I’ve been paying more attention on my way in and out of work in London (St. Paul’s/Blackfriars area) this week and haven’t actually seen any brakeless fixies at all so far. I’m sure there were more around my old office (near London Bridge) and do see quite a few fashion victims when I’m in places like Camden or Shoreditch of a weekend.

Most of the fixies had normal brake levers but I did see one or two with those ones that fit right inboard on the bars and those don’t look a great idea.

I understand the Briggs family being upset but what this has demonstrated is that the cycling laws are there (although perhaps not always enforced) already. Ok sorting out “death by dangerous cycling” and “death by careless cycling” laws might be cleared but it’s unlikely they’d be used more than once or twice a year anyway. Existing laws (either dangerous cycling or careless cycling) could even be used to crackdown on brakeless fixie riders without their being any need for an injury accident to have taken place. The Briggs family are also (perhaps understandably) ignoring the fact that the primary cause of the poor ladies death was choosing to cross the road when it wasn’t safe to do so – so perhaps would be better campaigning for jaywalking laws.

This. It’s not like the driving offences have been tightened up despite families campaigning…

Would this have been covered by presumed liability, incidentally?

Presumed liability is all about civil cases isn’t it?

I’m not sure it does ignore that – it suggests that a driver wouldn’t have been charged the same in similar circumstances, which is simply pointing out the double standards. As I pointed out at the time, what the sentencing info you posted doesn’t show is that killing a pedestrian (or a cyclist) with a car doesn’t get you a slap on the wrist – not only because it doesn’t go into that level of detail, but also because those figures don’t show charge downgrading – it appears to be uncommon for such a case to result in a charge of DBDD.

The police have been targeting cyclists without brakes and riding on pavements for years in London, Shoreditch/Old St and Spitalfields being major targets.. all part of the clampdown on Drivers using the Cycling Only Boxes at traffic lights.. they also target inconsiderate riding etc..

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

Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?

I feel that I should disagree with you there, but I really don’t.
[/quote]

His knobbish attitude will affect his sentence – the judge pretty much pointed that out today. Ultimately it probably also affected the verdict, even if it shouldn’t have I doubt the normal jury member can simply ignore that. It’s also a major contributor to him getting less sympathy from me (amongst others on here) than I might normally give to somebody riding a bike.

No, it’s the motorists that get let off lightly.

I’m not sure it does ignore that – it suggests that a driver wouldn’t have been charged the same in similar circumstances, which is simply pointing out the double standards

That ignores the fact that “death by dangerous” is itself a form of manslaughter and there has been a recent case where the vehicle owners have successfully been prosecuted for manslaughter when they allowed a driver to take a lorry out with defective brakes.

If a motorcyclist took a speedway bike (those also don’t have brakes and aren’t meant for road use) on the road and hit and killed a pedestrian when it was proved they could have stopped in time if they’d had brakes – then I’d definitely expect them to be prosecuted for at least “death by dangerous” (a form of manslaughter).

No, it’s the motorists that get let off lightly.

Did you actually read the article I linked?

Just to point out that Martin Porter is The Cycling Silk, so we’re kind of already discussing that (I’m not sure what the differences are between that article and his blog post we’ve already mentioned https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html )

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

Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?

My thoughts are, on skimming it, that it seems a very poorly informed article and is making assumptions about “wanton and furious” etc. and manslaughter that are incorrect.

If the “death by dangerous/death by careless” legislation covered bicycles I’m sure that’s what would have been used, as it would be if a motorised vehicle had been involved.

Just to point out that Martin Porter is The Cycling Silk, so we’re kind of already discussing that (I’m not sure what the differences are between that article and his blog post we’ve already mentioned

He argues that the cyclist had no chance of stopping within the distance he had available, even if he had had a front brake. Given that his speed did no seem unreasonable, I’m struggling to see the offence beyond construction and use regulations.

My thoughts are, on skimming it, that it seems a very poorly informed article and is making assumptions about “wanton and furious” etc. and manslaughter that are incorrect.

It was written by a lawyer, apparently.

His knobbish attitude will affect his sentence – the judge pretty much pointed that out today. Ultimately it probably also affected the verdict, even if it shouldn’t have I doubt the normal jury member can simply ignore that. It’s also a major contributor to him getting less sympathy from me (amongst others on here) than I might normally give to somebody riding a bike.

Hopefully they’ve ignored his attitude, both during and after the incident, in finding him guilty or not guilty but it’ll definitely be a factor in sentencing. He’s lucky I’m not the judge because his facial piercings alone would get him some serious jailtime!

