Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[awavey]

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.

which forgive me, but just sounds like the archetypal this guy who claims to be an expert writes a blog I agree with therefore Im obviously right, whilst
the secret barristers post on this case starts off reasonably it soon falls over into cliches about cycling and its patently clear theyve never ridden a bike in London and have experience of how you would react to things, and the only one who seems to have a chip on his/her shoulder is the secret barrister, by needlessly claiming Martin Porter has some "skin in the game" as a cyclist, because he actually pointed out in his article, the large elephant in the room which is a motorist in the exact same scenario would more than likely not have been prosecuted

look no one is trying to shift blame onto the pedestrian in this, but when you or I (as we are all pedestrians as well) step into a road to cross it whilst there is traffic using it, we have fundamentally got to take some part of responsibility for our own safety as well till we are back on the pavement again.

I mean this is weird logic we are creating with this, if its ok and expected for pedestrians to walk into the road and we expect traffic (because we arent creating a distinction that only cyclists stop right ?) to just cope with that and stop, then surely she had every right to just carry on walking across the road, the traffic in the opposing lane which was claimed to be "preventing" her from continuing to cross and get out of the way from Alliston, would just have to have coped and stopped as well wouldnt it ?

so why did she stop crossing the road if people are saying the expectation is the traffic will have to stop, and you cant claim they couldnt have stopped because weve already said its beholden on the traffic (remember not creating a distinction that only cyclists obey this) to travel at such speed that they can stop.

[thirdcrank]

Let's suppose there was a "jaywalking" offence. That would not affect the responsibilities of other road users under the criminal law.

If there's a compo claim against the rider here - only likely if he has third party insurance - any payout would be subject to a claim that it should be reduced for contributory negligence. (It would, of course be much less than if the deceased had survived as a paraplegic.)

[661-Pete]

I agree that a jaywalking law may not have changed the outcome of this case. However, if such a law were in place, it would act as a mighty deterrent against pedestrians stepping stupidly into the road. And maybe it might have deterred this unfortunate woman from stepping into the road against the lights - in which case she would still be alive. I'm looking to a jaywalking law in order to prevent accidents - not to change the legal situation if there unfortunately is one.

While walking around in Washington DC three years ago, although we're not quite certain of the law there and of the level of enforcement, we were very careful to cross roads only at crossings and only in compliance with the lights. No point in chancing a ticket! In the UK I'm generally a bit more carefree....

[bigjim]

A little test for people.
1: Learn to count to 4 seconds reasonably accurately.
2: Cycle along the road at a normal speed,
3: As you pass a lampost or other identifiable road mark, start counting to 4.
4: When you reach 4 use your imagination to visualise a pedestrian stepping into the road when you started counting.
5: Tell me that if that happened a collision would have been completely unavoidable.

I've done this a few times since this case came to court and it is pretty obvious to me that , in the real world, there is plenty of time to safely negotiate the hazard. You can play about with all the hypothetical timings and distances that on paper seem to make what Alliston did reasonable. (to those who are trying to convince themselves of that fact at any rate.) Once you ride it on the road, its pretty obvious why Alliston is guilty.
I would also agree with what meic says. If it takes you a full 2 seconds to actually react to what is going on ahead of you while riding a bike in London then you'd be dead pretty quickly.

But I thought he did attempt to safely negotiate the hazard? He slowed to 10mph and changed direction to go around her, which is something I do almost every day and did an hour ago whilst out on the bike. If he had not shouted then she would probably not have stepped back into his path. Therefore all the calculating time, distance, etc is irrelevent. IMO.

[iandriver]

But I thought he did attempt to safely negotiate the hazard? He slowed to 10mph and changed direction to go around her, which is something I do almost every day and did an hour ago whilst out on the bike.

This has become my approach. I've found giving an audible warning is a big mistake. Different people will act in such different ways. I've been watching the behaviour of pedestrians around Cambridge station due to this case. The bit I can't figure out is people are stepping into the road in front of me, despite having clearly seen me. There seems to be an expectation that I'll just be able to go around and don't need to look behind before changing course, though I do take the lane. Didn't realise how much I use my bar mirror to keep the area behind me in perspective too.

[Ellieb]

A little test for people.
1: Learn to count to 4 seconds reasonably accurately.
2: Cycle along the road at a normal speed,
3: As you pass a lampost or other identifiable road mark, start counting to 4.
4: When you reach 4 use your imagination to visualise a pedestrian stepping into the road when you started counting.
5: Tell me that if that happened a collision would have been completely unavoidable.

