Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ News / Press Articles _ "wanton or furious driving",

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 18:06
Post #1309246

nice to see laws dating back to 1861 being used

guy on a "racing" push bike mows a woman down , bike has not or never was fitted with a front brake , , in court "He told the court he had had no idea there was a legal requirement for his bike to have a front brake."

sigh ,

The court heard that Brunelle is a stunt cyclist who makes videos in which he rides around cities including London "doing dangerous stuff" such as weaving in and out of traffic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40960346

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 18:16
Post #1309250

It's a useful one to use if you've forgotten not been able to serve an NIP.

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 19:51
Post #1309280

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 19:06) *
The court heard that Brunelle is a stunt cyclist who makes videos in which he rides around cities including London "doing dangerous stuff" such as weaving in and out of traffic.

Not that Brunelle is the defendant.

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 20:00
Post #1309287

QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 20:51) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 19:06) *
The court heard that Brunelle is a stunt cyclist who makes videos in which he rides around cities including London "doing dangerous stuff" such as weaving in and out of traffic.

Not that Brunelle is the defendant.



correct "Jurors were told that Mr Alliston talked of removing his front brake from a previous bike in a tweet in February 2015, comparing the experience of riding it to being in a "Lucas Brunelle movie".
The court heard that Brunelle is a stunt cyclist who makes videos in which he rides around cities including London "doing dangerous stuff" such as weaving in and out of traffic.
But Mr Alliston denied copying the filmmaker, or that he enjoyed taking risks."

facebook can come back and haunt people

Posted by: buttonpusher Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 18:33
Post #1309553

Would the police have even charged him had his bike been road legal.

Posted by: Fredd Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 19:04
Post #1309568

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 21:00) *
Jurors were told that Mr Alliston talked of removing his front brake from a previous bike in a tweet in February 2015,

I'm not sure how significant the lack of a brake was, given that this was apparently a fixed wheel bike (ie one with no freewheeling). IME bikes have completely naff brakes, and I would have thought that applying resistance through the pedals might well be more effective. Not my area of expertise, but I would be interested to hear something more informed than the journalistic knee-jerk "NO BRAKES!!!!" opinion.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 19:21
Post #1309576

QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 19:33) *
Would the police have even charged him had his bike been road legal.

Probably not with manslaughter, no.

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 20:05
Post #1309588

QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 20:04) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 21:00) *
Jurors were told that Mr Alliston talked of removing his front brake from a previous bike in a tweet in February 2015,

I'm not sure how significant the lack of a brake was, given that this was apparently a fixed wheel bike (ie one with no freewheeling). IME bikes have completely naff brakes, and I would have thought that applying resistance through the pedals might well be more effective. Not my area of expertise, but I would be interested to hear something more informed than the journalistic knee-jerk "NO BRAKES!!!!" opinion.


Though not a cyclist as such, I'd disagree with bikes having naff brakes.... even the old caliper brakes could pull you up pretty quick and some models now have disc brakes which should be more efficient.

More telling to me is the reports of him doing 20mph and screaming "get out of the F***ing way" before he hit her.
Which falls into line with the wanton and furious charge.
And to me at least, speaks of the stereotypical "lycra clad, I have right of way, cycle borne road warrior"

To be fair, maybe he did make all efforts to ride safely and was simply caught in an impossible situation, made worse by the reduced braking power.

Posted by: mickR Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 21:04
Post #1309608

Ok so there are different types of "racing" bike. Road race, as in your de France etc have free wheeling gears and... brakes. A track bike as ridden by the likes of sir Chris hoy are fixed wheel and.. no brakes.
Clearly a track bike is not designed for road use and even a fixed wheel road bike would have brakes. Stunt bikes again may not have them but as the name suggests not designed for road use.
Has anyone seen or heard of any cctv/dash cam footage of this idiot rider prior to the accident?

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 21:32
Post #1309615

QUOTE (mickR @ Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 22:04) *
..........Has anyone seen or heard of any cctv/dash cam footage of this idiot rider prior to the accident?


According to Huffington Post, CCTV was shown in court on Tuesday
QUOTE
Crash investigator Edward Small, who studied CCTV of the collision which was shown in court Tuesday, said that if Alliston had front brakes on his bike, he would have been able to stop before the point of impact. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cyclist-charlie-alliston_uk_5992ed0de4b090964299cfb5

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 21 Aug 2017 - 13:08
Post #1310131

QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 20:04) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 21:00) *
Jurors were told that Mr Alliston talked of removing his front brake from a previous bike in a tweet in February 2015,

I'm not sure how significant the lack of a brake was, given that this was apparently a fixed wheel bike (ie one with no freewheeling). IME bikes have completely naff brakes, and I would have thought that applying resistance through the pedals might well be more effective. Not my area of expertise, but I would be interested to hear something more informed than the journalistic knee-jerk "NO BRAKES!!!!" opinion.

