CYCLIST KILLS MOTHER OF TWO

Was she texting at the time? I see this a lot and they are asking for a collision in doing so.

A cyclist who knocked over and killed a 44-year-old woman in east London last year has been cleared of her manslaughter.

But Charlie Alliston, 20, was found guilty of causing bodily harm by "wanton or furious driving".

From the BBC website. Is a custodial sentence likely?

He told the court he shouted to warn her and slowed down to between 10 and 14 miles an hour.
Alliston said he shouted again and swerved to avoid her but Mrs Briggs stepped back into his path.
He claimed he was not aware a brake was a legal requirement to ride on the road and said even with one he wouldn't have been able to stop in time.
But crash investigators who studied CCTV of the incident concluded Alliston would have been able to stop and avoid the collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake.

Custodial sentence a certainty

I hope he gets some jail time, he seemed totally remorseless.

You would be amazed at the number of cyclists who do not know the difference between pavement and road, too.
Agreed people need to take care when crossing the road but riding around without a front brake is asking for trouble. Most bikes I see these days don't have a warning device either. Many don't have lights. What happened to the bell?

Hope he gets 10 years minimum  ..
Bikers are a fu c king menace, on the roads and on footpaths, they ride along The regents canal footpath and weave in and out of people,  they are all leftie  w4nk3ers, either riding to the coffee shop, to get a Latte , or they have Jonty and Pippa in tow and everyone has to get out the way, next time i go, i'm taking a large ROTWEILLER, TEACH HIM HOW TO CHASE AND HATE BIKES,AND LEAVE HIM ON THE FOOTPATH...WAITING.......

dambuster

Tell us when dambuster, that would be a great day out.

Maximum sentence two years

Baffling that they could conclude he was guilty of wanton and furious but not guilty of manslaughter.

Was a very difficult case I thought.  Glad I wasn't on the jury, if it was decided by a jury.  I think the right verdict was probably reached.

If it was the mother of two texting on a bicycle and crashing into a pre occupied yob resulting in his death would we see it in the same way? or would we feel it was a tragic accident and cut her slack?

I think that most people would deem a fatal accident resulting in the death of a pedestrian an unforeseeable outcome, but causing bodily harm foreseeable and that is how the verdict was reached.

He told the court he shouted to warn her and slowed down to between 10 and 14 miles an hour

I would have thought even that too fast and showing a disregard for peoples safety.
That plus the fact that he seemed devoid of any remorse nailed it for me.
Yes the victim was negligent but he could see she wasn't paying attention.

Cyclists are a bloody menace on the roads, forever causing accidents and blaming everyone but themselves. It's not much better on the public footpaths around here now either - you go out for a nice weekend walk, minding your own business, and all of a sudden some Lycra-clad muppet will whizz past on a bike at twenty-five miles an hour. You can't hear the buggers coming and if you happen to step out of line at just the wrong moment it ends in carnage.

I am a cyclist and ride 3 to 4000 miles a year.
With regards to the case in point the defendant riding a fixed track bike in London with no brakes was just asking for trouble .Unfortunately ending in tragedy.
Torq:
Cyclists are a bloody menace on the roads. You cant tar all with the same brush you get bad riders of a bike like you do drivers of a vehicle, pedestrians even worse crossing roads whilst looking @ their phones what could possibly go wrong.

You can't hear the buggers coming(you have eyes for a reason) and if you happen to step out of line at just the wrong moment it ends in carnage.
That is the stupidity of a pedestrian not concentrating on what they should be doing not the cyclist.

torq apologies: cyclists should not be on the footpaths. totally out of order.

The UK is so far behind sensible and civilised road use. Perhaps it's because we are so overcrowded now. Take a box and keep putting more and more rats in it and eventually there comes a time when the rats start fighting. That seems to be the position now with our  roads. In many other European countries there is not the same problem and all road users co-exist peacefully. As regards cycling it is regarded as just another means of transport there and very often a simple line down the middle of the pavement segregates the cyclists from pedestrians. Pedestrians on the inside and cyclists outside. No problem.

bet he cycled each day to court

Geoff
Fair enough mate, sorry to tar everyone with the same brush. When I said you can't hear them BTW, I meant when they whizz up from behind you on the footpaths around here. Me and the family like to walk along some old railway tracks that have been turned into a five mile countryside walk (it's about a ten feet wide Tarmac path). Well, this pursuit has just about been ruined by cyclists, they have pretty much commandeered the track as their own and fly past at speed in both directions. It's not so bad if it's just me and the missus I suppose, but if you have kids or a dog then it is just too stressful, an accident waiting to happen.

