That’s the illegality which is accepted by all sides I presume – not quite the same. There is also the question of whether his actions would have been reasonable if he was riding a legal bike which appears to be the argument being made – if so, then I think he gets off.

Not if a reasonable person wouldn’t have chosen to brake more – I’m still imagining myself slowing but not stopping given such a situation, with the amount of slowing being no more than can be easily achieved through back pressure on the pedals.

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.

Won’t the counter point be that if slowing was appropriate, then slowing more in the time available would have been more appropriate?

Would be interesting to know how his Planet-X was geared as well because if it was on track orientated gearing it’d have probably have been harder to slow down that a more road orientated fixie setup. I’ve only ever ridden a fixie at the velodrome so know how difficult it is to slow one of those down, and while I haven’t ridden a fixie set-up for the road it’s maybe not relevant to this case.

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.

The reporting in the Guardian of the defence lawyer’s cross examination of the expert witness does seem to indicate that he was trying to raise doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the evidence relating to both speed and stopping distance (as well as just generally trying to muddy the waters, e.g. pointing out the existence of a pedestrian crossing nearby):

The defendant had been travelling at an average of 18mph before he noticed Briggs step into the road, jurors heard. He was a minimum of 6.65 metres (21.8ft) away when he swerved and tried to take evasive action.

Tests on a conventional mountain bike found a stopping distance of about three metres, but Alliston’s model had a stopping distance of about 12 metres, the court heard.

Cross-examining, Mark Wyeth QC asked Small whether there could be a margin of error in his calculations of Alliston’s average speed before he saw Briggs. The expert replied that any difference would only have been a “fraction of a mile per hour”.

Wyeth suggested to Small that Alliston had the right of way as the lights on the stretch of Old Street were green. He said Briggs could have avoided danger by using a pedestrian crossing less than 10 metres away. Small agreed.

Referring to Alliston’s previous work, his lawyer posed a hypothetical question: “I’m an experienced courier. I’ve got two years’ experience as a courier running around central London. I’ve been riding fixed-wheel bikes since 2014 and, whilst the bike is new to me, I’m very familiar with road bikes without front brakes. Would that put me in a better position to navigate hazards than a serving police officer?”

Small said there would not be much difference without brakes.

Wyeth said: “We have seen velodromes and seasoned athletes. One way the fixed-wheel bikes can be brought to a stop involves getting up out of the seat and [putting] down pressure on pedals to get that kinetic energy to come to a sharper halt than just a free wheel.”

He asked whether Alliston could be seen doing just that, and Small said he did not recall the defendant rising from his saddle.

Reading the above article again, it indicates that the prosecution are suggesting that because he was 6.65m from the woman when he started to swerve, that is the relevant distance when assessing stopping distance. There is no need to consider the reaction time, because that had already elapsed at that point (evident from the fact that he started to swerve).

Will be interesting to see how this goes because it’s potentially quite technical, especially for a non cyclist.

The black and white/daily mail version would no doubt be:
1) Pedestrian steps into the road in the path of an oncoming cyclist
2) The non-road legal bike didn’t have brakes
3) The bike didn’t stop or even slow significantly before hitting the pedestrian
4) The pedestrian dies

So two facts clearly accepted:
1) The bike was illegal for road use due to the lack of effective brakes
2) The pedestrian died after being hit by the bike

If the jury connects those two facts then the guys going to jail as he’ll be guilty of both charges.

To stop him going to jail the defence has to throw reasonable doubt on them being connected by:
1) Proving that swerving to avoid the pedestrian instead of trying to stop was a reasonable and appropriate course of action even if brakes had been fitted
or
2) That there was no time for any effective braking to be done whether the bike had brakes or not

I know we can’t agree one way or the other but we don’t have access to some of the most important evidence (e.g. the CCTV footage) so it isn’t really relevant. We do (barring the odd fashion victim) agree that no brakes is dumb so would almost certainly find him guilty if that was the only factor on any of the charges (which it probably isn’t).

He’s a dick for riding without brakes, but on the basis of the available info I couldn’t be sure that I wouldn’t have killed the woman in a similar situation if I was riding a legal bike (I don’t think I’ve mentioned it before, but I have hit a couple of people who stepped of the pavement immediately in front of me – one of them I did knock to the floor and it’s easy to imagine killing somebody like that given bad luck).