I've done this a few times since this case came to court and it is pretty obvious to me that , in the real world, there is plenty of time to safely negotiate the hazard. You can play about with all the hypothetical timings and distances that on paper seem to make what Alliston did reasonable. (to those who are trying to convince themselves of that fact at any rate.) Once you ride it on the road, its pretty obvious why Alliston is guilty.
I would also agree with what meic says. If it takes you a full 2 seconds to actually react to what is going on ahead of you while riding a bike in London then you'd be dead pretty quickly.

But I thought he did attempt to safely negotiate the hazard? He slowed to 10mph and changed direction to go around her, which is something I do almost every day and did an hour ago whilst out on the bike. If he had not shouted then she would probably not have stepped back into his path. Therefore all the calculating time, distance, etc is irrelevent. IMO.

Read the judges comments: He did slow up slightly but continued towards the victim while yelling get out of the effing way. When she didn't get out of the effing way he swerved at the last second, but could not avoid her at late stage. This is why he was convicted. Read the judges comments.

[bigjim]

Judges comments

you did indeed swerve and slow to
between 10-14 mph

You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’. That meant threading a path between
her in the middle of the road and a parked lorry on your left.

As I read it. He slowed from 20mph down to 10mph and attempted to go round her. Which is what I thought I said earlier. Please tell me where I have got it wrong? I'm confused.

[Ellieb]

Can I ask why you quote his speed as 10mph? That is not what the judge says. He was also going at 18, not 20mph. Would you mind me asking why you choose to exaggerate how much he attempted to slow down?
EDIT: I've said this before, but the giveaway & what got him convicted (I think) is: "You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’. "

[bigjim]

Can I ask why you quote his speed as 10mph? That is not what the judge says. He was also going at 18, not 20mph. Would you mind me asking why you choose to exaggerate how much he attempted to slow down?
EDIT: I've said this before, but the giveaway & what got him convicted (I think) is: "You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’. "

Well she said it in the remarks I highlighted. 10-14mph. It is there in front of you. Take 14mph if you wish. Nobody knows But evidently you seem to prefer the worst scenario. He still slowed. What more do you want?

You were cycling at approximately 18 mph down Old St as you approached
the traffic lights at the junction with Charlotte Rd.

The judge did not say he was going at 18mph. Approximately. In other words she does not know.
Whatever spin you choose to put on it. He slowed down and attempted to pass on the inside of her.
I thought you had read the remarks?
Have another read https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

[The utility cyclist]

A little test for people.
1: Learn to count to 4 seconds reasonably accurately.
2: Cycle along the road at a normal speed,
3: As you pass a lampost or other identifiable road mark, start counting to 4.
4: When you reach 4 use your imagination to visualise a pedestrian stepping into the road when you started counting.
5: Tell me that if that happened a collision would have been completely unavoidable.

I've done this a few times since this case came to court and it is pretty obvious to me that , in the real world, there is plenty of time to safely negotiate the hazard. You can play about with all the hypothetical timings and distances that on paper seem to make what Alliston did reasonable. (to those who are trying to convince themselves of that fact at any rate.) Once you ride it on the road, its pretty obvious why Alliston is guilty.
I would also agree with what meic says. If it takes you a full 2 seconds to actually react to what is going on ahead of you while riding a bike in London then you'd be dead pretty quickly.

But I thought he did attempt to safely negotiate the hazard? He slowed to 10mph and changed direction to go around her, which is something I do almost every day and did an hour ago whilst out on the bike. If he had not shouted then she would probably not have stepped back into his path. Therefore all the calculating time, distance, etc is irrelevent. IMO.

Read the judges comments: He did slow up slightly but continued towards the victim while yelling get out of the effing way. When she didn't get out of the effing way he swerved at the last second, but could not avoid her at late stage. This is why he was convicted. Read the judges comments.

The words used are irrelevant, he sounded an audible warning to let another road users know of his presence as advocated by the HC. That he shouted makes no difference, if she didn't hear him or got confused then a bell as seemingly another nail in his coffin by its absence would have being equally as useless. If she was confused as to the sound IF she heard anything, why would she simply not look up and stand her ground instead of walking back into his path?

you can't even bring yourself to accept that reaction time to an unexpected event needs to be taken into account. This is nothing like your made up scenario. An unexpected event takes approx 1.5seconds off your 4 seconds for a start off (well 3.8 to be accurate), so that's down to 2.3 seconds straight away, then you have all the other hazards to be checking out, including looking at the surface of the road itself, continued thinking and second guessing as to what that hazard may or may not do, then you have the active braking and steering away (yet again something the prosecution admitted he did). So that gives you what unfolded, a person stepping out into his path less than 4 metres in front of him. an unexpected event again because he's already steered away from the hazard in the first instance (an accepted normal procedure especially at a slow speed) one literally has no time to react to this second movement.

