston did precisely this, his shouts are also irrelevant in a negative sense IMHO, HC Rule 112 states "The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence", he gave two audible warnings, the equivalent to a horn, both have exactly the same meaning, the pedestrian ignored both (so a bell would also be irrelevant) but his action of slowing down and diverting around the pedestrian IS very relevant, it shows his intention to avoid collision, he's braked to a slow speed,again, not the action you'd associate with wanton nor furious.

He saw that the gap between the pedestrian and the parked lorry was sufficiently wide to go through at a slow speed (10mph being a speed the CPS suggest he could well have being doing just before the pedestrian stepped back)

At this point and with a distance of but a few metres the pedestrian unexpectedly steps back into the path of Alliston, this unexpected event takes yet another 1.5seconds of thinking time for his human brain to process (6.7metres in fact, the minimum thinking distance at 10mph), in many instances people freeze and do nothing or take longer to react in high stress situations. Add on another 0.4seconds for the mechanical action of the brake engaging and that is another 1.7m.

From the information given by the CPS as to the distance Alliston was away from the pedestrian when she stepped back, even if Alliston had a set of good brakes he would not have being able to reduce his speed at all never mind come to a stop at the point the pedestrian changed her direction into his path, simply because the human brain cannot compute such unexpected incidents quick enough and add to which the mechanical action time, are too long a period before the brake would be actuated before the collision occurs.

Whichever way you look at it the lack of a front brake made ZERO difference to the outcome.

You may suggest he should immediately come to a halt in the first instance when 20metres away, but as i said, this is not what normally happens on the roads, to expect anyone to brake to a stop at any time one sees a pedestrian or other road user ahead or at the side of the road would be ludicrous in fact, one may as well just not cycle or drive at all at anything above 5mph in that case to take all unexpected actions into account.

One expects the person crossing to cross, one is expected to slow (which he did), one does not expect someone to move back into your path at the last seond or so, and one cannot react quick enough to that unexpected event when that happens only a few metres in front, the human brain does not have the normal capacity to do so (hence why crash investigators offer up 1.5s thinking time for such situations for a good alert person)

does that explain it fully as to why?

[rfryer]

I see a couple of flaws in the above argument.

Firstly, a responsible rider with manual brakes would not need a full, new period of reaction time when the pedestrian stepped back. They would recognise that, after changing course to avoid the pedestrian, there was still risk in the situation, and would be covering the brakes. It's worth pointing out that on a fixed gear you can only brake effectively at one crank position, which introduces a delay into the ability to react. That is to say, you can't cover the brakes, so you need to avoid any situation where you might need to. A velodrome, for example?

Secondly, it's not clear from the evidence how much time there was between the initial serve and the stepping back. I initially shared your view, but from the summing up it sounds more like Alliston only swerved at the last moment after giving up on claiming his priority, meaning that the stepping back was likely a misguided attempt to avoid him, caused by the pressure that he had injected into the scenario. Again, the responsible action is to change course and slow early, and only to continue to make progress once it's clear that you have an understanding with the other party regarding the situation. Sometimes that doesn't happen and after a few iterations of moving into each other's path you end up stopping and apologising, not killing each other.

In summary, I'm in agreement with Ian that my first reaction, on a legal bike, would be to change course, but I'd have my brakes covered and be prepared to stop if that wasn't working out.

On the bike in question, I'd be cycling much more cautiously, and my initial reaction would be to get my speed right down until I was convinced there was zero risk.

[thirdcrank]

One point I would make - reiterate - is that people should ride according to the circumstances and in this case the circumstances included the absence of a front brake, which reduced the options available. It's possible to argue that because the other options were chosen, the absence of a brake made no difference. In reality, the presence of a brake would have made a difference by increasing the options available.

Shouting a warning can be much more useful and quicker than ringing a bell. Shouting twice instead of taking other action suggests to me stopping time being wasted.

