He was cleared of manslaughter today. Now, what was that you were saying about him being dealt with more harshly, Matt?
But...
Jurors at the Old Bailey trial took 12 hours to find Mr Alliston not guilty of manslaughter but convicted him of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving, which means he could be jailed for up to two years.
Between 1-2 pedestrians on average are sadly killed by cyclists in incidents every year. Unless the fault was entirely with the pedestrian then you have a very high chance of getting a custodial sentence (well over 50% chance, often closer to 80% in the event of conviction)
Over 100 cyclists get killed by motorists every year, 2/3 of which are the fault of the motorist yet the custodial rate is well below 10%. Most get a fine, points and community service, those that get custodials often get suspended sentences. (you can collate your own research but that is what I have seen from the figures I have been able to find)
So yes my point stands. But be very careful in how my words are used here. This chap is a firkin idiot, he rode a non-roadworthy bike, in a reckless manner, made a mistake and killed somebody. He deserves to go to jail, in fact I would welcome a more harsh punishment. Yes she may have walked out in to traffic while looking at her phone but the cyclist admitted that he had time to shout a warning twice and swerve. Even on a fixie if you had that much time you also have the time to effectively 'lock' the drive-train and bring the bike to a skidding halt. Whether there was enough distance to stop I do not know but it would have reduced his speed and maybe this lady would still be alive today. *
My gripe is that motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians either through accidental or deliberate reckless acts seem too fall in to the cracks between the charges for Death by reckless/dangerous driving. Any equivalent for cyclists is well out of date. He was charged with manslaughter because of this rather than any equivalent charge available to the CPS for motorists. The sentencing guidelines are very different for them all.
I have no problem with cyclists being held up to high standards of behaviour on the road, look through my previous posts on the subject; I even called for it in a letter to Parlement along with a raft of ideas. I would ask that motorists are also held to those standards and when caught are punished the same. After all, motorists are 60 times more likely to KSI a pedestrian than a cyclist and in the event of a pedestrian being run over the chances of death when hit by a bicycle are much lower. Which is of course logical given the size difference of the vehicles involved.
I would love for the RTA to be reviewed along with the legal definitions and the sentencing guidelines, it might just bring some parity to the situation. Right now the long and short of it all is this; if I perform an illegal act while cycling and someone ends up KSI, I am rightly going to jail. If I do the same while driving a car and kill a cyclist, I get a slap on the wrist. I may even get to claim hardship and keep my license.
*I also think the requirement for just a front brake is also ridiculous, if he slammed on the front brake in panic at 20mph he would have gone head first over the bars and stood a chance of being killed himself. All road bikes should have front and rear brakes, I would even go as far as saying that all new bikes should have disc brakes. I am an advocate and they have saved my life many a time when a motorist has decided that a 125kg FLATB with fluo hi-hiz and dual steady/flashing lights front and rear is not visible. Even in the wet I can go from 25mph to 0 in a couple of meters, with rim brakes I would have hit the side of 2 vehicles last year.