Not at all, a front brake will decelerate a bike about 2.2 times faster than just a rear, plus with pedals only it's quite hard to modulate braking without a lock and slide which can cause other control issues, in fact there is a very real chance that given he managed to shout at the deceased twice that with a working front brake he could have avoided the collision all together.

Under emergency braking I rarely use the rear brake at all as the front braking is so close to lifting the rear wheel it does almost nothing at all. I still remember going over the bars on my 1970's Raleigh doing an emergency stop when a pedestrian stepped out on me!

Most the cycling forums are condemning him as a ****** although there are a few morons who claim to be so superior skilled that they can overcome the braking deficit if someone steps off the pavement in front of them. (Physics and logic don't apply when you are as skilled as they are it appears).

Posted by: Churchmouse Mon, 21 Aug 2017 - 17:49
Post #1310204

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 21 Aug 2017 - 14:08) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 18 Aug 2017 - 20:04) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 17 Aug 2017 - 21:00) *
Jurors were told that Mr Alliston talked of removing his front brake from a previous bike in a tweet in February 2015,

I'm not sure how significant the lack of a brake was, given that this was apparently a fixed wheel bike (ie one with no freewheeling). IME bikes have completely naff brakes, and I would have thought that applying resistance through the pedals might well be more effective. Not my area of expertise, but I would be interested to hear something more informed than the journalistic knee-jerk "NO BRAKES!!!!" opinion.

Not at all, a front brake will decelerate a bike about 2.2 times faster than just a rear, plus with pedals only it's quite hard to modulate braking without a lock and slide which can cause other control issues, in fact there is a very real chance that given he managed to shout at the deceased twice that with a working front brake he could have avoided the collision all together.

Perhaps he just wanted her to get out of HIS way, and thought shouting at her would do the trick? By the time he realised that she wasn't doing so, maybe no, a front brake wouldn't have made any difference?

The "he could have stopped if he'd had a front brake" claim seems rather flimsy to me. Was there any evidence that he used the rear brake?

--Churchmouse

Posted by: samthecat Tue, 22 Aug 2017 - 11:15
Post #1310362

So either he didn't try to stop when he could have done (expecting the pedestrian to get out of his way) or he tried to stop but was unable to.
I don't think either of those options makes a convincing defence.
Will be interested to see the results of this.

Posted by: Aretnap Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 15:37
Post #1310692

Cleared of manslaughter but convicted of the wanton or furious charge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

Posted by: Tancred Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 18:34
Post #1310724

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Mon, 21 Aug 2017 - 18:49) *
The "he could have stopped if he'd had a front brake" claim seems rather flimsy to me. Was there any evidence that he used the rear brake?

--Churchmouse


The bike had no conventional brakes (rim/disc/drum etc.) fitted at all, the references to the lack of front brake are due to the fixed rear wheel legally counting as a brake but still requiring a front brake. He did claim he had slowed the bike down to 10-14mph however based on the CCTV it was claimed with a front brake he could have slowed down enough not to hit the lady. This is supposedly the bike here:

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/pri_496097242.jpg?w=620&h=425&crop=1



Posted by: glasgow_bhoy Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 20:08
Post #1310746

Here's hoping he gets the full 2 years in jail!

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 21:16
Post #1310759

There will no doubt be some reduction as the victim had stepped out in front of a bike whatever the cyclist also did wrong.

Posted by: StuartBu Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 21:37
Post #1310763

Oops.... edited out due to cockup

Posted by: StuartBu Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 22:00
Post #1310769

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 22:16) *
There will no doubt be some reduction as the victim had stepped out in front of a bike whatever the cyclist also did wrong.

It was said in tonights News that as well
as stepping out she was using her 'phone but I believe the phone use was disproved from cctv footage.

Posted by: ford poplar Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 02:14
Post #1310799

The bike shown did not have nec roadworthy requirements eg lights. mudguards.
No speedo (not req'd), but how can he claim to have hit pedestrian at around 18mph.
Alliston was reported to be a bicycle courier and I accept pedestrian may have been partly resp for accident. Have a pub car park brawl & kill your opponent with an unlucky single punch, manslaughter = ~4yrs in jail.
IMO Alliston deserves a Custodial, if only for his abusive post accident Twitter comments.
I do not doubt Alliston outcome will send a 'message' to other cyclists.

