Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[Bonefishblues]

PK99 on Cyclechat pointed out that the bike is described on http://www.planetx.co.uk/c/q/bikes/trac ... track-bike as "a speed weapon" I wonder how long until they edit that!

It's a track bike, it's described as such, it's marketed as such, and frankly it's pretty darn unsuitable for the purpose to which it was being put by the defendant.

But is that relevant or a contributory factor?

Inasmuch as it had no front brake, yes. It may also be indicative of something about the young man who rode it, as indeed might be his subsequent Forum posts, but that's to be discovered by a Jury first hand, my comments are pure speculation.

[reohn2]

I understand that bikes for road use must have front and rear brakes, so in this case the cyclist was clearly in the wrong (probably ignorant of the law, but that is no excuse). Conversely, cycling at 20mph is perfectly acceptable so long as he was on the road (not on a pavement) and with suitable brakes. Of course if the lady was using her mobile (as claimed by the cyclist) then it should be recognised that she contributed to the accident.

Very sad incident, my condolences to the family of the deceased.

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.

[Bonefishblues]

It's a track bike, it's described as such, it's marketed as such, and frankly it's pretty darn unsuitable for the purpose to which it was being put by the defendant.

The track bike aspect is not really relevant. It's the lack of a front brake. For one of those, you need drilled forks. Many track bikes have those. Traditionally, track riders would bolt on a brake and a lever and ride to events.

Some "fixies" are built on road frames anyway. Track bikes are perfectly safe on the road. Riding without a front brake is not.

People have time trialled on track bikes. Good idea, if you like fixed.

My response was mainly in response to a post about the marketing of the bike using the term "weapon", but for the purpose to which it was being put, then yes, I think a purist track bike with tiny clearances and that riding position represents a pretty poor choice, leaving aside the specific point about the brake's absence.

[Bonefishblues]

I understand that bikes for road use must have front and rear brakes, so in this case the cyclist was clearly in the wrong (probably ignorant of the law, but that is no excuse). Conversely, cycling at 20mph is perfectly acceptable so long as he was on the road (not on a pavement) and with suitable brakes. Of course if the lady was using her mobile (as claimed by the cyclist) then it should be recognised that she contributed to the accident.

Very sad incident, my condolences to the family of the deceased.

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.

Those are the points that the Court case will reveal.

[reohn2]

Inasmuch as it had no front brake, yes. It may also be indicative of something about the young man who rode it, as indeed might be his subsequent Forum posts, but that's to be discovered by a Jury first hand, my comments are pure speculation.

I've mentioned the Rhyl incident because it could be argued that because the driver had three defective tyres and so shouldn't have been on the road in the first place as the vehicle was illegal,the court found it wasn't a contributory factor in the case.Likewise the lack of a front brake in this case could be shown to be the same.

I have only read his forum post via media reports,which as we know can be very selective to suit an agenda.
I know nothing at all about the young man in question other than he was riding a defective bicycle and an image displayed in the media,similarly so the deceased.

[reohn2]

I understand that bikes for road use must have front and rear brakes, so in this case the cyclist was clearly in the wrong (probably ignorant of the law, but that is no excuse). Conversely, cycling at 20mph is perfectly acceptable so long as he was on the road (not on a pavement) and with suitable brakes. Of course if the lady was using her mobile (as claimed by the cyclist) then it should be recognised that she contributed to the accident.

Very sad incident, my condolences to the family of the deceased.

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.

Those are the points that the Court case will reveal.

Hopefully

[thirdcrank]

A couple of points.

In legal, rather than internet forum terms, contributory negligence is irrelevant here. The defendant is charged with offences and they must be proved by the evidence. A victim's conduct may amount to a pretty good defence or following conviction the the deceased's conduct may be mitigation. (Contributory negligence is a term from the civil courts ie, relevant to claims for compo. Had the casualty survived and sued the rider for compensation for her injuries, contributory negligence might have reduced her compensation, to the extent that the judge decided she was partially to blame for her own injuries. I could imagine that in a crash between a car and a pedal cycle, no brakes would raise the issue of contributory negligence at compo time.)

For this type of manslaughter, there has to be a direct causal link between the unlawful conduct and the death. If a driver had say, a firearm hidden in the car at the time of a crash, that wouldn't amount to manslaughter even though they shouldn't have been on the road with a gun. This is what I've been unsuccessfully trying to explain about Rhyll. The car should not have been on the road with defective tyres, but merely being on the road wasn't the cause of the crash, even though it would not have occurred had the car not been on the road.)

My third point of the couple is about the alleged comments made by the defendant on social media. It's often very difficult for the prosecution to give evidence of what a defendant was thinking. Savvy defendants keep schtum or tell porkies. Others may allege that their comments at interview were not "voluntary" in that they had been coerced, tricked or whatever into making them. So long as comments on social media can be proved to have been made by a defendant, they will almost certainly be voluntary and excellent evidence of a defendant's state of mind.