It was written by a lawyer, apparently.

One with a very clear agenda who appears to be spinning things for his chosen audience.

I’m not sure I entirely agree with Mr Porter in that article and blog – I’m inclined to agree with Steve’s take that the only reason such charges were laid is because he couldn’t be charged with the normal motoring offences (not that I entirely agree with Steve here 😉 – for a start DBCD which seems to be the normal charge for a driver in similar circumstances isn’t really equivalent to manslaughter), so it’s a bit disingenuous. Though of course we’ve discussed that earlier in this thread. I almost wonder if Mr Porter has been reading this thread (what is his username on here?), given how much of that article we’ve already discussed!

One with a very clear agenda who appears to be spinning things for his chosen audience.

You know this how?

I’m not sure I entirely agree with Mr Porter in that article and blog – I’m inclined to agree with Steve’s take that the only reason such charges were laid is because he couldn’t be charged with the normal motoring offences

Let’s leave that aside for a moment. The bit that interested me was his argument that it was impossible for the cyclist to stop within the distance he had available. Does that stack up in your view?

You are more optimistic than me in that respect!

Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?

Not very persuasive IMO, and he uses far too many words.

Rather than getting into whataboutery related to cars, it might be more useful to consider what would have happened if the fixie **** had ended up with the fatal brain injury.

Would she have been charged with manslaughter and convicted of wanton and furious pedestrianing?

You know this how?

Based on his postings, that article and him labelling himself “the cycling silk”.

His agenda being the accurate one that cyclists get appalling treatment from the legal system.

Based on his postings, that article and him labelling himself “the cycling silk”.

Is that the best you can do?

As I just mentioned, we discussed that earlier on this thread – in fact his comments look suspiciously like they’re paraphrased from one of my posts 😉

Though there is confusion over the available stopping distance I reckon he’s accurate in his assessment of that.

Would she have been charged with manslaughter and convicted of wanton and furious pedestrianing?

I had hoped for a more substantive discussion…

Let’s leave that aside for a moment. The bit that interested me was his argument that it was impossible for the cyclist to stop within the distance he had available. Does that stack up in your view?

I tried it on my own bikes and proved it was possible using both brakes – on my disc braked road bike I might even have been able to do it with just the front brake – but definitely not possible with just the rear being braked.

I would however agree that it probably isn’t possible on every bike with two brakes (it would be touch and go on my disc braked mountain bike for example), however even on those the contact would have been at a very low speed.

I think what’s confused some people (including him) was the mention in the trial of being able to stop in 3m – there is no chance of that being possible from 18mph but it probably related to tests at a lower speed but weren’t well reported.

Though there is confusion over the available stopping distance I reckon he’s accurate in his assessment of that.

So you agree that even if he had had a front brake, he couldn’t of stopped? Given that his speed was agreed to be reasonable, what could he have done?

His agenda being the accurate one that cyclists get appalling treatment from the legal system.

On which I probably wouldn’t generally disagree with him – just not convinced this case is a good one for raising that point. Also the last case I’m aware of where the same laws were used to prosecute when a cyclist killed a pedestrian (the one where the guy hopped on the pavement to avoid a red light, shouted a ped to get out of his way ’cause he wasn’t planning on stopping then hit and killed her) the cyclist got off incredibly lightly IMHO.

Yeah I know we’ve also done this one before, but given the way I understand she was injured, that would be insufficient basis for the prosecution to claim (beyond reasonable doubt) that the death wouldn’t have resulted from such a collision. Hence I think both charges could have been defended on that basis.

There is certainly reasonable doubt.

Given that his speed was agreed to be reasonable, what could he have done?

Hired a better lawyer who argued this point properly!

Yeah I know we’ve also done this one before, but given the way I understand she was injured, that would be insufficient basis for the prosecution to claim (beyond reasonable doubt) that the death wouldn’t have resulted from such a collision. Hence I think both charges could have been defended on that basis.

That might be the reason why they found him not guilty of manslaughter i.e. death from the incident was unlikely/unforseeable, but injury wasn’t.

Probably – I think I also suggested earlier in this thread that there appeared to be all the necessary elements there for a successful manslaughter prosecution. Certainly the cyclist in that case was far more to blame than in this one (the obvious difference being which party was mainly responsible for the collision).

I had hoped for a more substantive discussion…

Well I’ve made a more useful point than m’learned friend, who spent about 1,500 words saying what we already know – cyclists get a rough deal in court compared to drivers.

What would happen if a pedestrian stepped out into the path of a cyclist and the cyclist died as a result of hitting them?