Posted by: Richy320 Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 07:48
Post #1310812

I hope he gets a fine for riding an unroadworthy bicycle.

The death of a pedestrian was caused by a grown adult stepping out into a road in front of a moving vehicle without looking properly.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 09:13
Post #1310827

QUOTE (Richy320 @ Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 08:48) *
......The death of a pedestrian was caused by a grown adult stepping out into a road in front of a moving vehicle without looking properly.


While we see adults (and kids) so engrossed in their phones that they do not observe proper crossing techniques and simply step out, the consequences are dependent on other factors.
Such as the driver or rider in this case, being aware, driving within safe limits and the vehicle being roadworthy.
I'll give that the rider was aware as he seems to have shouted.
Questionable about whether riding within safe limits
Bike wasn't roadworthy.

Had this been a car with defective brakes, there would be little sympathy for the driver.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 10:12
Post #1310837

QUOTE (ford poplar @ Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 03:14) *
The bike shown did not have nec roadworthy requirements eg lights. mudguards.
No speedo (not req'd).

Neither lights (when its light) or mudguards are required to be roadworthy.....why on earth do you think either are required?

Speed was calculated from the CCTV of the incident.

Posted by: mickR Mon, 28 Aug 2017 - 20:05
Post #1311727

QUOTE (Richy320 @ Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 08:48) *
The death of a pedestrian was caused by a grown adult stepping out into a road in front of a moving vehicle without looking properly.
... and by a #### (insert appropriate adjective) on an illegal moving vehicle, a bike, with one type of brake and a verbal warning of approach ie "get the f#ck outta my way"

There..fixed that for ya.

Let's hope the poor woman's husbands campaign to toughen up on the irresponsible riders has positive effect.

Btw your signature is eerily appropriate huh.gif

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 28 Aug 2017 - 21:03
Post #1311741

QUOTE (Richy320 @ Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 08:48) *
I hope he gets a fine for riding an unroadworthy bicycle.


Unlikely, since he's not charged with such an offence.

QUOTE
The death of a pedestrian was caused by a grown adult stepping out into a road in front of a moving vehicle without looking properly.

The jury apparently disagreed.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 06:31
Post #1311790

Did they disagree, or decide that both were culpable?

Both were at fault it seems to me, although as always we are unlikely to have access to the same level of information that the Jury did, in fact I've yet to even be sure exactly where the collision occurred.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 10:57
Post #1311841

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 07:31) *
Did they disagree, or decide that both were culpable?

They found that the pedestrian was not the sole cause of the accident, otherwise they could not have convicted of the offence.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 14:57
Post #1311916

Which was my point!

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 16:32
Post #1311942

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 15:57) *
Which was my point!

Yes, you may have 10 shiny pedant points, redeemable nowhere.

Posted by: soggi Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 19:40
Post #1312759

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

Posted by: Churchmouse Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 20:14
Post #1312763

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 15:57) *
Which was my point!

Well, no, they didn't necessarily have to find her at fault at all in order to convict him. (I'll have those 10 pedant points, thank you...)

It seems fairly clear to me that Mr. Alliston was primarily convicted for being an a-hole. Based on public information, I can't say I really disagree that much.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: Tancred Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 21:26
Post #1312774

QUOTE (soggi @ Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 20:40) *
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge


I don't find that article very convincing, unfortunately the CCTV hasn't been released publicly but a front brake would have substantially reduced the braking distance and what that article seems to forget is that even if he'd still hit the pedestrian after using a front brake, the speed would have been hugely reduced and likely not ended in a fatality. At a lower speed (the claims are the cyclist only slowed to around 11mph) he'd also have been able to take a more evasive swerve. I don't agree about quick steering being preferable to braking either, I found very quickly when cycling in town that people don't look round and will step right in front of the bike as they don't hear it so it's important to be riding in a way that expects any pedestrian to suddenly step out so they have room or you can quickly slow down. 18mph on a bike with no proper braking system (I know the fixed wheel counts as a braking system but it's not much compared to a proper one) doesn't seem at all cautious to me, I do a lot of riding through town on a quick road bike and that's a decent speed on a bike and I very much like my hydraulic discs.

I don't agree about a driver would get away with it either, looking at the case legally rather than literally if the pedestrian stepped out in front of a driver and the driver killed the pedestrian even though they had sufficient space to slow down I'd have thought there would be a good chance of a death by careless driving or similar.

I do think in general it's been blown out of proportion bearing in mind the much larger numbers of fatalities involving motor vehicles.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 2 Sep 2017 - 06:17
Post #1312802

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 21:14) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 15:57) *
Which was my point!

Well, no, they didn't necessarily have to find her at fault at all in order to convict him. (I'll have those 10 pedant points, thank you...)

