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

That’s why the big disc is on the front, isn’t it?

Braking heavily (with any system) unweights the back wheel, making it less effective and more likely to lock.

Modified cars-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/boy-racers-told-you-modify-11666052

All modifications are meant to be notified to insurance co’s but I’d hazard a guess that most modified cars are not.

I really hope the jury is giving it this much thought.
Hopefully they are not a bunch of right weapons though.

(I lived right by the New Forest for 20 years and would of loved to have taken up the challenge right up till about a year ago when I moved away)

There was quite a big “fixie scene” in Southampton a few years back, I’ve seen some fairly skilled riders do some cool shit, including stopping from pace in a quick and controlled manner.

But none of them stopped as quickly as I managed when A car pulled out in front of me without looking. I was very grateful for good, working brakes in that instance.

MrPottatoHead – Member
…Personally I do think jaywalking should be a crime in the UK on certain roads…

No. Driving or riding at speeds when you can’t stop in time for an unexpected event should be a crime.

So should driving when blind. “ISMIDSY” should be an admission of guilt, not an excuse.

MrSmith – Member
I really hope the jury is giving it this much thought.

😆 sure they are

Jury service was an eye opener for me, before that I naively thought that most people are basically good hearted and intelligent enough to understand basic information.

Last time I looked, track cars have brakes. Front and rear.

It already is https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35#rule6

aracer – Member
“MrPottatoHead » Personally I do think jaywalking should be a crime in the UK on certain roads.”
It already is https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35#rule6

All that is purely advisory except the bits that say MUST NOT.

So today’s update claims he was travelling at 18mph:
BBC
That’s really not that fast on a road bike, so hardly riding furiously.

I really don’t understand why anyone would ride a fixie anywhere other than a track race though and I’m not defending the lack of a front brake.

If the deceased did step out in front of him whilst not paying attention (allegedly on the phone, which should easily be verifiable) then no way should he be convicted of manslaughter, especially when you see how rarely a motorist is convicted of such offences in much less questionable scenarios.

Like the bit in the link I gave? 🙄

That’s really not that fast on a road bike, so hardly riding furiously.

You could probably claim context on that one as well.
18mph through a crowded pedestrianised precinct or on a busy congested section of the London FreeCycle course (with families, kids etc) probably counts as “riding furiously”.
18mph on a city street is proabbly about the same speed as most of the cars if not slightly quicker.
18mph on an A-road means you’re in the bloody way and a danger to all those hard-working, law-abiding motorists who may have to slow down momentarily.

Part of the problem here is that to a jury of non-cyclists, 18mph is far faster than they’ve ever ridden on a bike therefore it’s reckless, dangerous blah blah.

In spite of the fact that if it was a 20mph zone and they were in a vehicle, it’s virtually certain that they’d be exceeding that limit given half a chance.

aracer – Member
epicyclo » All that is purely advisory except the bits that say MUST NOT.
Like the bit in the link I gave?

There no mention of jaywalking as a crime though, is there? Just certain prohibited places like motorways and behaviour on crossings.

The roads belong to people, drivers of cars are just licensed to use them. The behaviour of drivers has turned each city block into an island whereas once people used to throng on the roads between them. It would be hard to go back though.

That BBC article reports on the charge against him, which from what I can tell is this:-

35 Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years

So I’d say that the prosecution needs to prove:-
– “wanton or furious driving” – that would reflect his speed, the maintenance of his bike, its legal compliance etc up to the point that his “driving” his bike is “wanton”. Perhaps a less likely test to be passed beyond reasonable doubt due to the level of intent required
OR
– “wilful misconduct” – that would require some evidence of deliberately trying to hit her, even if mischieveously, which I don’t think is being offered as a route of prosecution
OR
– “wilful neglect” – that could equally pivot around the absence of a road legal bike, and then on evidence as to a) the contributory effect of a bike’s inability to slow if a front brake isn’t present and b) whether the woman who died did something that he could not reasonably have been expected to respond to, even if his bike had had a front brake

Note that “wilful” is a well defined and understood legal term and “wilful neglect” will also be well understood by the judge as a concept.

