Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[kwackers]

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.

+1.

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).

[Psamathe]

.....
As the Judge said " It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into her. ".....

Did the judge also point out that it was the pedestrians responsibility as a road-user to ensure she did not step out in front of fast moving traffic?

Some of my unease about this case (from the reports and discussions I've read) is that there seems little recognition that there is a degree of reciprocity with the "responsibility".

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

You have throughout sought to put your blame on her. Perhaps one of the most
shocking things about this case is that you could not and apparently cannot still see
any fault in your cycling or judgement. You began by posting messages on line saying
she was using her mobile phone, but have retracted that assertion. You have criticised
her for crossing in front of you. True it is that she could have walked a little further up
the road and waited for the lights to change. True it is that she put herself in the
middle of the road. But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding
a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying
to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly
stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane.

The relevant section from the Judge's sentencing.

[meic]

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.

This is of course the not uncommon view of a motorist who ploughs into the back of a cyclist who has the temerity to ride on a dual carriageway (or even a fast twisty A road).
I would say that a ped acting like a headless chicken on a busy town street is just as common as a cyclist being on a trunk road. It is something that your driving style should have made allowances for in advance rather than finding yourself in a position where it is too late.

Many of us are calling for motorists who dismiss the need to allow for cyclists on d/cs should be prosecuted when this happens. It would be hypocritical to say that the same excuse can be proffered to defend a cyclist. Which is probably putting words into Thirdcrank's mouth but roughly how I see his position.
I dont put as much parity on the two acts, because of the degree of harm being likely from the actions, so on those grounds when a motorist kills a cyclist there and gets 9 years for death by dangerous driving, I see it on a rough first approximation to give a cyclist up to 2 years when they to have a crash that kills somebody. The higher sentence for the motorist reflects the near certainty of the result of the crash compared to the far less likely death from being hit by a cyclist.

Then of course we get back to that old elephant in the room, which the Cyclingsilk keeps raising and Thirdcrank thinks we should not mention for now. That the cyclist will be judged by completely different standards to the motorist because driving in a way that is "an accident just waiting to happen" is so much the norm that most peds and cyclists have already been driven from the roads.
How can you prosecute a motorist who killed somebody when obeying the two second rule would have prevented it, when hardly any motorist is anywhere close to leaving a two second gap.

[meic]

Some of my unease about this case (from the reports and discussions I've read) is that there seems little recognition that there is a degree of reciprocity with the "responsibility".

You can not prosecute the dead but which law did she break?

I think pedestrians actually have a right to cross the road and it is a travesty that motorists have forced them to relinquish it (on threat of death) and I am not happy to see cyclists jumping on that same bandwagon.

[thirdcrank]

Did the judge also point out that it was the pedestrians responsibility as a road-user to ensure she did not step out in front of fast moving traffic?

Some of my unease about this case (from the reports and discussions I've read) is that there seems little recognition that there is a degree of reciprocity with the "responsibility".

The defendant was on trial for a criminal offence not the deceased. The defendant's case that the green light gave him right of way and the deceased's conduct made avoiding a crash impossible (my summary) were rejected by the jury.

Had this been civil case (compo) then the pedestrian's conduct might have been the basis of an allegation of contributory negligence.
(Not the first time I've offered this explanation on the thread.)
=============================================================
meic

I'm not suggesting for one moment that we should not campaign for better enforcement of traffic legislation across the board. I do feel that appearing to say that this - to me - blatantly bad behaviour is somehow ok because the defendant was a cyclist is a mistake. It removes any claim we have to the moral high ground.

[bovlomov]

I think pedestrians actually have a right to cross the road and it is a travesty that motorists have forced them to relinquish it (on threat of death) and I am not happy to see cyclists jumping on that same bandwagon.

I agree with you, but it should be applied equally. It isn't acceptable for only cyclists to be expected to stop for every pedestrian that wanders into their path. If society agrees that pedestrians can cross the road at will, then fine! It seems not to be the case though, as it only applies when the traffic is bicycle shaped.

By the way, I don't think responsibility is a zero sum transaction. It only has to be divided up when there's compensation to think about. It's possible that Kim Briggs was responsible for her own death, but that doesn't lessen Alliston's responsibility. They can both be 100% responsible.

[Psamathe]

Did the judge also point out that it was the pedestrians responsibility as a road-user to ensure she did not step out in front of fast moving traffic?

Some of my unease about this case (from the reports and discussions I've read) is that there seems little recognition that there is a degree of reciprocity with the "responsibility".

The defendant was on trial for a criminal offence not the deceased. The defendant's case that the green light gave him right of way and the deceased's conduct made avoiding a crash impossible (my summary) were rejected by the jury.

Had this been civil case (compo) then the pedestrian's conduct might have been the basis of an allegation of contributory negligence.
(Not the first time I've offered this explanation on the thread.)
......

Understood. But I was thinking more about the "responsibilities" aspect, as in the "we all have a moral responsibility to consider others and how our actions impact others".

Ian

[Psamathe]

.....
By the way, I don't think responsibility is a zero sum transaction. It only has to be divided up when there's compensation to think about. It's possible that Kim Briggs was responsible for her own death, but that doesn't lessen Alliston's responsibility. They can both be 100% responsible.

You have expressed what I was trying to say far better than I was posting.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

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

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

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

[meic]

I'm not suggesting for one moment that we should not campaign for better enforcement of traffic legislation across the board. I do feel that appearing to say that this - to me - blatantly bad behaviour is somehow ok because the defendant was a cyclist is a mistake. It removes any claim we have to the moral high ground.

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.

There are two moral high grounds in conflict here, do we treat the accused equally or do we follow our feelings based on their stereo-type "v" do we treat errant cyclists without favour.

I personally feel that there is more than a bit of the former (in particular from that Judge) happening and most certainly from the baying crowds whipped up by the media. For many in that crowd the fact that he was a cyclist was just as much a part of the stereotype as the tattoo.
You may well be able to concentrate on the court room and the evidence but not everybody else will be doing that.
There is understandable unease that we must hang the cyclist out to dry when the equally culpable motorist nearly always walks free. I am honest enough to admit that is because of his "image" which may or may not be fair but is certainly pragmatic.

[Psamathe]

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

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

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

[thirdcrank]

I'm not saying we need to hang anybody out to dry. There are some on here who believe that if drivers kill somebody we should simply hang them.

We have some on here who cannot come to terms with the idea that a cyclist might commit an offence. At least one poster appears to believe a cyclist cannot be wrong in any circumstances, except, of course when they dare to disagree with her/him.

[Bonefishblues]

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

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

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

...and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is still thought appropriate to try many thousands of cases each year, interestingly.

[Cunobelin]

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

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

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?