It seems fairly clear to me that Mr. Alliston was primarily convicted for being an a-hole. Based on public information, I can't say I really disagree that much.

--Churchmouse

Erm, of course they didn't have to find her at fault at all to convict him, I don't think that warrants pedant points, she could have been 75% to blame and him still have commited the offence which he commited.

This stemmed from the comment that the death was caused by the pedestrian stepping out in front of the bike if you recall.

Posted by: mickR Sat, 2 Sep 2017 - 09:32
Post #1312826

I took the finding to suggest that even if she did step Into the road, a cyclist riding sensibly on a bike with brakes would in all probability not have hit her Which to me puts the onus 100% on the rider.
It is stated he had time to shout not once but twice to get out the way so plenty of reaction time to apply his brakes and put it on a stand.
His attitude (as reprted) both at the scene and on social media paints a very good pictire of the a hole that he clealy is. Let's hope the system doesn't fail the family and that the sentence also sends a clear warning to the many maniacs that think they are above the law.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 2 Sep 2017 - 15:09
Post #1312907

He was said to have shouted twice, but also she stepped off the pavement 6m in front of him doing 18mph (so just less than a second away) which seems contradictory.

The point is of course that he would almost certainly have been guilty (though unlikely to have been charged) of the offence whether he struck her or not, so she could have been deemed wholly responsible for the accident by the Jury and him still be found guilty (does that get me extra pedant points?).

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 12:04
Post #1316925

18 months jail time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41306738

Surprised over custodial sentence considering the manslaughter charge didn't stick.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 15:56
Post #1316986

Up to two years can be given for the wanton or furious.

Judges comments seem to suggest he wasn't overly enamoured of Alliston's attitude and there was even a suggestion he'd lied under oath.

Posted by: ford poplar Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 16:29
Post #1316996

18 months in a YOI, hardly the 'Big House'.

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 17:58
Post #1317025

Custodial sentence absolutely called for.

Posted by: Richy320 Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 07:00
Post #1317598

An alternative view from a QC

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

It was a witch hunt against a cyclist for a minor infraction that had had tragic consequences.

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 07:37
Post #1317603

QUOTE (Richy320 @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 08:00) *
An alternative view from a QC

Convincingly argued by a QC as you'd expect, albeit one who self-describes as:
QUOTE
Martin Porter QC is a personal injury lawyer and cycling advocate. This is an edited version of a post from his blog, The Cycling Lawyer.

...and already linked to in post #30.

QUOTE (Richy320 @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 08:00) *
It was a witch hunt against a cyclist for a minor infraction that had had tragic consequences.

There are plenty who disagree with every part of that, except for it having tragic consequences.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 10:24
Post #1317630

And the Secret Barristers viewpoint https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/ (admittedly based of Porter's reveiw)

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 11:35
Post #1317646

QUOTE (Richy320 @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 08:00) *
An alternative view from a QC

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

It was a witch hunt against a cyclist for a minor infraction that had had tragic consequences.


QUOTE
Motorist would not have landed cyclist's 'wanton and furious driving' charge


I've read it through and while I can understand the arguments put forward, maybe even agree with some, I fail on the headline above.

Absolutely correct, a motorist would not have been charged with wanton and furious.
Because other charges are available is the simplistic but taking the implication that a motorist would not have been charged....

If a pedestrian had died as a result of a collision with a car and it turned out that the brakes had been disabled/removed/tampered with/not working properly, the motorist would have had the book thrown at them.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 11:39
Post #1317647

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 11:24) *
And the Secret Barristers viewpoint https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/ (admittedly based of Porter's reveiw)



That was a good read.

Posted by: ford poplar Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 11:44
Post #1317651

HMG are considering new Laws for cyclists.
Whilst a pedal cycle is not an MV it is classified as a 'carriage'. Also there has been an increase in 'battery-assisted' bikes so speeds can often exceed 10mph.
So what new Laws should be applicable to cyclists?
Bike must be 'roadworthy' (MOT)?
Causing death of another road user?
Inconsiderate driving/riding?
Compulsory Insurance?
Cycling Prof Test for any cyclist >10 yo

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 14:45
Post #1317696

QUOTE (ford poplar @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 12:44) *
Whilst a pedal cycle is not an MV it is classified as a 'carriage'. Also there has been an increase in 'battery-assisted' bikes so speeds can often exceed 10mph.

E-bikes are limited to 25kph, I can comfortably exceed that as an average speed without a battery and motor, so no change there then really!

I'm wondering if similar offences will be created for pedestrians who injure other road users by steeping off the kerb without looking?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)