- This topic has 1,036 replies, 174 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by HoratioHufnagel.
-
Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie
-
philjuniorFree Member
I think that I agree with the broad consensus here – he shouldn’t have been riding a bike without a front brake on the road, whilst careless pedestrians stepping out are annoying I don’t think they deserve to be killed and genuinely do my best to avoid them, and it appears that the rider did not ride in the most cautious way possible even considering the limitations of a fixed gear. In the same way as I feel with cars, if you’re introducing the danger (going fast), you should take all possible precautions to mitigate this. Riding sensibly with a front brake seems reasonable.
(I think kids on brakeless BMXes are sort of a different issue, they don’t generally travel faster than running pace).Buuut, there is a far greater emphasis (and more severe charges) associated with this prosecution than would seem to often happen when a death is caused in a far more predictable way by a driver. This seems to be because cycling is something other people do and driving is something we all do, and mistakes happen yeah?… This is problematic for me.
dovebikerFull MemberSkid-stopping on a track bike isn’t anything like as quick or controllers as having 2 brakes IME but it doesn’t stop lots of people doing it because it looks ‘cool’. Ironically we’re going to see a trial by media of one d!ck cyclist versus the hundred of deaths each year by cars that are as equally devastating for victims and their families, but willfully ignored. Interesting to see whether the manslaughter charge sticks – how many motorists have been charged similarly for being involved in a fatal accident with dodgy brakes?
Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition
Latest Singletrack VideosFresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...philjuniorFree MemberSkid-stopping on a track bike isn’t anything like as quick or controllers as having 2 brakes IME but it doesn’t stop lots of people doing it because it looks ‘cool’.
Indeed it’s a slow way to stop, but it saves the rims (It’s a very very slow way to stop in the wet, which is pretty much the only time I did it, as it’s not too bad on tyres then – I did use brakes as well but only for emergencies/sudden red lights/steep hills)
scotroutesFull MemberDodgy =/= non-existent.
Riding a fixie is like removing the brakes from your car and relying on the engine to slow you down. If you’d done that and subsequently killed someone then I suspect the charges would be similar.
grumpyscullerFree MemberThis guy is clearly a knob. Whether he is guilty of a criminal offence is up in the air(beyond riding a fixie, for which he should be punished) .
He won’t get an easy time in court. Nobody likes a knob, but also drivers get some sympathy because most people can imagine themselves in a similar scenario. Cyclists will at best get a neutral reception, sometimes negative.
teethgrinderFull Memberphiljunior – Member
(I think kids on brakeless BMXes are sort of a different issue, they don’t generally travel faster than running pace).The massive hill I live on is quite a busy road with cars parked on it. Frequently see kids my son’s age (13) penking down it from after school hours to 2200h or so. There’s a skatepark-lite at the top of the hill.
That’s in the dark, no brakes, foot wedged in the frame to slow down. My boy would get a twatting if I caught him doing it. Also get scooter rats and skaeboarders doing the same, dragging a foot on the ground to slow down.
No issues with them running brakeless at the skate park (jealous more than anything), but on a public road – that’s going to end up messy for a child and their family, and the driver who’s car they plough into.
kerleyFree MemberRiding a fixie is like removing the brakes from your car and relying on the engine to slow you down
Only if you don’t know how to stop. Resisting the pedals to come to a stop is really not how you stop a fixed wheel bike and that is what would almost equate to engine braking but even then not really.
The only way to stop quickly on a fixed gear is skid stopping (lots of little skids not one long skid) and as far as I know you can’t do that in your brakeless car…
TiRedFull Memberi ride 68in gear and can stop quite nicely too. having a dura ace front brake with swiss-stop pads helps.
I’ll raise you 10 inches to 78 and TWO R650 deep drop dual calipers.
There is a very good reason for compliance with the law, it may not seem “necessary” – sure I can stop… but when the brown stuff hits the spinny thing for whatever reason (and this may be an unfortunate accident), it will, sadly, be what matters – same goes for having lights. It is the first thing they checked when they took (the remains of) my bicycle away after my accident.
SpeederFull Memberkerley – Member
The only way to stop quickly on a fixed gear is skid stopping (lots of little skids not one long skid)There is no way to stop quickly without brakes! Period. Especially on a track bike with a short wheelbase and very hard, very narrow tyres. It may be possible to optimise the no brake retardation but it’ll still be shocking compared to even a single front caliper. All you’re ever going to do is slither down the road in a barely controlled tank slapper.
Please stop perpetuating the myth.