Also of note from that is the bike – from reading here I’d have put him on a flat bar, trendy, 70s styled commuter. This looks like a carbon track bike to me, designed and intended to be ridden fast on a track, and therefore in the same mode on the road if used as such? Doesn’t look like fashion vs safety, looks like speed vs safety.

If the deceased did step out in front of him whilst not paying attention (allegedly on the phone, which should easily be verifiable) then no way should he be convicted of manslaughter

Despite the various definitions of manslaughter previously discussed fitting the situation perfectly ?

Doesn’t look like fashion vs safety, looks like speed vs safety.

From his social media postings it looked like he bought the track bike because he thought it made him cool. Most of his social media posts on fixie riding have been fashion/looks related.

nealglover – Member
If the deceased did step out in front of him whilst not paying attention (allegedly on the phone, which should easily be verifiable) then no way should he be convicted of manslaughter
Despite the various definitions of manslaughter previously discussed fitting the situation perfectly ?

So I should clarify – if she stepped out directly in front of him giving him no opportunity to avoid the collision (in in effect failed to give way) then he is not at fault.

And I have not had time to read the whole 9 pages, nor am I a practising law professional, nor am I on the jury, so my opinion means squat, much like all of the others here.

If the deceased did step out in front of him whilst not paying attention (allegedly on the phone, which should easily be verifiable) then no way should he be convicted of manslaughte

My view is that a conviction for manslaughter is perhaps unlikely, but that choosing to ride a bike without effective brakes and then killing someone could certainly fit the bill for involuntary manslaughter.

So I should clarify – if she stepped out directly in front of him giving him no opportunity to avoid the collision (in in effect failed to give way) then he is not at fault.

If he had time to shout twice then wouldn’t he have also have had time to at least start braking, and therefore at lower the likely-hood of the impact being fatal, had he actually had brakes?

The defendant is in the witness box today according to the media, but there has been no reporting of yesterday’s evidence/proceedings.

I am puzzled that there has apparently been no further challenging of the prosecution’s technical evidence from the police crash investigator/expert, some aspects of which sound highly questionable, e.g. the use of a mountain bike for comparison of braking performance with the track bike, and its reported 3m stopping distance.

Maybe the defence will be producing its own technical expert witness and test results after the defendant’s own testimony, but I would have thought it would be better to rebut the prosecution’s expert witness without delay. Also the reporting of the defendant’s lawyer’s cross examination of the police expert witness did not seem to suggest that the defence would be producing its own expert witness evidence and testing which would contradict and undermine the prosecution evidence. However, we are only getting very limited second hand – and possibly inaccurate – snippets from the press.

This looks like a carbon track bike to me, designed and intended to be ridden fast on a track, and therefore in the same mode on the road if used as such?

Not necessarily , I have the same bike, it’s a Planet X carbon track bike, for road use I’d be knocking the gearing back a fair amount from the ratio I had is set up for on the track, and for most people this would limit the top speed. It would be easy enough to ride it slowly, it’s not a flat out only design. I was toying with converting mine to road use, new drilled forks and front brake but not sure I’ll bother now.

Maybe the defence will be producing its own technical expert witness and test results after the defendent’s own testimony

Either that or they did the tests themselves and their results were worse than the police testing. I’m not entirely sure whether, on dry tarmac, my road bike on slicks or mountain bike on knobblies would stop quicker.

Claimed speed 18 mph, so regardless of gearing etc he was within the speed limit of the road.

3 metres stopping distance is kind of irrelevant if one were to accept the standard highway code reaction time of 2 seconds; at 18mph 3 metres is covered in less than 0.5 seconds (16 metres in 2 seconds)

As for the shouting, that could seem to include an initial shout of warning and then a subsequent shout at the pedestrian in anger (or other stress-induced) emotion after the collision; so again not necessarily all of the story.

Did the mountain bike they used for the test have disc-brakes?

Apart from the “Pedestrians MUST NOT be on motorways or slip roads except in an emergency” bit in the specific link? Hence it is a crime on certain roads which was the original suggestion (the links to the relevant law are given at the bottom).