Then there's the matter of the "guilty mind" mens rea. The prosecution evidence was that the absence of the front brake was a deliberate act for the rider's own excitement. (My summary.) Then, the words shouted betrayed the rider's attitude to the safety of others.

I've posted about all this and more earlier. FWIW, I thought a point I made earlier was missed in court by the lack of any experienced-based evidence about riding fixed-wheel: in addition to the usual effort to move the bike, it's an effort to stop, especially without using other brakes.

[Annoying Twit]

I think that the comments on this article could be more balanced. Quite a few of them are complaining about cyclists blocking the road etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cha ... 59626.html

The article makes a good point. There are a handful of cyclists killing pedestrians per year, but hundreds are killed by car drivers. So, why so much emphasis on this case?

It's interesting to note that the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is an order of magnitude lower (and more) than those killed by cars even if you only look at accidents that happen on the pavement. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _for_pedes

Apologies if some or all of this has been discussed earlier on in the thread.

[Tangled Metal]

From what I've read the deceased didn't step out into his path but stepped into the road that she believed was safe enough for her to cross (my interpretation from reports, snippets of judge's statement, etc.). It seemed to me that judge interpreted this way. As did the jurors but we have no idea what the jurors really thought so that's conjecture.

I just thought I'd point this distinction I take from things I've read to counter the comments from some on here. Comments like she stepped into his path and she shouldn't have been there. She simply tried to cross the road on exactly the same way many other ppl do. A short cut of you like. The stepping back was a common sense action IMHO as she couldn't step forward (IIRC there was a van that way).

I know I am going against the flow on this forum but blaming the pedestrian in this case does not make sense to me based on what has come out from reliable sources (court documents especially judges statements in court during sentencing).

If you really are interested I'd take a wander over to the blog by the secret barrister. He/she has been quoted in here in quite a few threads so I assume many on here respect his comments.

I'd avoid referring to the cycling silk personally since he has a chip on his shoulder I reckon. He took a private prosecution against a driver, lost and then tried to claim £22k costs for it from the state. Everything I've read of his comes across to me as being slightly or completely prejudiced against motorists.

[meic]

a pedestrian walking out in front of the person on a bike takes approx 1.5s thinking time to react to,

Who has a think about that? Not me and not any courier, even wannabe courier, either.
The thinking is about NOT applying the brakes, when any ped steps out (or even looks like) my foot or hand is over to the brakes of car or bike (if not actually applying them) before I think about it, the thinking comes in a bit later.
If they are really close (as proposed in this "no time to react" scenario) then the brakes will have been applied, probably quite strongly also before any thinking was done. It is not a considered response it is an automatic sub-conscious reaction, like catching a ball.
It doesnt take us 1.5 seconds to catch a ball, unless we are totally drunk. Same goes for reacting to a pedestrian entering our hazard zone.

[thirdcrank]

A couple of things have crossed my mind while I've been on my holier-than-thou walk to the paper shop passing all the queuing cars.

I don't think I've really got across the significance of mens rea. The difficulty of proving it is perhaps why dangerous driving is defined by a driving standard. There used to be an even more serious offence of reckless driving which was dropped largely because of the difficulty of proving what the driver was thinking. Having said that, had there been an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling, I don't think the prosecution would have had much difficulty demonstrating that the riding fell far below the standard etc.

Still on mens rea using a firearm example. If somebody accidentally discharged a lawfully held firearm and killed somebody else, it would be gross negligence manslaughter at the most and possible no crime. If they used the same firearm to bludgeon somebody to death it would be murder.

