Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[Psamathe]

I think the biggest issue for many of the public was the charge:



The fact that the prosecution was under a 150 year old law (and one that predates current cycle design by 20 years) as there was nothing more appropriate gives an impression that there are no current laws to govern this case. The consequent call by the relatives and others for a review and a appropriate legislation is a common sense one from that perspective

But the defendant got 18 months (which people seem to regard as between "appropriate" and "harsh" and I've seen no "light" comments). So despite being an old law, it worked. But we have many laws that don't work ----->but I'm repeating myself from https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=117429.

Ian

It worked, but the perception is that if you have to resort to a 150 year old law that predates the Safety Bicycle then something is wrong.

Imagine the outrage if we were relying on such to censure motorists?

I'm not against the review, just against it being urgent when there are laws that are not working. I don't want to give any impression that I'm against cycle legislation being reviewed.

I can't see me being worried about an old law being used for a motoring offence. As Bonefishblues points out above "the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is still thought appropriate to try many thousands of cases each year" yet we don't have an outcry and urgent review every time it is successfully used (and I'd never realised it was such an old law).

But it is the urgent that is my concern, being given priority over and above laws that don't seem to be working.

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

@Cunobelin

But it was the manner in which the conveyance was being driven that was key, not really the conveyance itself. Just like we have lots of new and innovative ways to kill and injure people because of other advances. The fact that they are not all named in the legislation makes little difference in real terms.

[horizon]

At least one poster appears to believe a cyclist cannot be wrong in any circumstances.

Well I'm still hanging on to the idea that that is broadly true. That doesn't mean that the verdict is wrong just that there may be circumstances in which one does something (whether that is cycling or something else) in which one's initial choice lays the foundation for an activity in which one is very unlikely to do anyone any harm. I don't think I can argue this through conclusively but here are some of the things that occur to me from time to time:

1. The official line on cycling is almost 100% self-protection.
2. There are no compulsory tests for cyclists.
3. Speed limits don't generally apply.
4. The number of serious accidents caused by cyclists is very small.
5. Even brakes and lights AIUI were for the protection of the cyclist.
6. The mixing of cyclists and pedestrians on shared paths is promoted and encouraged.
7. In other areas (such as bombing or playing rugby) some accidents are considered inevitable.
8. The inherent safety (for others) of a bicycle is its mass and means of motive power both of which limis its potential to do harm.

What I am saying here is that the fundamental choice to ride a bicycle is one where you have already partly guaranteed the safety of others - what happens after that is accidental and vanishingly unlikely. I do accept that for many people (those that drive furiously in motor cars and then walk down the street of their choice to be confronted by 20 mph cyclists) don't accept this and find cyclists both threatening and dangerous.

The prosecution in this court case represented the values and current position of society. That position is that cycling is potentially dangerous and demands a high level of personal responsibility and care, both in regard to the bike and the way it is ridden. But that same society expresses the view that (a) the mixing of cyclists with pedestrians on shared paths is intrinsically safe and indeed demanded by the police (see relevant case) and (b) a lapse of judgement is often an acceptable occurrence in the case of the far more dangerous motor vehicle.

It is the context of this case that causes us to discuss it for 70 pages and what gives rise to feelings of unease. I think the case against Alliston has been well made on these pages - I feel now it is indisputable. And yet I still don't find it right. There is something rotten in the state of the law of our roads and that is what is making many posters on here look for mitigation in this case.

[thirdcrank]

I know I often bang on about the Highway Code but I think this bit is relevant here. It's from the introduction to the General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103 to 158) and I have mentioned it on another recent thread:-

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 103-to-158

Meic mentioned my campaign banner and I think

Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident

just fits nicely and there's no room for exclusions.
======================================================
PS Without a full transcript well probably never know, but I'd like to think that when the defence counsel made the point about the green light and right of way, the prosecution ensured that the court was aware of this bit. If he didn't, it might be because he didn't know about it, which shows how much needs to be done. It should also be born in mind when reading the judge's comments.

[meic]

I see that as a Bully boy's charter. You may as well screw up and throw away all the rules of the road and just say he who grabs has priority and of course the bigger and faster that you are, the more that you are going to grab.

[thirdcrank]

horizon

You could have added to your list that our society recognises the lower risks to others presented by cyclists by not insisting on the compulsory third party insurance for cyclists. IMO, non of that gives riders the right to ignore even those lower requirements eg brakes and a general duty of care towards others. Of course, there are many on here who pay a lot of attention to voluntary third party insurance.

BTW, my comment which you quoted was not about you. I did think about something on the lines of "feels cyclists' contribution to improving society should be rewarded with a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' but decided against it. (I've still managed to slot it in now anyway.) On this social responsibility theme, you don't seem to have had much to say about the contribution made by pedestrians.
===============================
meic

It may already be the reason for some jaywalking too.

[Mick F]

I see that as a Bully boy's charter. You may as well screw up and throw away all the rules of the road and just say he who grabs has priority and of course the bigger and faster that you are, the more that you are going to grab.

Slightly off topic here, but relevant as far as your comment.

We have sold our Fiat500.
In the three years we owned and drove it, we were astounded and annoyed about how we were bullied by traffic. Nigh-on every time we had priority at junction, roundabouts, passing parked cars on the opposite side of the road, we were forced to take avoiding action against the established rules of the road.

