Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[LollyKat]

Sorry, off topic, but this bit:

It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves.

explains a lot.

[Bonefishblues]

Some interesting case law:

Longbottom (1849) pre-SCJA 1873

[Gross negligence manslaughter - contributory negligence not a bar to conviction]
DD negligently drove a gig along a public thoroughfare in the evening at a rapid pace, and down a shaded hill killing a pedestrian.

Held: Even though deceased was himself guilty of great negligence in persisting in walking in the middle of such a road, though he was quite deaf, and thereby contributed to his own death, D was liable.

Guilty of manslaughter

Recklessness

Seymour (1983)

The appropriate direction to the jury in a manslaughter case where death was caused by reckless driving was Lord Diplock's dicta in Lawrence.
Lord Roskill (obiter) :

“[there is]…a need to prescribe a single and simple meaning of the adjective "reckless" and the adverb "recklessly throughout criminal law unless Parliament has otherwise ordained in particular case. That simple and single meaning should be the ordinary meaning of those words as stated in this House in R v Caldwell and in R v Lawrence.”

Lawrence(1982)

It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991) it is an offence to ride recklessly on a road or in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner. These offences are covered by sections 28 – 30 of the Act.

Applying the test in Lawrence: Did the manner in which the bicycle was being ridden fall below that of an ordinary prudent cyclist?
(My emphasis)

As I suggested when I asked for a link, this judgment related to a charge of dangerous driving under what was presumably the Road Traffic Act 1960 in 1982 but which was later incorporated into the definition of dangerous driving under s2 of the RTA 1988. As the defendant is not charged under that legislation, that test isn't the one which should be applied. The tests for manslaughter are different, as in my earlier link.

Agree.

[bertgrower]

AIUI, manslaughter is more serious a charge than CDbyDD but if the same situation occurred with a car (pedestrian steps into road), it's likely there would be no charge at all. AIUI the cylist wasn't speeding.

Well, it's not possible to commit a speeding offence on a pedal cycle outside of the Royal Parks.

The debate about manslaughter vs CDbDD/CDbCD is a complex one, but manslaughter/CDbDD are broadly comparable in theory.

There is no speed limit in the RP for cycles. They reconmend a speed of 12 mph. I have read the regulations. Yes somebody got done for going 47 mph in Richmond Park but it was not on firm legal grounds, RP got away with that.

[Bez]

There is no speed limit in the RP for cycles.

Yes there is. You have to follow through a couple of amendments to the original act to get the definitive statute, but there is a speed limit and it applies to all vehicles, not just mechanically propelled ones.

[reohn2]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/crash-cyclist-shouted-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded

Another observation. The prosecution claim that the defendant should have known it was dangerous for him to cycle at 18mph along a street where pedestrians might likely step into the road. So does that mean it is dangerous for a car to be driven along such a street at a speed such that it cannot stop within 6.65 metres? Official stopping distance even at 20mph is 12 metres!

Thanks for the link Mike.
Regarding the stopping distance I agree with you take on it,and for an accurate stopping distance to be ascertained it would need tests done on a similar bike to the defendant's but with a front brake fitted.

[thirdcrank]

Sorry, off topic, but this bit:

It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves.

explains a lot.

I think this is a very pertinent observation about the motor-based culture we live in. Endless bad behaviour by one group of people is hardly an excuse for others to suit themselves.

[Mark R]

Look at the riding position - not much of the rider's weight over the rear wheel....

Assuming the rider immediately locked the rear wheel through the cranks; the rear tyre would have just skidded uselessly with hardly any braking effort. Probably why he was shouting - he had already deployed all his braking and it wasn't slowing him very much at all

It's a fact that the stopping distance would be massively longer without a front brake - that much is obvious right?

The bloke is an absolute plonker using this in a city centre. He must have been well aware that it would be literally impossible to stop quickly from speed - yet he still rode fast. I reckon he's going down.

[tykeboy2003]

But did the lack of a front brake have anything to do with the incident?
By the same token,did her using a mobile phone have anything to do with the incident?
We simply don't know.

No we don't, but we're allowed to speculate....

[thirdcrank]

Re the posts about the prosecution's expert evidence: this is, of course, just that. Once the prosecution has finished its case and subject to any applications that there's no case to answer, the defence get their turn. They can call their own experts to analyse speeds, stopping distances and all the rest of it. The defendant will also have the opportunity to give evidence, but he might face some questions about his online comments. His brief may have to think hard about what line to take when addressing the jury "Experienced rider confronted with an impossible situation" or "My client is only a teenager and you wouldn't want to ruin his life by convicting him of an offence carrying life imprisonment..."