Did the mountain bike they used for the test have disc-brakes?

Would that make a difference on dry tarmac? I’d have thought the tyres would be more of a limiting factor.

As noted above, it’s also implausible given it’s far less than the HC stopping distance for a car at that speed.

The limiting factor on dry tarmac given good brakes and good tyres should be the geometry – ie the maximum braking is just less than what would throw you over the bars. Which is where you get 0.5g from.

If he had time to shout twice then wouldn’t he have also have had time to at least start braking, and therefore at lower the likely-hood of the impact being fatal, had he actually had brakes?

From reading this in the guardian:

He said Mrs Briggs had started to cross the road and moved out of his path, but then “stood back” in front of him.

Probably already said..

I get the impression he saw her step into the road, shouted his approach but reckoned that he could get between her and the kerb.

People have done this with me but people and animals are unpredictable and you have to compensate for this. Its a reason why I prefer the road to purpose built mixed-use cycletracks.

I can imagine that he’s watched that cycle messenger video on Youtube where they tear-arse around Manhattan, missing people and cars with inches to spare and thought it was “the thing to do”.

epicsteve – Member
Did the mountain bike they used for the test have disc-brakes?
Would that make a difference on dry tarmac? I’d have thought the tyres would be more of a limiting factor.

I would say so – if my life* (or anyone else’s) depended on my braking ability I’d take disc brakes over rim brakes every time – first time I rode a road bike with rim brakes after years of mtb discs I was shocked at how poor they are.

*It does and I choose discs

I like to ride. Fixed gear. No brakes. Can’t stop. Don’t want to, either.

Etc….

I wonder if the manslaughter charge would have been brought if there were not a CCTV recording that could be examined. Without that recording, reliable scientific analysis of the accident sufficient to determine speeds and stopping distances etc. would probably have been impossible.

With regard to the reaction time, a decision would also be need to be taken by the investigator (and accepted by the jury) as to what action the cyclist should have taken and when. It may not be so simple as stating that the cyclist should have slammed the brakes on (or rather been able to slam his front brake on) as soon as the woman stepped into the road. It’s been reported that she stepped into the road (and presumably started to walk across the road) and then stopped/stepped back, possibly triggered by the warning shout from the cyclist. An assessment would need to be made of the precise point at which a reasonably competent cyclist should/would have realised that a collision was likely and performed an emergency stop, but possibly even before then a reasonably competent cyclist would already have begun to brake as a precaution to reduce speed (rather than stop) in response to the hazard that existed the moment she stepped into the road, even if no collision would have occurred if she carried on walking across the road.

As for the question of comparison with a mountain bike, disc brakes, front and rear brakes, knobblies vs slick mountain bike tyres, all these potential variables must throw a big question mark over any stopping distance with brakes given by the police expert witness. It just sounds incredibly unscientific and amateurish to go to trial with technical evidence which the defence could so easily pick apart to create reasonable doubt. They would not even need their own testing, just to ask the police witness what the consequences on the tests were:

– of using a bike with front and rear brakes (as opposed to a fixed bike with a front brake)
– of using a bike with V or disc brakes (as opposed to a fixed bike with a front calliper brake)
– of using a bike with completely different tyres (width, contact patch, tyre pressure etc.)

Probably already said..
I get the impression he saw her step into the road, shouted his approach but reckoned that he could get between her and the kerb. [/quote]

Not so explicitly – I haven’t read the latest Guardian story – but it’s what I’ve assumed from the start based on the initial reporting. Seems like a pretty good defence to me, given that as I’ve suggested a few times, it’s not all that unreasonable to attempt to avoid a collision with a pedestrian in the road by steering around them. If such action would have avoided the collision then I’m struggling to see the difference in negligence between the pedestrian then stepping back into your path at the last moment and a pedestrian stepping off the kerb in front of you at the last minute.

I think all he has to show is that a reasonable person wouldn’t consider the lack of brakes to make a difference to the outcome.