I’m not sure a pedestrian is obviously more vulnerable than a cyclist in a collision, so I don’t know if the cyclist should have a greater duty of care.

I think this argument illustrates potential anti-cyclist bias more effectively than Mr Silk’s.

What would happen if a pedestrian stepped out into the path of a cyclist and the cyclist died as a result of hitting them?

I think they could be prosecuted for manslaughter (the gross negligence variant) although I don’t think they could be prosecuted for the unlawful and dangerous act version, as crossing the road isn’t itself illegal.

These sorts of incidents are pretty rare though, so it’s speculation on whether they would/wouldn’t prosecute. My guess is that there wouldn’t be a prosecution if there weren’t other contributing factors, but there might well be if the ped stepped off onto the road while texting.

What about this as a comparison from 2016.

Lady opens taxi door, door floors cyclist, cyclist gets hit by van, cyclist dies, lady gets fined £80 for killing a cyclist…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-39157452

As much as Charlie Alliston sounds like an unpleasant arrogant jerk for whom I have no sympathy, I can’t help thinking (based on admittedly limited second hand accounts from the media) that this may be a miscarriage of justice.

Thanks to the poor and sometimes inaccurate reporting by the media, we still do not know exactly what the expert evidence was in respect of what the stopping distance would have been with a fixed gear bike with a front brake, but as has been discussed in this thread, it sounds like that distance may have been very close to the 6.65m distance identified by the defence from the point when Charlie Alliston swerved.

I think this is crucial to the whole case: whether the defendant would have been able to stop, say, 20cm before the collision, or would still have collided albeit at a much lower speed, is not the issue. The issue is that if the stopping distance would have been so close to 6.65m (whether more than 6.65m or less), then a competent cyclist on a fully braked bike would not have known for certain whether he could prevent the collision by braking. The reports suggest that the fatal injuries were not dependent upon the collision speed, and so might have occurred even at a very low collision speed, such as might have occurred with a fully braked bike.

Swerving was probably the better choice, regardless of brakes: with 6m separation it should be fairly easy for a cyclist to swerve around and avoid an object as narrow in profile as a pedestrian. Unfortunately it sounds like the defendant, having committed to his swerve, was surprised by the pedestrian stopping her forward movement (probably because of his shouted warning) and stepping back into his path.

This suggests that not only was there not a strong direct link between the lack of a front brake and her death (ergo no manslaughter conviction), but also that there are no actual good grounds for the ‘wanton and furious’ conviction. In other words, if you accept that the lack of a front brake could not be said beyond a reasonable doubt to have been the cause of the death, and that a competent cyclist with a fully braked bike might reasonably have acted exactly as Charlie Alliston did in swerving etc., then what exactly was ‘wanton and furious’ about his riding? (You could argue his speed was wanton and furious given the absence of a front brake, but – as with the manslaughter charge – that seems questionable if the lack of front brake made no difference to the outcome.)

As I said, I am not shedding any tears for Charlie Alliston, but this judgement seems to suggest that cyclists will be held to far higher standards than any motorist. If – rather than braking – you swerve to avoid someone who steps into the road in front of you without warning, and when they become aware of you they panic and step backwards into your path, and are injured or killed as a result, then this case suggests that you could similarly be charged and found guilty of wanton and furious cycling, and receive a prison sentence.

My very first thoughts on reading of the conviction were – like many of the comments above – that it was a fair judgement. Having reflected, I now have a horrible suspicion that the jury have ignored the evidence, the law and the facts in order to deliver the verdict they felt was right, and that those feelings were driven by prejudice.

Apparently the defendant has shown a complete lack of remorse.. maybe this has also been instrumental in influencing the decision.

To those asking:

My father in law was killed in a collision when a pedestrian stepped out from behind a tall hedge. It’s thought he hit him at 20+mph with no time to brake.

There was no prosecution as it was judged, quite rightly in mine and our families view, to have been an accident. Albeit one with a tragic outcome.

He was on the bike, wearing a helmet. Was remarkably uninsured except for the brain injury that was the cause of death.

The key difference between this and the case being discussed is that (I imagine, as I wasn’t there) no one was acting like a knob, before or after the collision.

The police told us the pedestrian was distraught and inconsolable at the scene. He wrote us a very touching letter afterwards and I didn’t see him posting like billy-big-balls on social media (or at all!)

All in all some key differences that impact how likely prosecution is to be chased. I wonder how it would have panned out if it had been an unapologetic ‘chav’ with ‘previous’…

Guardian report:
Here

EDIT: Sorry, missed p17 somehow, it’s been done.