[Bonefishblues]

For this type of manslaughter, there has to be a direct causal link between the unlawful conduct and the death. If a driver had say, a firearm hidden in the car at the time of a crash, that wouldn't amount to manslaughter even though they shouldn't have been on the road with a gun. This is what I've been unsuccessfully trying to explain about Rhyll. The car should not have been on the road with defective tyres, but merely being on the road wasn't the cause of the crash, even though it would not have occurred had the car not been on the road.)

What am I missing or not getting in my contribution below, as I think I understand the issue of causality/materiality?

The fact is that it is contended he would have been able to have avoid the incident that she contributed to by her own negligence had his bike been legally equipped with a front brake. If it wouldn't have made any difference, then it would be a different matter, as per the Rhyl tragedy briefly discussed upthread.

[thirdcrank]

... What am I missing or not getting in my contribution below, as I think I understand the issue of causality/materiality?

The fact is that it is contended he would have been able to have avoid the incident that she contributed to by her own negligence had his bike been legally equipped with a front brake. If it wouldn't have made any difference, then it would be a different matter, as per the Rhyl tragedy briefly discussed upthread.

Except for having to work out who was BFB, I think you have it right and I've not intended to suggest you haven't. Had there been no other posts about this I'd not have reiterated mine.

BTW, I don't know what's been said at court about this today but the reports I've seen all seem to be limited to the prosecutor's opening speech yesterday. At that point, the prosecuting counsel sets out the prosecution case in broad terms ie what the prosecution intends and expects to be able to prove. It's a sort of guide for the jury to know what to expect. (The defence will already know from the disclosure of evidence.) It's not, in itself, evidence even though it's delivered by somebody in a wig. There will be times when the prosecution for whatever reason finds that the evidence isn't there but the prosecuting counsel will believe it's going to be. They shouldn't make an allegation which they know is not supported by the evidence.

A lot of checks will have been made before this stage in the court process and this should have included ensuring that the evidence is there to prove all the elements of the offences on the indictment. There may well be questions of degree and the defence will look for weaknesses or gaps in the prosecution evidence, and then eloquently try to persuade the jury to acquit. It's also probably worth mentioning that the role of the court is to examine the evidence, not to conduct empiric research.

[reohn2]

BFB=BoneyFishBlues

TC,I get confused with legal mumbo,but a simpleton such as me,thinks if bald tyres don't count ,then a lack of a front brake won't count if the defendant hadn't any time to brake.
Thats what I've been trying to say,albeit somewhat in a garbled fashion

[Bonefishblues]

BFB=BoneyFishBlues

TC,I get confused with legal mumbo,but a simpleton such as me,thinks if bald tyres don't count ,then a lack of a front brake won't count if the defendant hadn't any time to brake.
Thats what I've been trying to say,albeit somewhat in a garbled fashion

But unfortunately (for him, as it may come to be) he had the opportunity to shout a warning not once but twice IIRC. This wasn't a "ped steps off kerb a metre in front of a bike" scenario. Had it been, then the illegality of his bike wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference, and the Rhyl scenario would have been played out, one expects.

[thirdcrank]

The evidence at the Rhyll inquests was that, given the icy state of the road, the lack of tyre tread made no difference. ie the state of the tyres did not contribute to the deaths of the deceased. In the present case, reports of the prosecution counsel's opening speech suggest that the prosecution intends to prove ie with evidence, that the absence of brakes contributed directly to the death. ie The other possibilities which might eg point to the defendant having no chance to avoid hitting the deceased and with sufficient force to kill her have been considered and discounted by the available evidence, which will, in due course, be presented to the court.

This is what I meant by no empiric research. The court won't be conducting any brake tests etc. Also, the court will take every step possible to try to ensure that the jury reaches its verdicts on the evidence they have heard, rather than their own research.

(Back to Rhyll, I'm pretty sure I posted on a previous thread that as a total layman, I wondered whether the single legal tyre might have got sufficient grip on a bit of road to have swung the car skating on the other three, but that's my conjecture and not the expert evidence presented to the inquest.)

"BFB" posted while I was scribing.

[Farrina]

Further update on trial from BBC here (with picture of bicycle)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40936964

[thirdcrank]

Further update on trial from BBC here (with picture of bicycle)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40936964

From that link:

The court has been told crash investigators had concluded Mr Alliston would have been able to stop and avoid the impact if the bike had been fitted with two brakes.

Room for interpretation there.
======================================
Edit:
The Sun reports that the evidence as:

Investigators concluded that Alliston could have stopped in time if he had a front brake, the court heard.

Not quite the same thing.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4244989/c ... heel-bike/

[Bonefishblues]

That caught my eye, too.