Doesn't seem to be any requirement to have a roadworthy bike, or in fact any knowledge of the highway code, to be let loose on public roads which other motorists by way of the road fund licence and fuel taxes are funding. I agree, just like car drivers there are good and bad amongst cyclists, but at least with MOT tests, the driving test and more importantly insurance there are some safeguards for other road users and pedestrians.

Perhaps they need to bring back the green cross code man if people have forgotten how to cross the road

Torquemada

I also cycle about 3-4000 miles a year.  The civilised and respectful way for all road users is to give way to the more vulnerable. So cyclists should give way to pedestrians and slow down and make them aware of their presence.  Motorists should treat cyclists the same and slow down and give them plenty of room.
In many countries the law automatically makes the more powerful road user liable in any accident unless they can prove otherwise.
But what it really boils down to is respect for other human beings.

I would expect in a crash between a cyclist and a pedestrian, the cyclist to come off worse nine times out of ten.

In a crash between a motor vehicle and a cyclist or pedestrian I would expect the cyclist/pedestrian to come off worse 99 times out of 100.  You can't really compare the two imo.

Pedestrians who get hit are often elderly because they aren't quick enough to get out of the way so to suggest the cyclist usually comes off worse is rubbish.

Pedestrians who get hit are often obese because they aren't quick enough to get out of the way so to suggest the cyclist usually comes off worst is rubbish.

to suggest the cyclist usually comes off worse is rubbish.
If you were hit by a bag of hard metal objects weighing about 1cwt and travelling at 20 mph it's gonna hurt.
And that's what it's like when you get hit by a cyclist.

Torquemada    24 Aug 17 09:48 
Geoff
Fair enough mate, sorry to tar everyone with the same brush. When I said you can't hear them BTW, I meant when they whizz up from behind you on the footpaths around here. Me and the family like to walk along some old railway tracks that have been turned into a five mile countryside walk (it's about a ten feet wide Tarmac path). Well, this pursuit has just about been ruined by cyclists, they have pretty much commandeered the track as their own and fly past at speed in both directions. It's not so bad if it's just me and the missus I suppose, but if you have kids or a dog then it is just too stressful, an accident waiting to happen.


Totally agree. Similar situation where I live.
Often impossible to let dog off the lead. The ' Lycra idiots'  hurtle along at stupid speed , weaving in and out of people/dogs/children. Their arrogance is staggering. They think they own these tracks.None of them have any audible warning ( eg bell) fitted , so you're often completely unaware of their looming presence behind you, especially if the wind is blowing against you.

A fact free post from Facts!

When I cycle I wear lycra.  It protects the legs.  Loose clothing chafes, and at 70 pedal revolutions a minute, or 4,200 revolutions an hour, that is a lot of cloth to skin interaction.
I do not weave in and out of people, children, dogs, and I am not arrogant.

Are dogs allowed off leads in public?  Is it alright to have dogs roaming about? 
You know people will push it and will have their pitbulls, dobermans, rottweilers roaming about "wouldn't harm a fly, is gentle around children, he never did that before"

On looking at some statistics I'll admit my expectations were wrong.  Around 2 to 3 pedestrian deaths a year caused by cyclists in the UK which surprises me but still extremely uncommon. There have been 2 cyclists deaths involving pedestrians since 2015.

Cyclists and walkers do not mix well. I cycle the canal paths during the week when they are virtually deserted. At the weekend I walk these towpaths only, and like facts I curse the cyclists approaching silently from behind and then expecting you to instantly gather your thoughts and avoid em without slowing em down.

This story seems to, predictably, have opened up the whole prejudice against cyclists / they are all the same cr*p. The guy involved seems like an a** but end of the day he was on the road not pavement, didn't run a red light, he went through a green, then someone walked out into london traffic not looking at it but looking at their phone then jumped into his path. Your experience with idiots (and there are many total idiots on bikes) cycling recklessly on a pavement causing pent up rage is irrelevant to this case which should be judged on its merits alone. Last night on tv there was horrific footage of people driving into horses on the wrong side of the road, two days ago news had various dashcam footage of horrendous driving like overtaking on blind bends, as they are going to use such footage more, are all car drivers bad because of this?

For a cyclist on a shared space the worst thing is people who suddenly jump random directions INTO your path. It's like a car driver becoming aware there is something behind them and suddenly changing lanes as someone passes them, in what would have been a safe manner.