Reading the above article again, it indicates that the prosecution are suggesting that because he was 6.65m from the woman when he started to swerve, that is the relevant distance when assessing stopping distance. There is no need to consider the reaction time, because that had already elapsed at that point (evident from the fact that he started to swerve).

If I hadn’t injured my neck riding my TT bike on Monday I’d be out there right now doing emergency stops from 18mph on the range of bikes available to me to see if I could stop in that distance!

Given that he had already started to avoid at 6.65m out, a front brake would at least have slowed him down considerably. Likelihood being she would be annoyed but not dead.

Rachel

showing a disconnect between the illegality and the outcome appears to be sufficient defence.

Agreed (although I think we see the reasoning slightly differently).

I think the defence will try to show that it was nothing to do with brakes and so the risk that led to her death did not arise from his illegal actions. Probably that swerving rather than braking was the avoidance measure, or that there was no time to brake at all (even if he had them).

annoyed but not dead

That’s how I’ve spent the whole of today.
And to be fair, it’s not that bad.

Ah – official stopping distance for all vehicles at 20mph is 6m. He’s toast. Hope he likes porridge.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158#rule126

Rachel

And here we go:

“I tried to go around,” said Mr Alliston, who alleges Mrs Briggs was using a mobile phone at the time of the collision.
“Having a brake, I wouldn’t have had enough time to pull it,” he said.
“It was a few split seconds prior to the impact, which caused the impact, so a brake at the time wouldn’t have made a difference.”

To stop him going to jail the defence has to throw reasonable doubt on them being connected by:
1) Proving that swerving to avoid the pedestrian instead of trying to stop was a reasonable and appropriate course of action even if brakes had been fitted

I don’t think that that is correct. It’s an absolute question of whether if the bike had been fitted with a front brake, it could have stopped before the collision (or possibly slowed sufficiently that the likely consequences would have been much less worse, something much harder to prove). The fact that he swerved is irrelevant. It’s ‘simply’ a hypothetical question of whether having brakes and using them would probably have resulted in a different outcome.

Alternatively consider it this way: his bike could have been fitted with brakes which could have stopped him in time, but in the heat of the moment he could have made a snap decision to swerve rather than brake, and the outcome would again have been that the woman was killed, but then the criminal act would have been one of misjudgement (making the wrong choice), and maybe a charge of careless cycling instead.

A possible defence is that if he had chosen to brake instead of swerve, there would have been no significant (given the circumstances of this incident) difference between the stopping distance using a track bike fitted with a front brake and just using leg braking on one without a front brake.

“Likelihood” gets a not guilty verdict – not beyond reasonable doubt.

HC stopping distances are for a car which stops quicker than a bike – based on 0.67g deceleration IIRC, when on a bike you can only manage 0.5g at most.

I make the stopping distance from 18mph 6.5m – which might have stopped him in time (given perfect on the limit braking), but I reckon it’s easily close enough to justify his decision to swerve around instead.

I’m with you 100% there.

I think legally he doesn’t even have to show that swerving was the best option, simply that it would be possible for a reasonable person to think that (remember the law requires all reasonable people to see the obvious danger in his actions).

I think legally he doesn’t even have to show that swerving was the best option, simply that it would be possible for a reasonable person to think that (remember the law requires all reasonable people to see the obvious danger in his actions).

You are conflating the snapshot decision to swerve with the pre-meditated decision to ride a bike without a front brake. I don’t think the prosecution will find it difficult to get the jury to agree that all reasonable people would see the obvious danger in choosing to ride a fixed gear bike in London that lacked a front brake as required by law. There is no need to envisage in advance the particular circumstances of the death, merely to see that the illegal act would result in obvious danger in generally riding around London on that bike without brakes.

The decision to swerve is irrelevant (although I imagine the defence is trying to muddy the waters and present that as an acceptable alternative to braking). The issue is simply that the cyclist denied himself the option of braking with a front brake, and the only question is therefore whether braking using a front brake would have resulted in a different outcome.