TiRedFull MemberNice study on skid stopping from MIT
Comparison to previously established skidding models show the stopping distances average 5.8 ± 2.1 times than the model of the back-wheel locked skid
and
From these comparisons, it appears one needs to have at least some sort of front-wheel stopping mechanism in order to come to a sufficiently quick stop
It’s not going to end well.
nealgloverFree MemberThe only way to stop quickly on a fixed gear is skid stopping (lots of little skids not one long skid)
No it isn’t the only way
It’s the wrong way. The right way is to use your **** brakes ffs.
Matt24kFree MemberLatest radio news report is that he was doing 14mph also that the bike was tested and shown to take 4 times as long to stop as a normal bike.
andykirkFree MemberChrist it’s hard enough stopping sometimes with two brakes sometimes let alone one! I am unsure of the law but surely two brakes must/ should be mandatory!?
I don’t live in London but was down there recently, jesus the cyclists are terrifying! They go so fast right next to parked cars, which to me always means hazard hazard hazard! i.e people appearing from nowhere between parked cars and/ or doors opening. It’s not like that in Edinburgh I have to say. From what I see driving in London is a lot more aggressive than other cities, making it super unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians.
bailsFull MemberI am unsure of the law but surely two brakes must/ should be mandatory!?
It is.
Latest radio news report is that he was doing 14mph
That’s really not that quick, if you consider how it would be framed if it was a driver being the d!*k. “Mr Smith was driving cautiously at a mere 14mph when the victim stepped out in front of him”.
whitestoneFree Member@andykirk – Two working brakes is the legal requirement but a fixed wheel may count as one brake.
TiRedFull MemberA Dura Ace 7800 caliper will generate a deceleration of almost -1g. The MIT study couldn’t get remotely close to such decelerations in their study.
v^2-u^2 = 2as, so s = u^2/2a and that means distance doubles as deceleration halves. 14 mph is 6.3 m/sec, so a good caliper brake might stop in 6.3^2/2*9.8 = 2m. I suspect that this calculation plus Figure 5 from the MIT study (8m) is where the ratio of 4 fold comes from.
If the CCTV shows she stepped out in a distance that an ordinary bike could not stop at 14 mph, then the young man has a defense (probably his only defense).
Matt24kFree MemberFrom BBC news website.
The court has been told crash investigators had concluded Mr Alliston would have been able to stop and avoid the collision if the bike had been fitted with a brake.
The trial continuesepicsteveFree MemberI suspect that this calculation plus Figure 5 from the MIT study (8m) is where the ratio of 4 fold comes from.
More likely it’s from the practical testing the police did with the bike at the Hogg Hill circuit last year.
dovebikerFull MemberNews article suggests victim was 9 metres in front of cyclist when stepped-out ~ theoretically enough distance for even brakeless fixie to stop. Not looking good for the perp.
My experience of riding a fixed gear with a fast road bike group meant that I needed 2 brakes as you tend to start downhills slowly, but the greater momentum carried you faster / further at the bottom and I sometimes needed the brakes to not run into the back of the group on narrow lanes – reaching 70kph on a 68″ gear means 200rpm+epicsteveFree MemberIt might not be just about whether he could have stopped, it might also be about whether he tried to stop.
twistyFull MemberIn the case of a civil claim, people would be looking at who’s responsible for the harm, and a pedestrian stepping out without paying attention to oncoming traffic and looking at their phone would most likely be contributorily negligent.
However, this being a criminal trial is more a case of is riding a non-complaint bike a reckless act and was this recklessness the cause of death.
Regarding the effectiveness of fixies at stopping. Skidding is not as effective as controlled braking, and braking with the rear is not as effective as the front, in fact on a dry road a good emergency stop the back wheel will be on the point of lifting off the ground so 100% of the braking effort is done through the front wheel. A good fixie rider might be able to stop as quickly as a crap rider on a crap bike but then again crap riders rarely go over 10mph and my conscience would never let me ever choose to ride a bike with no front brake on the road as I know with one I can certainly stop faster.
grumpyscullerFree MemberHowever, this being a criminal trial is more a case of is riding a non-complaint bike a reckless act and was this recklessness the cause of death.
It shouldn’t be. Gross Negligence (in UK law, not recklessness) only applies if the negligent act was otherwise lawful. Riding a brakeless fixie isn’t.
Unlawful Act Manslaughter is probably what they are trying to prove, which brings the relevance of the stopping distance (that the unlawful act of riding a fixie on the road directly led to the death).
The guide is at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
ninfanFree MemberIt might not be just about whether he could have stopped, it might also be about whether he tried to stop.