Surely a “reasonable cyclist” would, even if going at 20mph through there, would have the brakes covered by their fingers “just in case” and if he had time to scream “get out of the way” twice, that’s at least enough time for the brakes to be applied and a significant amount of speed scrubbed off.

I’m no expert cyclist, but in busy areas that’s exactly how I would behave.

I’m struggling to see the difference in negligence

Negligence doesn’t come into it…

The investigator can offer his opinion, I’m expecting the defence to introduce a “reasonable” (probably expert) witness or two to suggest that the cyclists initial reactions were reasonable in the circumstances at the time, based on the expectation that a pedestrian wouldn’t step back into the path of an oncoming cyclist.

but possibly even before then a reasonably competent cyclist would already have begun to brake as a precaution to reduce speed (rather than stop)

That’s a really interesting one – if I was the defence barrister I’d be trying to get the prosecution investigator to suggest that, even if (as it appears) the cyclist didn’t slow down at all. Because it’s the sort of slowing which a fixie is actually really good at, and certainly the lack of a front brake wouldn’t limit it at all. If they’re trying to make the case we assume, then the cyclist not slowing down is irrelevant, because the illegality of the bike doesn’t then come into it.

Regarding the testing of braking distances, I’m wondering whether the defence hasn’t argued much (or at all) with that because it’s not important to their defence, and they don’t want the jury to get interested in the idea that the stopping distances might be relevant.

To a certain extent it does, even though it’s not a “gross negligence” charge. Check the case law (links above, I think you gave one yourself with some references!) which gives examples of defences. It’s not quite as black and white as the strict wording of the law suggests – showing a disconnect between the illegality and the outcome appears to be sufficient defence. If the pedestrian had stepped off the road straight in front of him he wouldn’t be in court, showing the equivalence between that and what did happen may be sufficient defence (and IMHO it also makes him rather less morally guilty irrespective of the outcome of the case).

then the cyclist not slowing down is irrelevant, because the illegality of the bike doesn’t then come into it.

Not necessarily, because the prosecution will probably be making the case that to at least start to brake would have been the safest option and it was the lack of brakes that denied him that option.

Kind of agree on the defence probably not wanting to get into the stopping distance argument because if it becomes accepted that any kind of braking might have improved the situation then the lad is doomed. It does mean the defence maybe have to try and prove that not even trying to slow down was the best option though, which could be a struggle given he had time to shout.

Has the possibility that he may have shouted whilst trying to slow down (it is possible to do both simultaneously) been eliminated?

In similar situations (especially if I knew I had insufficient time/space to stop) I have shouted at people to alert them to my presence. Somewhat easier that using a horn in car at the same time as braking, almost instinctive in fact.

To a certain extent it does, even though it’s not a “gross negligence” charge.

My reading of the situation is that the negligence part of it is in fact already proven and admitted i.e. the second he knowingly headed out on the road without a front brake. What’s not yet proven is if that negligence contributed to the death of the pedestrian. If it didn’t contribute to the death then manslaughter won’t be applicable, and even for the “wanton and furious” to apply it’d need to be accepted that the proven negligence contributed to the injury of the pedestrian.

Has the possibility that he may have shouted whilst trying to slow down (it is possible to do both simultaneously) been eliminated?

Might be a dangerous argument for the defence because if he started to slow at all them the lack of a front brake becomes a factor in the death (i.e. he could have slowed faster with a front brake and therefore lessened the chance of death).

Not necessarily, because the prosecution will probably be making the case that to at least start to brake would have been the safest option and it was the lack of brakes that denied him that option.[/quote]

No – because the lack of a front brake didn’t deny him that option at all – as I mentioned, the sort of slowing you’d do there is perfectly (and easily) achievable on a fixie. Just imagining being confronted with that scenario on my road legal fixie I suspect I might slow the bike with my legs whilst swerving – certainly it’s likely that I’d start slowing sooner on a fixie as the reaction is pretty instant. Dangerous territory for the prosecution to start suggesting he should have done things which he wasn’t prevented from doing by his lack of a front brake.