I can see that and I think I’m reasonable

In fact there have been times in both cars and on the bike where I’ve actually accelerated to avoid a collision – a car coming out of a side road for example where you somehow know it hasn’t seen you but in that split second you know that swerving and accelerating will give you the space around the front whereas braking will see you hitting it whether you swerve or not.

But don’t ask me what the decision process was – it’s instinct that comes from riding bikes for 25 years, and it’s been close a couple of times (cue ‘what washing powder for chammy skids discussion). Which raises another point – would a 50 year old cyclist with 25 years+ experience have done the same as an 18 year old and what relevance does that have? Is inexperience a mitigating factor?

So if the exact same collision had a different and entirely plausible outcome of a bruised pedestrian and a cyclist who died of head injuries, would the pedestrian be up on manslaughter charges?

“Likelihood” gets a not guilty verdict – not beyond reasonable doubt.

I think your being a bit optimistic regarding a juries view on “reasonable”. They won’t be looking at things from a cyclists perspective, at best it’ll be open minded neutrality. The message being rammed down their throats will be he could have stopped with two brakes on his bike, even if most experienced cyclist’s feel avoidance in these situations might be the better choice. ( Tragically not in this instance)

You are conflating the snapshot decision to swerve with the pre-meditated decision to ride a bike without a front brake. …….merely to see that the illegal act would result in obvious danger in generally riding around London on that bike without brakes.

Fair comments, i agree.

The issue I have though is that you could swap the relevant clause by ‘speeding’ or ‘using a mobile phone’ – and we’d see a heck of a load more prosecutions AND CONVICTIONS – but instead it seems in those cases ‘yes, i know it’s illegal but i never imagined it would lead to me killing someone’ is a valid defence because judges and juries all nod and say ‘and there but for the grace of god go I’

So if the exact same collision had a different and entirely plausible outcome of a bruised pedestrian and a cyclist who died of head injuries, would the pedestrian be up on manslaughter charges?

Might meet the criteria for “Manslaughter by gross negligence” but don’t think it’d meet the “Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act” as trying to cross the road isn’t itself illegal.

The point you’re missing slowster is that they also have to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the death was the result of the unlawful act. If it can be shown that his actions would have been reasonable and that he might have done the same thing on a bike with a front brake, then the proof for that fails. It matters not whether he could have stopped with a front brake if the prosecution can’t prove that he would have tried to stop with a front brake.

Admittedly I think I’ve been misunderstanding the legal situation and/or muddying the waters with my use of terminology – my apologies.

It matters not whether he could have stopped with a front brake if the prosecution can’t prove that he would have tried to stop with a front brake.

I have a very slightly different read on that, which is the prosecution will try to prove that he “should” have tried tried to stop but didn’t have that option available to him due to lack of effective braking capability.

With a front brake fitted the only way I could see him being charged with manslaughter (even if he’d ridden in exactly the same way) was if it was thought that he’d deliberately tried to either clip her or just miss her (i.e. to teach her a lesson) and that’d be difficult to prove. In fact even if the intent was proven the only example case I’ve seen (the one linked to earlier in the thread where a guy was riding on the pavement, shouted to a pedestrian to get out of the way as he wasn’t planning on stopping and she was hit and died) didn’t end up in a manslaughter conviction.

The point to be learned from this for fashion victim brakeless fixie riders is that with a brake fitted you’re very unlikely to be charged with manslaughter or “wanton and furious cycling”, but without one you’re quite likely to get a manslaughter charge if the victim dies (even if they’re the one that steps out in front of you) or a “wanton and furious” charge if the pedestrian is injured – either with the potential for jail time. Which makes riding on the road (especially in a city like London) on a brakeless fixie doubly stupid.

That isn’t sufficient though – as I wrote they have to show that he would have tried to stop if he had had a front brake. Beyond reasonable doubt. “Should” isn’t sufficient, as the defence simply has to show the irrelevance of the lack of brake to what would have happened.

I’m thinking his attitude (and the fact he didn’t apparently slow at all) helps him here – do you honestly think he wouldn’t have tried to swerve around the pedestrian even if riding a fully legal bike?

