[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

What bit(s) are you having trouble with?

I thought a front brake was a legal requirement?

Bez, who posts on here occasionally and writes the various [url= http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2017/04/flaunting-the-laws-of-the-highway/ ]road safety columns[/url] for ST has been following this on Twitter.

I'm calling bollocks on one part of it at least - one of the news items claimed he shouted at her to get out of the way twice. If he had time to shout then
a) she had time to get out the way and
b) he had time to stop and/or swerve, even on a fixie.

I've hit a pedestrian once (entirely her fault) and I didn't have time to brake, steer, shout, ring a bell or anything else. She ran out into the road from between two cars and BANG, we both ended up on the deck. If you have time to shout "get out of the way" twice (as one report claimed) then you've got time to avoid the incident.

Willing to bet he gets a sentence of a couple of years and a huge fine - way out of proportion to what he'd have got if he'd have hit her in a car in which case it'd be a not guilty verdict. That's only slightly cynical.

That's what bothers me - if he'd been in a car with faulty brakes, or on his phone, or just not paying attention, it wouldn't even make the news and he'd probably be let off. At worst (for him) he'd get driving without due care and a slap on the wrist - never manslaughter.

Reminds me of the woman wearing 4 inch heels (the relevance being control, or lack of) who told my 68 year old mother she should have got out of the way after she ran her over on a zebra crossing in daylight.

I thought a front brake was a legal requirement?

Yes they are

Depends where he was riding, on the road and she stepped out? Legal requirement is for 2 efficient independent brakes, a fixed rear wheel counts as one so some form of front brake is also required.

I'm calling bollocks on one part of it at least - one of the news items claimed he shouted at her to get out of the way twice. If he had time to shout then

I think the point is that he saw her in the road, thought he was in the right so he hit her anyway. Sounds like he still thinks he's in the right, hence the heavy charge

The absence of the front brake is kind of an obvious thing for them to focus on but as others have pointed out probably not the whole story.

If she was in the road, the accident was her fault there's almost no question of that just as if she'd walked in front of a truck.

The legalities of a bike with no brakes can be questioned but the worst he can be accused of is failing to maintain a vehicle or whatever the "crime" is that can be associated with a bicycle and probably some contributory negligence.

I imagine this is being treated as a n exemplary case to try and convince those that are too cool for brakes [i]man[/i], that it's really not on. Fixie & no brake BMX riders alike. If you're on the road on it you need brakes. Even if that's a little inconvenient because you may have to do some maintenance or bad for your image.

If she was in the road, the accident was her fault there's almost no question of that just as if she'd walked in front of a truck.

I don't think that's really true is it. Pedestrians are allowed in the road without being run over.

If she had walked in front of a truck its ability to stop would have been questioned and taken in to account as part of the charge also.

That's as bad as 'It's a dropped kerb so the car has right of way across a pavement'.

If she was in the road, the accident was her fault there's almost no question of that just as if she'd walked in front of a truck.

If she was in the road, the accident was her fault there's almost no question of that just as if she'd walked in front of a truck.

Do you usually live under a bridge?

The legalities of a bike with no brakes can be questioned

If you knowingly drove a car and hit someone and killed them then I expect you'd also be treated severely.

I've heard some bollocks from fixie riders saying that a front brake isn't necessary however having now ridden a fixie a fair bit (in the velodrome) I think it most definitely is. I hadn't been expecting much but even then was surprised just how poor the braking capability is with just a fixed wheel.

If she was in the road, the accident was her fault there's almost no question of that just as if she'd walked in front of a truck.

There is a difference between being on the road and stepping into the road - given he claims to have shouted twice i doubt its a stepping into the road directly in front of a vehicle which has no time for the person to react.

the worst he can be accused of is failing to maintain a vehicle or whatever the "crime" is that can be associated with a bicycle and probably some contributory negligence.

Poor lad needs to get Janick Fielding defending him - I expect he could find some evidence that the victim was a novice pedestrian. Or do such defences only work when you're driving and kill a cyclist?

I've heard some bollocks from fixie riders saying that a front brake isn't necessary

In this case it doesn't much matter whether someone thinks it's necessary or not, the law says it is.

No sympathy for the bike rider being a dick - if he'd seen her and shouted as he'd said, then a skid stop might have been possible / at least scrub off some speed.

the worst he can be accused of .....etc

as he has been charged with manslaughter and is currently on trial for this I have no idea why you wrote that.

Good point, well made 🙂

I though he was saying that he did swerve, but she stepped back to avoid his original path, and into his new path. Not that it matters as it's difficult to defend anything when operating outside the law.

Personally I do think jaywalking should be a crime in the UK on certain roads.

If this helps put a stop to all the arseholes riding around on the road with no brakes, then I approve entirely.

one of the news items claimed he shouted at her to get out of the way twice. If he had time to shout then

I think the point was [i]he[/i] claimed he had shouted - the articles I've seen suggest he's posted in detail on forums.

Given they also seem to know he was doing 20mph I assume they've got CCTV and/or analysed devices.