He should have had 100% had a front brake, that's where most of your stopping power is so he should be done for that. But that aside, I've never ridden a "fixey", what is the stopping power - has anyone ridden one?

Re idiots on bikes my pet peeve (pun intended) is people who have no sense around dogs on places like old tracks, like someone says above, I totally sympathise. If I'm cycling near a dog I'll be totally focussed and slow down and give it as wide a berth as possible as they are totally unpredictable. Then you get the idiots who shoot past them, the dog has more brains...

Interesting statistics.
From 2005-2014 no pedestrians were killed by red light jumping cyclists but around 50 were killed by red light jumping drivers.
From 2005-2014 98% of pedestrian fatalities and 95% of serious injuries to pedestrians while on the pavement involved motor vehicles.
Mile for mile motor vehicles are almost twice as likely to kill a pedestrian than a cycle.

Of course they are, they weigh half a ton.

I've ridden a fixed wheel bike (used to be my dad's). OK for gentle slowing and speed control but useless in an emergency as the rear wheel skids as you would expect. Most stopping power comes through the front wheel brakes.

Exactly foinavon, it's just physics, you're pitched forward, back lifts, skids.
I see kids on bmxes all the time with no front brake, seems trendy?
Then again "fixeys" are trendy. Never mind the pro types, normal bikes made to be fixeys. Seems a bit .. fashion victim.
I'm guessing there is a correlation between riding a street fixey and having an apple instead of android phone..

I have never seen a campaign to instruct adults not to walk out into a road while looking at a screen. It should not be needed, but it is. Anyone doing so should really be responsible for any injury they sustain as a result, and any damage to drivers or vehicles involved. It is not a crime to act stupidly but neither is it anyone else's fault.

I think the reason my dad had a fixed wheel cog on his go-to-work bike was because in very wet weather caliper rim brakes became far less effective when soaked and the fixed wheel gave some additional control, but then, no-one in his right mind would be riding at speed in those conditions.

I don't know the law but if you manage to shout something like " get out of my fceking way " twice you should have time to avoid a collision or brake enough to reduce the impact. Did he slow down before he hit her? i dont know as I didn;t follow the case closely.

We all have our prejudices. I follow the Indian Rules of the road. The biggest vehicle has the right of way! A cyclist is exposed even if he crashes into a pedestrian who is looking at their phone. He could come off just as bad or worse.

I ride a bike sometimes and I protect myself at all times. If there could be a collision between me and an Artic I don't care who is in the right or wrong!

Whisperingdeath 24 Aug 17 15:40 Joined: 25 Dec 11 | Topic/replies: 16,643 | Blogger: Whisperingdeath's blog
I don't know the law but if you manage to shout something like " get out of my fceking way " twice you should have time to avoid a collision or brake enough to reduce the impact. Did he slow down before he hit her?


The only slowing down you can do with no brakes and a fixed wheel is applying some reverse pressure.

If hed had brakes it would appear he would have been able to slow down significantly more,given hed shouted twice and probably avoid or reduce significantly any impact. A sad tragedy with both pedestrian and cyclist appearing to make serious errors of judgement.

I had a single speed "racer".
The back wheel could be flipped to make it a fixie.
Why?  I never did.  It just makes it less controllable.
The bike had front and back brakes.

I didn't see the need to be cool, and stop the bike by stepping on the pedals to lock the back wheel.
Or I didn't see the need to learn to keep my feet off the ground at traffic lights doing a track stand by moving the bike back and forward using a fixed back wheel.
Or I didn't see the need to have straight handlebars cut to a ridiculous short length, about a foot total width.

That cyclist who killed a woman had set up his bike and his riding style to cause an accident.

I just don't see the point in a fixey. Gears were invented for a reason. Freewheels were invented for a reason. I'd hate it if I wanted to coast for 10 seconds, if I had to keep turning my legs. There seems to be no advantage, it just comes across as trendy hipster b/s.. What is the weight of a freewheel and a pair of alloy brakes? I cr*p more than that.

When I was racing we would often train on a fixed wheel but always with at least another brake. No advantage whatsoever to not having a front brake.
If you're out for a 100 mile training run on a fixed you pedal every yard of the distance whereas on gears you probably only pedal for about 2/3 of the distance.
I would suggest that the only real use for a fixed is racing.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/police-hunt-cyclist-knocked-man-112349427.html