Viewing 40 posts - 241 through 280 (of 1,037 total)
  • Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie
  • TurnerGuy
    Free Member

    We should thank kerley for possibly making the most pertinent contribution to this thread and giving us an insight into what is probably the same self-entitled and selfish mindset that the accussed has.

    Even if you can stop in an impressive distance, that distance would always be shorter with the application of a front brake, thereby decreasing the chances of seriously injuring whoever you might hit.

    So by implication this means that you don’t really care about injuring someone else in such a situation, which does sound a lot like the accussed.

    Tim
    Free Member

    A bike with 2 brakes will stop more quickly than a bike with 1 brake.

    A brakeless fixie on the road will have less control than a bike with standard brakes, because you can either skid the back wheel, or you can use your legs to slow the wheel…but a proper brake will be better.

    Disc brakes are good

    Big disc brakes are better

    aracer
    Free Member

    Are you 12? On school holidays? Because I wasn’t much older than that when I learnt the physics which shows that can’t possibly be true.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    aracer
    Free Member

    I prefer 622s on my road bike.

    whitestone
    Free Member

    Perhaps kerley would like to appear as an expert witness in this trial? Though I’m not sure if he should be for the prosecution or defence?

    Tallpaul
    Full Member

    Not needing a front brake up the world of lovely old steel track bikes with beautiful fork crowns that cannot be drilled for a brake.
    If that is not a good reason I don’t know what is.

    It’s not and there isn’t one.

    I almost (almost) feel sorry for the defendant. Basically a combination of fashion victim/arrogance of youth with the most disasterous outcome imaginable.

    From reading drivel like the quoted text, I think this case needs a guilty verdict to set an example for all the other arrogant tossers.

    g5604
    Free Member

    I had someone looking the wrong way up a one way street, on their phone and then stepped out and very nearly took me out.

    I was coming down the hill at about 30mph with a car on my tail, there is no way I could have stopped in time, but I could shout multiple warnings, which stopped her at the last moment.

    aracer
    Free Member

    I would if he came across more sympathetically in what he said and wrote post accident.

    The primary cause of the collision still appears to be a pedestrian walking into the road without looking properly whilst distracted by a phone (if reports of that are to be believed). But as I’d suggest with cyclists doing silly things on the roads, the penalty for that shouldn’t be death and it’s hard to get away from the possibility that the collision might have been avoidable by somebody with a different attitude.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    But as I’d suggest with cyclists doing silly things on the roads, the penalty for that shouldn’t be death and it’s hard to get away from the possibility that the collision might have been avoidable by somebody with a different attitude.

    Perhaps if she had been wearing a helmet and hi-vis…

    philjunior
    Free Member

    Back to semi-sensible discussion (i.e. ignoring kerley’s contribution) – as others have said, proving that he was breaking the law and someone has died does not prove manslaughter.

    I suspect the penalty for riding a non-compliant bike is a bit lower than for manslaughter, hence the charge. I would also suspect that he has also been charged with riding an bike without adequate brakes, and I have heard other charges also.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Not needing a front brake up the world of lovely old steel track bikes with beautiful fork crowns that cannot be drilled for a brake.
    If that is not a good reason I don’t know what is.

    Right. So it is just a fashion thing then 🙄

    That’s not even close to a good reason.

    Massive fail kerley. Sorry.

    Bez
    Full Member

    A bike with 2 brakes will stop more quickly than a bike with 1 brake.

    Actually, that one’s up for debate. Depending on where the centre of mass can (or rather can’t) be positioned, the rear brake may be theoretically redundant.

    g5604
    Free Member

    ^ also the depends on the quality of each brake! lots of people riding clunkers with dreadful, rusty brakes around here.

    TiRed
    Full Member

    so the brake is a fair distance from where you hands are likely to be, so increasing braking time, and you have no plugs, so if you do hit someone you are likely to inflict a serious injury ?

    That’s not my bike, obviously – it was an example of the Goldfinger easily removable clamping brake lever! Two bolts and the brake system is off the bike. Takes almost no time.

    Mine clamps to a set of track drops plugged of course), and obviously I cover the brake lever when riding in traffic – from Dulwich to Herne Hill if I’m riding there. My normal fixed wheel bike has standard drop bar brake levers.

    Bez
    Full Member

    If that is not a good reason I don’t know what is.

    Is this a troll’s tell? 😉

    aracer
    Free Member

    I’m expecting the defence barrister to bring that up 😉

    twisty
    Full Member

    Perhaps if she had been wearing a helmet and hi-vis

    Actually I was looking at some data which suggests that there are significantly more pedestrian traffic deaths than cyclists, and a majority of those the cause of death is head trauma, so there is evidence to suggest that more benefit would be derived from getting pedestrians to wear helmets rather than cyclists.