Would an ‘ordinary’ cyclist, on seeing someone step into the road, stop, or slow, or swerve around them?
I got the impressioon that he had slowed and swerved, but that she either stopped or changed direction resulting in him still hitting her.
taxi25Free MemberIt might not be just about whether he could have stopped, it might also be about whether he tried to stop.
I seem to remember another pedestrian death in a collision with a cyclist, in that case he called out or rang his bell but didn’t make any attempt (or enough) to avoid the pedestrian. He went to prison.
twistyFull MemberIt shouldn’t be. Gross Negligence (in UK law, not recklessness) only applies if the negligent act was otherwise lawful. Riding a brakeless fixie isn’t.
Unlawful Act Manslaughter is probably what they are trying to prove, which brings the relevance of the stopping distance (that the unlawful act of riding a fixie on the road directly led to the death).
Fair enough; so criminally negligent, rather than reckless. Either way it falls under the wider umbrella of involuntary manslaughter.
epicsteveFree MemberI got the impressioon that he had slowed and swerved, but that she either stopped or changed direction resulting in him still hitting her.
This seems to be the latest on that:
“CCTV footage played in the courtroom showed Alliston beginning to swerve as he approached Mrs Briggs at an average speed of 18mph – with crash investigator Edward Small saying she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash.”aracerFree MemberIt’s all a load of speculation, but if that is the case then there’s his defence right there.
Fundamentally, as with all the drivers killing people, it’s going to be down to whether all parts of the prosecution case can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. All the defence has to do is find reasonable doubt in one part of it, even if that seems a relatively trivial part. I reckon if his lawyer can show a reasonable possibility of the death not occurring if she hadn’t stopped/changed direction (if that’s indeed what happened), then he’ll probably get off.
thegreatapeFree Membermartinhutch – Member
f they’re seeking manslaughter then maybe they think he hit her on purpose?
Manslaughter doesn’t mean that.No reason why that scenario couldn’t be manslaughter.
HoratioHufnagelFree MemberI seem to remember another pedestrian death in a collision with a cyclist, in that case he called out or rang his bell but didn’t make any attempt (or enough) to avoid the pedestrian. He went to prison.
This one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496757.stmTurnerGuyFree MemberI reckon if his lawyer can show a reasonable possibility of the death not occurring if she hadn’t stopped/changed direction (if that’s indeed what happened), then he’ll probably get off.
he shouldn’t get off – he was deliberately riding around without a front brake as he thought it was cool, and he knew the consequences as is shown by this quote :
In 2015, he tweeted: “The time when you first take your brakes off and feeling like you’re in a lucasbrunelle movie,” in apparent reference to an American bike stunt film-maker.
i.e. this was the type of riding he aspired to :
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj1VMKPDXGU[/video]
HoratioHufnagelFree MemberActually it’s probably this one
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-25447028taxi25Free MemberI reckon if his lawyer can show a reasonable possibility of the death not occurring if she hadn’t stopped/changed direction (if that’s indeed what happened), then he’ll probably get off.
With the emphasis being on his ability to stop I’m not so sure. “Stopped/changed direction” doesn’t trump he should have just braked and pulled up to avoid the collision. Same as when you drive, you sound your horn, brake and swerve if needed. Not braking just assuming a pedestrian on hearing your horn will get out of the way won’t cut it in court.
epicsteveFree MemberNot braking just assuming a pedestrian on hearing your horn will get out of the way won’t cut it in court.
Especially if you didn’t have effective brakes and therefore it could be argued that the reason for not braking was only because you couldn’t.
taxi25Free Member@Horatio.The first link was the one I was thinking about. Got the going to jail bit wrong. I blame my age !!!
BezFull MemberNot braking just assuming a pedestrian on hearing your horn will get out of the way won’t cut it in court.
Did you read the example of the bus driver I posted earlier?
epicsteveFree MemberIf the reporting is accurate then he appears to have got off very, very lightly.
philjuniorFree MemberCCTV footage played in the courtroom showed Alliston beginning to swerve as he approached Mrs Briggs at an average speed of 18mph – with crash investigator Edward Small saying she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash.”
**** hell, that’s a long long time not to manage to stop – even accounting for the initial “must’ve seen me, they’ll move out of the way” reaction. It does genuinely sound like if he was riding with anything like an effective set of brakes he would’ve pulled up quite comfortably – I was a little suspicious of the fixed wheel no front brake causing the accident thing when I first heard about it.
The topic ‘Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie’ is closed to new replies.