The only thing I can think of that puts this over the threshold for a manslaughter charge (presumably manslaughter by [b]unlawful[/b] and dangerous act) is having no brakes. If the dangerous act was his riding, then shouldn't all death by careless/dangerous driving be charged as manslaughter?

simondbarnes - Member

Do you usually live under a bridge?

Ok I was being inflammatory but it's a bit of gallows humour in the spirit of the Darwin awards because I don't believe that paying the ultimate price for your stupidity excuses it. There's no eye witness corroboration mentioned either way that tells us anymore of the story and we're free to make up the bits in between. I may be taking a "stupid pedestrian" attitude and that may be a bit harsh (understatement) but I've also condemned him for being a f***wit who rides a bike with no brakes on the road and for that he gets everything he deserves.

No-one sets out in the morning to kill someone and this lad has to live with this for the rest of his life, he knows he's at least equally to blame.

Ultimately the law will be seen to be done and he'll be judged by a bunch of his peers.

[url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1176/pdfs/uksi_19831176_en.pdf ]
HERE[/url]'s a link to the nice, handy, easy to read, legal document that sets out what's expected from a pedal cycle. [url= http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/the-responsibilities-of-a-cyclist ]HERE[/url]'s something a bit more user friendly.

How many of our bikes would pass a bicycle MOT? I know mine wouldn't as I don't have any reflectors but I'm damn sure I can stop when I need to.

And if it had been a car driver killing a cyclist depsite having (apparently) enough time to avoid the collision - would there be so many people on here debating if it was the right charge?

Of course there bloody wouldn't!!
He's a cyclist but he also sounds like a total liability (as does anyone riding a bike not on a track with no brakes). The result of his actions (or lack of) is that a woman is dead. How is that not manslaughter?

I'm sorry if I'm feeling thick today, but no way would we be trying to excuse a driver charged with manslaughter and defective brakes if they'd killed a cyclist.

Even by our usual jokey standards, I'm very disappointed to see such twaddle being spouted.

Some stuff like reflectors are for your safety, stuff like basic brakes are for others safety. Detail like this will be taken into account by intelligent people working on this case.

Edit: Oi!

but no way would we be trying to excuse a driver charged with manslaughter and defective brakes if they'd killed a cyclist.

I think the point is that in most cases where a driver has killed a cyclist (or pedestrian for that matter) the verdict is mostly not guilty or where found guilty, the sentence is insultingly low. Community service, a year's driving ban, a token fine.

There was a similar case a few years ago where a rider killed a pedestrian - little more than a kid - who'd been playing chicken (as reported by several drivers) and the cyclist got something like a £3000 fine. It was pointed out at the time it would have been cheaper to buy a S/H car, get it taxed and insured then go and run the kid over and claim that the sun was in your eyes...

And you are aware of the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?

[quote=MrPottatoHead ]Not that it matters as it's difficult to defend anything when operating outside the law.

On the contrary it appears to be remarkably easy:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437

From Bez's article linked earlier - I'm not sure if that one was discussed at the time, and I wasn't sure whether it was relevant to mention it on here (or whether to start another thread on old news), but you provided the perfect cue.

I'm not sure of the relevant scale of offences, but I suspect that nominally at least driving on the pavement is just as serious an offence as riding without a front brake - it certainly appears to be a greater hazard. Yet it's something which is routinely ignored and it's pretty much impossible to get the police to do anything at all about it.

I find that case incredibly frustrating - possibly even more so than the Helen Measures one which was my previous yardstick of maximum blood boiling. The defence appears to be that he wasn't at fault because he couldn't be expected to see her. Yet the criminal action was driving onto the pavement - that's where the fault was in something he deliberately did, you don't drive on the pavement because you might not be able to see pedestrians and that's their space. How on earth can a death specifically caused by doing something which is illegal not result in a successful prosecution for DBCD?

Apologies for going way OT, but I was given the cue!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/06/woman-cleared-careless-driving-crowd-funded-prosecution-cycling-uk
I think my point in this isn't that the cyclist doesn't deserve to get done, but there are way too many occasions when car drivers don't get punished when they deserve to.

I agree that the law seems to have a huge loophole when you kill someone with a car and that needs to change.

My point is that this guy (from what has been reported) deserves to be prosecuted for manslaughter.

Si

This guy sounds like such an entitled knobber and I hope they throw the book at him - like others have said if it at least makes the hipster-fixie-no-brake crew stop for a moment and think, then there will be something good to have come out of it.

While in a perfect world pedestrians will stay off the road until there is a green man, won't be wired into headphones and engrossed in their phones etc etc, there is that and then there is reality. He needs to at least take some responsibility for the accident given he was riding a non road worthy bike in a busy area at speed.

I'm all for having the back of cyclists who are so obviously not in the wrong but this guy is certainly not blameless here. This is newsworthy as joe public seems to hate cyclists ... we need to keep trying to improve our image on the road.

[quote=scc999 ]And if it had been a car driver killing a cyclist depsite having (apparently) enough time to avoid the collision - would there be so many people on here debating if it was the right charge?