Driving our Clio and our Yaris, we have no issues.
Cycling, I have no issues, but I am aware that other folk do. It could be that the way I cycle gives the impression that I'm in a big car and not a small one.

[Audax67]

We have sold our Fiat500.
In the three years we owned and drove it, we were astounded and annoyed about how we were bullied by traffic. Nigh-on every time we had priority at junction, roundabouts, passing parked cars on the opposite side of the road, we were forced to take avoiding action against the established rules of the road.

Same here when we had a Citroën Dyane. The same extended to garages: a Citroën garage in Edinburgh fawned over a DS driver and treated our car with amused contempt - murdered it in the end, in fact.

It was amazing to graduate to a VW Passat and watch the difference.

[horizon]

I did think about something on the lines of "feels cyclists' contribution to improving society should be rewarded with a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' but decided against it. (I've still managed to slot it in now anyway.)

I've tried to say that if you focus in on the case, it gets stronger and stronger against Alliston. The evidence is there, the law is there, his own attitude (and therefore intent) is on display. Even the penalty is a fair one (no, he wasn't hanged and there is a grieving family).

But as you focus out, you get a different impression as I have outlined above. Even Ben Bradshaw MP was prompted to write to the TImes to protest about the new initiative to review cycling law. I've always assumed that pedestrians are sacrosanct and cycle accordingly but I recognise that not everyone shares my view. But this case has either unfairly prosecuted a young man or it has moved the goal posts in terms of the way society (represented in court) is delighted to shove cyclists in with pedestrians and off the roads. That might be irrelevant to the court but it matters to me. The most urgent review required is of that policy IMV.

On this social responsibility theme, you don't seem to have had much to say about the contribution made by pedestrians.

I can only spend so much time on here ....

[Ellieb]

What I am saying here is that the fundamental choice to ride a bicycle is one where you have already partly guaranteed the safety of others - what happens after that is accidental and vanishingly unlikely. I do accept that for many people (those that drive furiously in motor cars and then walk down the street of their choice to be confronted by 20 mph cyclists) don't accept this and find cyclists both threatening and dangerous.

As an aside, I live 50 metres from a busy shared use urban cycle path. Walk down there during rush hour & I can pretty much guarantee that you would change your mind about the lack of risk posed by cyclists to others. It is really very scary.

[reohn2]

The problem I have with this whole case is that Alliston's attitude is very much the norm. The basic idea that once you're moving it's up to everyone else to stay out of your way and braking becomes a last resort rather than a first defence (and in this taken to the degree that they're not even considered necessary it would seem).

I'm forced to agree,it's what its come to.
In the absence of any semblence of law enforcement the roads have become a free for all where anything goes so long as your not caught doing it,which the chances are slim until something disasterous happens,and even then with contrite defence its possible to get away with murder.

[Ellieb]

horizon, I do have a bit of respect for your views on cycling and cyclists. However, does this video not give you some cause to think that maybe there are some cyclists who are not quite deserving to have their actions excused becuase of the nature of their mode of transport.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWum-yZBJws
PS It is also the sort of video Alliston like to watch.

[661-Pete]

It is the blatant bit that really matters here.
This individual is clearly an unattractive "yoof with attitude" he is a perfect stereotypical bad 'un.
He isnt a nice respectable and attractive mum like his victim was.

It doesn't always turn out according to stereotypes.

When I served on a jury (some 25 years ago), I remember, the defendant exactly fit the bill as a "yoof with attitude" - whereas his alleged victim was a nice respectable bloke in a respectable job, wearing a smart suit.

In her summing up, the Defence Counsel remarked: "Look at the defendant - a bit of a rough-and-ready type I grant you - probably not the sort of chap you'd invite into your home. Should you let that influence your verdict?"

Well, it didn't. We found the defendant Not Guilty. A different jury might not have, notwithstanding Counsel's remarks.

So this sets me wondering a bit, about other jury verdicts. Not that I'm imputing that, in the Alliston case, the jury were unduly influenced by his appearance or bearing.

[661-Pete]

horizon, I do have a bit of respect for your views on cycling and cyclists. However, does this video not give you some cause to think that maybe there are some cyclists who are not quite deserving to have their actions excused becuase of the nature of their mode of transport.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWum-yZBJws
PS It is also the sort of video Alliston like to watch.

I remember, years ago, going on record (on a different forum I think), to express my disgust at these alleycat videos. Even though they depict staged 'events' rather than day-to-day cycling. How much influence are they likely to have, on susceptible types? Alliston appears to be a vulnerable lad - and will probably be even more so once he comes out of jail.

Perhaps alleycats should be taken off Youtube and the like. They have the potential to do almost as much harm as terrorist vids.

[Cunobelin]

@Cunobelin

But it was the manner in which the conveyance was being driven that was key, not really the conveyance itself. Just like we have lots of new and innovative ways to kill and injure people because of other advances. The fact that they are not all named in the legislation makes little difference in real terms.

That is not in dispute.

It is the public perception left by this case that there was only possible to prosecute under a law that predates the safety bicycle itself

For cars the law is also under similar review, just with less of a fanfare