Turning to the appropriateness of shouted instructions to get out of the way, in my youth it was common for drivers to fit loud air horns to their cars and some had five horns each with a different note. A couple of bars of Colonel Bogey or La Cucaracha (?) were popular show off tunes. It occurs to me that a driver who gave two separate blasts of that type of thing before knocking down a pedestrian would be providing the prosecution with good evidence of their attitude, by fitting the horn in the first place, then using it as an alternative to taking action to prevent a crash

[The utility cyclist]

I see a couple of flaws in the above argument SNIP

prove that it isn't two definite things that happen, how can you say the second is expected, how do they follow when the event is so extremely rare? you couldn't prove in a court of law that it would be one continuous thought process of what happened, you have 3.8 seconds from whence the pedestrian first steps out to collision. In that time the rider has to react, brake and steer which he does, plus shouts a warning. Maybe you like others expect him to come to a complete halt everytime someone or something moves across your path 20-30m ahead?
do you come to a complete halt when someone walks out in front of you so far ahead?

So you're saying a person or even motorvehicle would (be expected to) 'salmon' directly into your path on a main road after you've given two audible warnings?

That would infer it's a regular thing, something one expects to happen all the time or indeed does happen all the time, that WOULD be something to expect if that were the case. Forgive me but I can't say I've experienced that type of thing more than twice in about 30 years of serious road riding, with plenty of city commuting where a person has unexpectedly moved back, but I wasn't that close and they had looked up as well as me gently braking but i still had multiple decisions to make.

Not a 'salmon' but my only collision with a pedestrian happened 5 years ago or so, it was IMHO i think it was totally unavoidable from my part, unless i had just come to an abrupt stop in the middle of the main high street of a small town because someone was standing at the side of the road. I was very much alert to something happening when i saw the young man, I slowed and positioned myself right across the carriageway, I made eye contact, he even appeared to turn his head and look at me and yet still I had virtually no chance to even pull my brake levers (which i was covering) before I was flung from my bike. To be ran at with such perfect timing, almost as if deliberate was not something I expected, and with it happening such a short distance away I had no time to counter, despite my doing everything one could reasonably expect and more than most, I still ended up on the ground with injuries and a damaged bike (they were completely unharmed).

so should I have being doing 5mph or a complete halt to make sure i could avoid every or any given scenario that might unfold? Should after my initial thinking and braking period having recognised a 'hazard' have utterly expected what happened to happen? to avoid every single possibility one would have to be going extremely slowly ALL the time, on a busy street you might then as well walk to avoid all possibilities.

sorry but I simply don't agree with your reasoning.

[Psamathe]

... But as I say, I'm just repeating what others have said.

The start of many an urban myth.

So do I assume that everything your been saying about this case are from 1st hand information and NOT through what people have written about it? (e.g. you attended the trial, you tested the braking on the bike yourself, etc.)

In reality much of the information we receive and opinion we form is necessarily based on "what others have said". We try to select reliable sources, try to sanity check and cross verify but at the end of the day we all (need to) form opinions beyond our direct personal experience and are dependent on indirect sources.

Ian

[Psamathe]

..... If you take the view that cycling is a means of getting from A - B or enjoying the fresh air for one's personal benefit then, yes, in that narrow sense, your responsibility is the same as that of a car driver.
.....

I would thus also assume the same applies to pedestrians

Ian

[meic]

Where as I dont take the Judge's sentencing statement to be a factual account of what actually happened in a scientific sense, it certainly is going to be a lot closer to the truth than anything written first hand by the journalists or second hand from those who read the journalists' articles, by that point you are truly into fantasy land.

[meic]

A lot of the media reporting was about irrelevancies and a bit of character smearing.
One issue was the mobile phone. Alliston claimed, at one point, that she was using a mobile phone the press jumped on this a chance to smear him for smearing her. The only bit of "evidence" on this point is the witness statement that on going to her assistance they picked up her phone from the ground to return it to her.
I am not saying the mobile phone changes anything materially but if she did indeed have a mobile in her hand, (as somebody picking it up would imply) then it wouldnt be that unreasonable to mistakenly think that she had been using it.
I am only mentioning this as an example where we have one piece of slightly more credible evidence ( a claim of a witness statement) in a sea of totally unreliable media and social media* derived information.

* Some of it from one of the actual participants. So at least they were there, if not to be trusted.