Members of the jury, I submit that the death would have happened even if my client had been riding a completely legal bike, as he considers himself to have skillz and would have chosen to swerve rather than brake anyway. There is no connection between the illegality of the bike and the death, the prosecution has failed to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. I rest my case

I reckon it’s easily close enough to justify his decision to swerve around instead.

I doubt he “decided” to do anything, I suspect he subconsciously shouted and swerved at the same time. We’ve all been in the “Oh Shit” situation, and normally I shout before I’ve even registered – faster than a bell or horn. Same with swerving – these are instincts not conscious acts.

I still think he’ll be acquitted of the manslaughter charge and the second is the CPS fallback.

Aracer, I think I follow your reasoning, i.e it made no difference to the outcome whether or not he had brakes, because in such a situation he was always going to make the snap decision to swerve rather than brake, and that that was a reasonable decision.

However, I still think that what you describe is the difference between careless cycling (having brakes which would have stopped him safely, but mistakenly choosing to swerve rather than use them) and manslaughter (swerving because he didn’t have brakes which if they had been fitted and used would have stopped him safely).

It matters not whether he could have stopped with a front brake if the prosecution can’t prove that he would have tried to stop with a front brake.

I think you’ve gone slightly down the rabbit hole there. I would have expected that the criterion would probably be something like whether a reasonably competent cyclist should have braked or swerved. I think if the defence can get a cycling safety expert to testify that they would recommend swerving rather than braking in such circumstances (or that either course of action is equally appropriate), then I agree the defence may have done enough to break the causal link between the unlawful act and the death. I don’t think the defendant’s own assertion that he would always swerve rather than brake in such circumstances would be enough (he cannot be his own expert witness).

I doubt he “decided” to do anything, I suspect he subconsciously shouted and swerved at the same time. We’ve all been in the “Oh Shit” situation, and normally I shout before I’ve even registered – faster than a bell or horn. Same with swerving – these are instincts not conscious acts.

Totally agree.

Last incident I had saw a jogger going the same direction as me on a quiet country lane suddenly lunge into the road just as I was approaching in the middle at about 20mph.

I yelled something like “waaaaa!” and locked up, snaking the bike as he turned round and jumped one way then the other to avoid being flattened.

If I’d had no front brake I’d most likely have hit him TBH.

Sorry, having just served on a jury it’s no longer “beyond reasonable doubt”. Apparently it was too difficult for people to understand or something (people kept getting caught up on it and the courts were getting frustrated)… so they changed it to “must be sure”.

Carry on 😆

We’ve all been in the “Oh Shit” situation, and normally I shout before I’ve even registered – faster than a bell or horn. Same with swerving – these are instincts not conscious acts.

I agree, I think all of them – shouting and/or swerving and/or braking (provided you have brakes fitted) – are instinctive in an emergency.

TiRed, can you recall when and under what circumstances you’ve instinctively swerved vs. braked?

My own perception is that the further away I am from the hazard, the more I am likely to rely (at least initially) on braking, but that if I am so close that collision is almost inevitable then the more I am likely to try to take extreme evasive action (which would probably mean crashing into the pavement or a parked car or similar).

That said, swerving and braking simutaneously are not completely mutually exclusive. The last time I emergency braked was on my fixed Pompino with two V brakes going downhill on a narrow road where an oncoming 4×4 was driving in the middle of the road. I can recall that on that occasion I both emergency (panicked) braked, causing the rear wheel to momentarily lock up, and at the same time steered closer to the very edge of the left hand side of the road.

I have a very slightly different read on that, which is the prosecution will try to prove that he “should” have tried tried to stop but didn’t have that option available to him due to lack of effective braking capability.

[quote]Members of the jury, I submit that the death would have happened even if my client had been riding a completely legal bike, as he considers himself to have skillz and would have chosen to swerve rather than brake anyway. There is no connection between the illegality of the bike and the death, the prosecution has failed to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. I rest my case[/quote]I wonder, may we see the jury treated to a load of vids of Sagan bunnyhopping Cancellara and other similar “avoidance, not braking” decisions

I suppose that the point could be made that if you were ring on the tops, or even aero bars, both would be entirely legal, yet the brake would be inaccessible

remember the law requires all reasonable people to see the obvious danger in his actions

A reasonable person, not all, which is a matter for the jury to decide.