As i've stated before, yes you could slam on the brakes from 20metres away but that isn't what most people do to avoid a collision, they slow down and the expectation is that someone crossing, actually crosses, you don't expect them to salmon back directly into your path.
sorry but your scenario completely misunderstand how things actually work pertaining to this incident and many other every day scenarios that end in collision because someone did something stupid and left the other person with not enough time to react/steer around - unless you advocate going at 10mph all the time for all road users, oh hang on, CA WAS doing 10mph!

[meic]

a person stepping out into his path less than 4 metres in front of him.

Four metres when doing 10 mph.
I am pretty sure that if that happened to me from somebody who was already in my hazard zone that even if I failed to stop I would be down to the speed of just kissing them. Then again I do have a front brake and I am not afraid to use it.

If somebody doesnt have a front brake, likes playing chicken with peds, takes 1.5 seconds just to think about whether to brake or not, then yes they should stick to 10mph and come down to walking pace when a ped enters their hazard zone, instead of using their inability to control the bike as an excuse for hitting them when they change path.

As the Judge said " It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into
her. " for those who can not understand that point and think "I am entitled to go on", possibly this 18 month sentence is a required warning to change their ways!

If you cant predict that a ped who is blocked from proceeding by traffic on the other side of the road, may just turn back, then really 10 mph is a good starting speed around pedestrians, with hands on both brakes primed and ready to pull at the slightest hint.

[The utility cyclist]

a person stepping out into his path less than 4 metres in front of him.

Four metres when doing 10 mph.
I am pretty sure that if that happened to me from somebody who was already in my hazard zone that even if I failed to stop I would be down to the speed of just kissing them. Then again I do have a front brake and I am not afraid to use it.

If somebody doesnt have a front brake, likes playing chicken with peds, takes 1.5 seconds just to think about whether to brake or not, then yes they should stick to 10mph and come down to walking pace when a ped enters their hazard zone, instead of using their inability to control the bike as an excuse for hitting them when they change path.

As the Judge said " It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into
her. " for those who can not understand that point and think "I am entitled to go on", possibly this 18 month sentence is a required warning to change their ways!

If you cant predict that a ped who is blocked from proceeding by traffic on the other side of the road, may just turn back, then really 10 mph is a good starting speed around pedestrians, with hands on both brakes primed and ready to pull at the slightest hint.

Easy for you to say on a web forum and you aren't a 100% sure by your very own words, because you weren't in that scenario at that time and in reality this rarely happens, but good for you if you do. However if you are to take this approach of someone within 4 metres of you in any given direction whether on foot, on a bike or in a car/bus/van/HGV (All within your hazard zone right?) and you slowing down to 'kissing speed' to avoid a collision, you're going to be going kissing speed all the time on a busy street or on approach to any given junction with vehicles approaching from your left or right, firstly not practical and secondly not reasonable.
Again, the front brake is totally irrelevant, if something/one crosses your path in such a close proximity that is unexpected - as i've explained before it's not a common occurrence ergo isn't expected, but even if you are extremely cautious your brain still cannot process fast enough, the mechanical action time of the brake being applied cannot always mean you are able to slow at all, unless you're going to creep at 'kissingspeed' all the time which is clearly nonsense, you might as well just walk.

[Bonefishblues]

The words used are irrelevant, he sounded an audible warning to let another road users know of his presence as advocated by the HC. That he shouted makes no difference, if she didn't hear him or got confused then a bell as seemingly another nail in his coffin by its absence would have being equally as useless. If she was confused as to the sound IF she heard anything, why would she simply not look up and stand her ground instead of walking back into his path?

you can't even bring yourself to accept that reaction time to an unexpected event needs to be taken into account. This is nothing like your made up scenario. An unexpected event takes approx 1.5seconds off your 4 seconds for a start off (well 3.8 to be accurate), so that's down to 2.3 seconds straight away, then you have all the other hazards to be checking out, including looking at the surface of the road itself, continued thinking and second guessing as to what that hazard may or may not do, then you have the active braking and steering away (yet again something the prosecution admitted he did). So that gives you what unfolded, a person stepping out into his path less than 4 metres in front of him. an unexpected event again because he's already steered away from the hazard in the first instance (an accepted normal procedure especially at a slow speed) one literally has no time to react to this second movement.