    Bez
    Full Member

    Yup, roughly three times more. And car occupant head injuries outstrip both.

    But we digress…

    aracer
    Free Member

    It’s not even a particularly stupid comment in the circumstances – based on the limited evidence available there seems a good chance a helmet would have saved her life – it appears to be the sort of impact they protect against.

    This case comes to mind: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918

    paulwf
    Full Member

    wrong post

    deviant
    Free Member

    Devil’s advocate and I’m sure it’s been said but I can’t be bothered reading all the pages…..

    If this was a car driver this forum would be baying for blood, the pedestrian walking out with no warning happens all the time to car drivers and the standard line trotted out on here is to drive defensively and expect the unexpected…..seems when a cyclist mows someone down the forum has an outpouring of sympathy and indulges in a spot of victim blaming the likes of which gets vilified when a car driver does it.

    None as pious and holier than thou as a group of cyclists eh?

    ianbradbury
    Full Member

    None as pious and holier than thou as a group of cyclists eh

    No,just a bunch of people thinking it would be nice if journalists, policemen and lawyers displayed the same level of concern and moral outrage over the hundreds of killer drivers as they have over one (allegedly) killer cyclist.

    seadog101
    Full Member

    Sorry, I’m sure it’s probably been said already but too lazy to read though 8 pages of comments..

    Surely, even with a properly braked bike, you should ride at a speed that you are able to stop safely at? Yes a front brake may well have helped in this case, but if he was going too fast to stop or avoid this accident, regardless of the bikes condition, he is at fault entirely, and has very little to defend himself.

    epicsteve
    Free Member

    f this was a car driver this forum would be baying for blood

    If you read the thread you’d probably see that most people aren’t supporting the cyclist in this particular case (other than the very occasional fixie riding God to whom physics apparently does not apply). Quite a few folks suggesting they don’t think the manslaughter charge will be provable, but that’s not the same as supporting the defendant.

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    I can’t be bothered reading all the pages…..

    ermm…..

    you probably should read the other pages; my summary would be that we are broadly in agreement (with 1-2 exceptions) that not having brakes is a twatty idea, that he deserves what is coming to him, and really the only discrepancy is why making a conscious choice to not have a brake leads to a manslaughter charge whereas making a conscious choice to *exceed the speed limit / use your phone / insert example of your choice* while driving leads usually to an ‘unlucky, could happen to anyone’ charge of being careless.

    epicsteve
    Free Member

    Surely, even with a properly braked bike, you should ride at a speed that you are able to stop safely at?

    Is that practical if you are riding on the road and a pedestrian just steps out? What speed would you regard as safe if someone could step out right in front of you?

    Not saying that sit situation in this the case (i.e. the prosecution argument being that if he had proper brakes he’d have been able to stop), but it’s difficult to see what a safe speed is for any road user if you applied those rules.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Top STW there – can’t be bothered to read all the comments, so assumes what people are saying 😆

    Nice summary steve and jon – I’ve been pleasantly surprised not to be shot down for suggesting the cyclist probably has a reasonable defence (but then you’d have to read the whole thread to work out my attitude rather than take a single post in isolation).

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    Is that practical if you are riding on the road and a pedestrian just steps out? What speed would you regard as safe if someone could step out right in front of you?

    sadly there’s no black and white answer to this. At the risk of going off topic, we’ve seen in the past the classic smidsy response to being pulled out on by cars and people then saying it’s entirely the driver’s fault (which it is) and others (like me) saying even so, we have to ride within reasonable limits because in most cases we’re the ones who end up injured / dead. And while your assessment of the risk might lead to a different idea of reasonable, I’d gain no satisfaction from being 100% blameless but also badly injured / having badly injured someone if i felt there were reasonable steps i could have taken to avoid it.

    (and included in that would be stuff like having brakes, fwiw)

    Tim
    Free Member

    Actually, that one’s up for debate. Depending on where the centre of mass can (or rather can’t) be positioned, the rear brake may be theoretically redundant.

    True, I know what you mean, but generally surely a decent brake will offer more control and braking power than a locked wheel or using your legs to slow a wheel

    grumpysculler
    Free Member

    Surely, even with a properly braked bike, you should ride at a speed that you are able to stop safely at?

    That depends how far ahead of you the pedestrian steps out, doesn’t it?

    the cyclist probably has a reasonable defence

    His defence is almost certainly that his lack of brakes didn’t create a risk of harm to the deceased that isn’t there on a legal bike – it has to be given the argument that the prosecution are constructing. This thread shows that this could be accepted by some people and rejected by others so it will come down to the lawyers and the jury.