Eventually, the jury will decide which evidence they believe and where their sympathies lie, the latter being irrelevant but often the deciding factor.

BTW, It's a long time since I rode fixed-wheel, and then only on a Winter hack. I'm familiar, therefore, with the use of fixed-wheel for braking, but I don't remember it as being the best system for an emergency stop at the sort of speed which has been mentioned here. Not that I did any experiments or tests. I only remember doing it once, when I was riding uphill (so probably slower than this) and the driver of a Tranny pick-up abruptly turned right, right across my path. The look of horror on his passenger's face turned to mirth when I was almost catapulted over the top. That was with two MAFAC Racers, but I don't think I had time to use them.

PS Even if pedestrian attempts suicide, the law rightly expects that drivers, including cyclists, will drive to the highest standards. In some circumstances, even the highest standards will not prevent a collision. Blowing a horn or shouting at somebody to get out of the way as an alternative to stopping as quickly as possible is below those standards IMO. (And I do know that the law isn't universally enforced.)

[mercalia]

well 20mph on a bike with limited brakes in that part of London - how on earth did he expect to stop all of a sudden if needed ? even with full brakes what is the stopping distance of a bike at 20mph? All cyclists who rush around in London at high speed - and this guy is just one - are just as likely to cause an accident.


" Mr Alliston posted a comment online, claiming he had tried to warn Mrs Briggs but that she had "ignored me" and "stopped dead" in his path, the court heard."

well stopping dead is maybe the best thing to do to let the cyclist decide to go around her? How many times have you been in similar circumtances maybe on foot where 2 people oscillate between going left or right to avoid contact? And any way there is the "reaction time" matter - how many times have your knocked some thing off a table to see it crash onto the floor and all you could do was to observe?

"Alliston’s “fixie” bike was not legal to use on the road without it being modified to add a front brake, jurors heard earlier.
Edward Small, a crash investigator who studied CCTV of the incident, concluded that Alliston, who was then aged 18, would have been able to stop and avoid a collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake." ( The Guardian )


"The defendant had been travelling at an average of 18mph before he noticed Briggs step into the road, jurors heard. He was a minimum of 6.65 metres (21.8ft) away when he swerved and tried to take evasive action.

Tests on a conventional mountain bike found a stopping distance of about three metres, but Alliston’s model had a stopping distance of about 12 metres, the court heard."

roast the arrogant guy ( and all those like him ) He will now pay for his stupid actions.

[gaz]

In the period 2015 to 2016, 36.8% of cars failed their MOT at the first attempt, 4.9% due to brake defects: https://t.co/fK9JH7F537

Society has deemed safe that motor vehicles can travel at 20mph with an estimated stopping distance of 12metres.

[Spinners]

Most of us will have frustrated by dozy pedestrians walking across our path or stepping into the road (scary really when adults seem to rely on their hearing to judge whether it's safe to cross!!) but this guy was/is a clown IMO and I will not defend him or his actions in any way.

[reohn2]

But did the lack of a front brake have anything to do with the incident?
By the same token,did her using a mobile phone have anything to do with the incident?
We simply don't know.

No we don't, but we're allowed to speculate....

That's apparent.

[landsurfer]

Most of us will have frustrated by dozy pedestrians walking across our path or stepping into the road (scary really when adults seem to rely on their hearing to judge whether it's safe to cross!!) but this guy was/is a clown IMO and I will not defend him or his actions in any way.

+1.
Our thoughts should be with the victims family at this time ..... totally unnecessary event.

[Bonefishblues]

Look at the riding position - not much of the rider's weight over the rear wheel....

Assuming the rider immediately locked the rear wheel through the cranks; the rear tyre would have just skidded uselessly with hardly any braking effort. Probably why he was shouting - he had already deployed all his braking and it wasn't slowing him very much at all

It's a fact that the stopping distance would be massively longer without a front brake - that much is obvious right?

The bloke is an absolute plonker using this in a city centre. He must have been well aware that it would be literally impossible to stop quickly from speed - yet he still rode fast. I reckon he's going down.

Very much the point I was making about its being wholly unsuitable for the purpose for which it was being employed.