As i've stated before, yes you could slam on the brakes from 20metres away but that isn't what most people do to avoid a collision, they slow down and the expectation is that someone crossing, actually crosses, you don't expect them to salmon back directly into your path.
sorry but your scenario completely misunderstand how things actually work pertaining to this incident and many other every day scenarios that end in collision because someone did something stupid and left the other person with not enough time to react/steer around - unless you advocate going at 10mph all the time for all road users, oh hang on, CA WAS doing 10mph!

Yes, of course he shouted a "warning". I happen to think that the manner of his warning may have neen significant, and likely causing immediate panic, fear and perhaps intimidation. People don't behave rationally in that circumstance.

Why wouldn't she simply stand her ground? In evidence we heard that she did try to proceed, but that her path was blocked by a car. This young man had also expressed in the most violent terms that she was in his path - he himself testified that he had a right to proceed. I personally don't believe that he changed his course until the very last minute, when she simultaneously made a last minute move out of his path, as she thought.
Only the video evidence would prove or disprove this, but what is very clear is that this scenario went way beyond the routine ped-cyclist situation, caused initially by her carelessness, but consumated, shall we say, as a result of his recklessness.

Your statement, I hope inadvertant, about "...another nail in his coffin" is really rather inappropriate in the circumstances, don't you think?

I think that your scenario about thinking time et al is exactly as a Defence Counsel would present it, but is not reflective of real world situations, especially cycling in London. Were cyclists to routinely cycle to these limits, then we would have many more fatalaties than we do now. In any event, he'd have had some difficulty slamming on the brakes, wouldn't he?

[Bonefishblues]

a person stepping out into his path less than 4 metres in front of him.

Four metres when doing 10 mph.
I am pretty sure that if that happened to me from somebody who was already in my hazard zone that even if I failed to stop I would be down to the speed of just kissing them. Then again I do have a front brake and I am not afraid to use it.

If somebody doesnt have a front brake, likes playing chicken with peds, takes 1.5 seconds just to think about whether to brake or not, then yes they should stick to 10mph and come down to walking pace when a ped enters their hazard zone, instead of using their inability to control the bike as an excuse for hitting them when they change path.

As the Judge said " It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into
her. " for those who can not understand that point and think "I am entitled to go on", possibly this 18 month sentence is a required warning to change their ways!

If you cant predict that a ped who is blocked from proceeding by traffic on the other side of the road, may just turn back, then really 10 mph is a good starting speed around pedestrians, with hands on both brakes primed and ready to pull at the slightest hint.

Easy for you to say on a web forum and you aren't a 100% sure by your very own words, because you weren't in that scenario at that time and in reality this rarely happens, but good for you if you do. However if you are to take this approach of someone within 4 metres of you in any given direction whether on foot, on a bike or in a car/bus/van/HGV (All within your hazard zone right?) and you slowing down to 'kissing speed' to avoid a collision, you're going to be going kissing speed all the time on a busy street or on approach to any given junction with vehicles approaching from your left or right, firstly not practical and secondly not reasonable.
Again, the front brake is totally irrelevant, if something/one crosses your path in such a close proximity that is unexpected - as i've explained before it's not a common occurrence ergo isn't expected, but even if you are extremely cautious your brain still cannot process fast enough, the mechanical action time of the brake being applied cannot always mean you are able to slow at all, unless you're going to creep at 'kissingspeed' all the time which is clearly nonsense, you might as well just walk.

OTOH you seem uncommonly clear about matters - yet you decry the practical experience of other cyclists explaining how they, as an experienced cyclist like him, deal with situations. What these other cyclists lack, and what you consistently fail to take into account is the anger and recklessness (self-professed, presented in evidence) of this young man which coloured his attitude to dealing with this situation when the young woman made an error of judgement.

[meic]

because you weren't in that scenario at that time

Nor would have I been, which is rather the point. I would have backed off more, given more space and that is why he was "driving furiously" because he did not bother with the safety margins which I always do, as a matter of routine.
I also do so in the car, depending on what the road geography is like I could well have stopped my car due to the presence of that pedestrian just to let them get off the road. I f I was going the other way I could well have stopped my car to let her continue crossing. Yes, I am aware that this would really really enrage the car drivers behind me, who would toot their horns, try and overtake me (on either side) if there was any physical space, bash their steering wheels and have a near stroke from the delay it caused them.
That is the big hypocrisy here, Alliston's road attitude is very common and would normally be overlooked, so long as the boxes are ticked (legal vehicle, sober, no phone in hand) and the defence can pass it off as " a momentary lapse". In this case Alliston made that impossible for them.