It matters not whether he could have stopped with a front brake if the prosecution can’t prove that he would have tried to stop with a front brake

It’s about what he did or didn’t do, what he should or shouldn’t have done, what he could or couldn’t do, and perhaps why he couldn’t do it. But it’s not about the prosecution proving or disproving what he would have done in a hypothetical situation.

he’s got facial piercings – that’s good enouogh for me – he’s guilty…

Presumably there’s no cctv of the incident, or is it not being made public due to the trial.. I think that would be critical really.

he’s got facial piercings – that’s good enouogh for me – he’s guilty…

Imagine what it would be like if the jury was composed of STWers. They would probably still be arguing even now with the police witness, both barristers and the judge about what tyres were used to measure stopping distance and whether discs would have made a difference, arguing amongst themelves about whether it was OK to punch a hipster, and if ninfin was on the jury then the verdict would always be an 11-1 majority decision.

If there was CCTV would it not have been shown to the jury by now? In which case the press reports would have mentioned it even if they couldn’t report it?

I’m hoping that after this case some people will come away with the concept that cyclists have responsibilities as well as rights.

Maybe – but the question is what the defendant would have done if they’re pursuing unlawful act manslaughter, because the prosecution has to prove that the lack of brakes directly contributed. Clearly if he wouldn’t have braked anyway then it didn’t – and that appears to be the basis for the defence. You’re probably right that the defendant’s assertion on its own is insufficient, but I think you’d only need to find some other cycle couriers (who ride legal bikes) to attest that they’d have chosen to swerve to provide sufficient evidence. What a cycle safety expert would do isn’t necessarily relevant, because the case presumably isn’t one of gross negligence (which would almost certainly fail), and the argument is what a reckless 18yo with a high opinion of his own skills would do.

There is CCTV, the press have reported it. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/crash-cyclist-shouted-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded

A reasonable person, not all, which is a matter for the jury to decide.[/quote]

Nope – at least not according to the CPS website (my bolding)

where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from

Though since I posted that I’ve realised I’m looking at the wrong bit of the law – the defence case appears most likely to be based upon poking holes in the direct link between the unlawful act and the death.

It matters not whether he could have stopped with a front brake if the prosecution can’t prove that he would have tried to stop with a front brake

It’s about what he did or didn’t do, what he should or shouldn’t have done, what he could or couldn’t do, and perhaps why he couldn’t do it. But it’s not about the prosecution proving or disproving what he would have done in a hypothetical situation.
[/quote]

The prosecution does have to prove that the death was as a direct result of the unlawful act, which depends on the assertion that he would have done something different if he’d had one – I’m fairly sure that is the prosecution’s hypothetical situation and pretty much the whole basis for the case, not the defences.

What do you know about the law anyway? 😉

The prosecution does have to prove that the death was as a direct result of the unlawful act,

I suppose that would be consistent with the terrible case of that car slipping on ice and hitting a group of cyclists in north wales a few years ago, where the bald tyres were held not to be causative

(Edit, sorry, it was held not to be a contributory factor 😕 )

he prosecution does have to prove that the death was as a direct result of the unlawful act, which depends on the assertion that he would have done something different if he’d had one

I’m not convinced that’s 100% true. For example I think that, even with a front brake, if he’d decided to deliberately clip her or pass close to frighten her (and I’ve seen folks in London doing both) then it could still be seem as manslaughter (although a different flavour) i.e. if he was to say that even if with a front brake he’d have still not bothered trying to stop ’cause he wanted to teach her a lesson (in-line with his subsequent comments) he could still be guilty of manslaughter.

I’m sure they’re going for unlawful act manslaughter – I presume they could still try and go for gross negligence, but the chances of that succeeding seem low. It’s no worse in terms of negligence than plenty of other cases which haven’t resulted in such a prosecution, and it appears only to be because of the illegal act they’re pursuing this.

Sure if as you suggest he had intended to pass close or clip her then gross negligence might be possible, but I’ve not seen any suggestion that his actions were anything other than trying to avoid a collision (it does seem plausible he did intend to close pass, but no apparent evidence).