    He’s a knob, but that isn’t illegal. Might prejudice a jury though…

    nealglover
    Free Member

    None as pious and holier than thou as a group of cyclists eh?

    None as pious and holier than thou as someone who doesn’t read the thread but still can’t help potificating incorrectly about its content.

    Bravo sir. And a big facepalm trophy for you.

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    A completely non-equivalent issue – if you drove a track car on the road and got stopped by the police (without committing any other offence) then you would have the book thrown at you in a way which would never happen if stopped on a track bike. The level of offence committed is on a totally different scale. Rightly so given the relative level of danger (which is recognised with all sorts of things you require to take a car on the road, but not a bike).

    Is that true though?
    A quick Google (and I’m really sorry for the Daily Wail links) shows several examples of crashes, near misses etc caused by turning normally road-legal cars into what are, to all intents and purposes, track cars:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4533234/Driver-120-000-Audi-R8-spins-control.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4264366/Super-car-rubbish-driver-Motorist-nearly-crashes.html

    No action taken, no prosecution (OK no death was caused so not exactly the same outcome), just let insurance sort it out.

    This one is probably closer:
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/petrol-head-killed-girlfriend-crashed-9376824

    Modified car (though no mention as to whether it remained road-legal) and a charge of death by dangerous driving: guilty and 40 months jail plus a 5 year driving ban.

    kerley
    Free Member

    Right. So it is just a fashion thing then

    That’s not even close to a good reason.

    Fashion for what reason? I don’t ride amongst other people/cyclists so nobody else would even know what bike I am riding. It is about appreciation of a minimalist bike, again a very good reason for someone who is into bikes.

    kerley
    Free Member

    There is only one way to prove this to any of you. If anyone lives near the New Forest I am more than happy to show you the difference. We will ride along at 15 mph and both stop as quickly as possible – you using your front brake, me skid stopping.

    Without doing that you are just making empty assumptions (and being fairly rude to someone just discussing a point – notice I am not defending the cyclist but discussing how less effective not having a front brake is)

    zanelad
    Free Member

    None as pious and holier than thou as a group of cyclists eh?

    Oh yes there are, STWers spring to mind, put “normal” cyclists to shame in that regard.

    nathb
    Free Member

    Expecting the met to start confiscating bikes with no brakes off the back of this court case.

    They have the resources to police a 100m section of closed cycle path in Hyde Park to ensure cyclists dismount due to having to share the section with pedestrians, so I can’t see there being any issue.

    Stop people like this cool looking bloke:
    [video]https://youtu.be/QJO4U3VQQYU[/video]

    aracer
    Free Member

    Eh? They might be high powered cars (and arguably quite dangerous to drive on the road), but they’re totally standard road legal cars – at least the reporting doesn’t suggest otherwise. Hence nothing like a track car in a legal sense – I think you’ve completely missed the point (the original suggestion was a track car which was never designed to be used on the road).

    TiRed
    Full Member

    Without doing that you are just making empty assumptions (and being fairly rude to someone just discussing a point – notice I am not defending the cyclist but discussing how less effective not having a front brake is)

    I’d love to take you up on that, but will be a while before I can get down. I’ll even ride my fixed wheel down to compare if you like. Mine is 78 inches though, and I can’t skid stop it easily.

    I haven’t been rude, and I pointed you to a very nice academic study by MIT that showed that a fixie will struggle to decelerate at 0.5g, and fails to meet the Massachusetts and Oregon standards for effective stopping distances. The UK has no such standards, but clearly requires a bike to have two independent brakes, (at least ) one of which must act on the front wheel (trikes typically have two acting on the front wheel).

    Btw, any trial should focus on emergency braking, not planned stopping. And any trial would use both brakes not just the front. I can even bring a bolt on front brake to add to your bike to test for an improvement 😉

    twisty
    Full Member

    Without doing that you are just making empty assumptions

    There are mathematical proofs showing that a)front brake is more effective than a rear brake; b) Controlled braking is more effective than skidding.

    Observations based on mathematical proofs are hardly empty assumptions now are they.

    But you can come to my office with your fixie to do some tests using survey grade differential GNSS equipment.

    thecaptain
    Free Member

    I don’t understand how anyone who has ridden a bike with decent brakes could believe that the rear brake is as effective as the front. It’s directly contradicted by experience every time you try to stop quickly.

Viewing 40 posts - 241 through 280 (of 1,037 total)

The topic ‘Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie’ is closed to new replies.