I'm not personally defending the cyclist, and if he did indeed have time and space to avoid the pedestrian but chose not to then I wouldn't defend him at all. However there's insufficient evidence available to suggest that was the case (I don't think BS spouted on social media counts as evidence), and it would be a somewhat surprising thing to do given that in collision with a pedestrian you tend to come off quite badly as a cyclist, so the situation may be somewhat different to what you're assuming (you're far from alone, it's not a totally unreasonable assumption). That's where the debate is. We need more information before we can draw conclusions one way or another.

Though if you want to bring car drivers in, then as mentioned before they seem to get away with a lot worse than this case appears to be. Car drivers running into cyclists also don't tend to be unavoidable in the same way cyclists running into peds often are - and an incident involving a cyclist jumping off the pavement in front of a car would likely get a similar amount of debate.

If the cyclist is indeed at fault here, then he should be prosecuted, but I'd be interested to see the sentence compared to those for drivers who kill. Presumably he's been charged with manslaughter because the standard DBDD or DBCD can't apply to cyclists?

From what I read of the court case today I hope he goes to prison for a very long time

@aracer I suspect if you drove a track car which was never designed to be used on the road and killed someone with it you would get quite a long sentence

I think my point in this isn't that the cyclist doesn't deserve to get done, but there are way too many occasions when car drivers don't get punished when they deserve to.

Ok seeing as though we don't have all the facts I will jump to conclusions as well.

Riding without brakes is bloody stupid (but in London it does appear to be a cool thing to do)

He rode his bike at the pedestrian and therefore had intent. Having time to shout 2 warnings yet not swerving means he knew he was going to hit her.

I could be mistaken but when many car drivers/lorry drivers kill cyclists it's because they didn't see them. You don't hear of many cases where a driver see's a cyclist, hoots their horn and then continues to drive at the cyclist.

They get the appropriate charge which is driving without due care and attention etc.

I've hit a pedestrian before, the moment she stepped out randomly I was slamming on from 28mph (carbon wheels). I had time to shout, she had headphones in and never once looked in my direction. I pretended to be okay at the scene, after the pedestrian got up and was thankfully okay. But I actually cycled around the corner and sat down for half an hour shaking..it's not a nice experience but I've never considered it to be a life threatening thing before!!

Riding around London it's mental how little people care when crossing the road, almost taking it for granted that road traffic will move around them. The worst one I have encountered is Beak Street.

I don't think anyone can really comment on this without seeing all the facts and CCTV etc.

There's some bollocks and assumptions above (the standout comment in both cases being Speeder's first sentence) but I try to be good these days and not comment much until the verdict is given.

However, one of the things that leads to a number of things above being a matter of assumption is what details [i]haven't[/i] been reported. The media handling of this one is particularly interesting (and is up for discussion while the trial is ongoing). For the most part it appears to be centrally reported by the Press Association, so the coverage is pretty well managed and you'll notice high consistency across most of the publishing houses. In addition there has been a curious push by Trinity Mirror to recycle last year's "Cyclists' Highway Code" news over the last week across multiple titles (thus ensuring several days of coverage), along with a handful of other recycled articles. And, of course, in the run-up to this trial there has also been a lot of leverage of the Putney jogger incident to drive a clear anti-cycling narrative across various media outlets. Pay attention to what is and what isn't reported.

Related tweet: https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/870273187749277697

there's people who ride fixies because they are track riders and are awesome at bikes, and then you have people who ride fixies because they are fashionable and can't ride for sh!t.

I could be mistaken but when many car drivers/lorry drivers kill cyclists it's because they didn't see them. You don't hear of many cases where a driver see's a cyclist, hoots their horn and then continues to drive at the cyclist.

I can think of some off the top of my head where drivers have seen a cyclist and still driven into them due to an apparently conscious decision, eg:

1. Kevin Wilson was, according to the sherriff, aware of Richard Beer ahead of him, but chose to wash his windscreen as he approached him and drove into him, causing fatal injuries. He was not charged with causing Beer's death and was fined £150.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12018037.Driver_fined_over_fly_smear_crash_which_killed_cyclist/

2. Joseph Reed "claimed in his police interview he had seen the cyclist [Sean Ruff], but there was too much traffic in lane two for him to pull out, and too much traffic behind for him to stop" (thus implying that he chose to drive a truck into a cyclist rather than risk a motor vehicle collision). He pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving and received a suspended sentence and a driving ban which was roughly in line with the average for causing a cyclist fatality (two and a half years).

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/crime/11018855._/

The following case involves a driver seeing a pedestrian but assuming she would not step out, and then using the horn:

3. Gerald Barfoot saw a woman cross to the centre of the road but assumed she would stop and drove accordingly, then when it was too late to avoid her honked his horn and braked. He was cleared of causing death by careless driving.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norwich-bus-driver-in-court-charged-with-careless-driving-over-pedestrian-death-1-4596111

And the following very recent case also involves a driver seeing someone and assuming they would make no error, rather than anticipating it.

4. Christopher Cook saw a man at the side of the road and assumed he would not cross, but he did. He was cleared of causing death by careless driving.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/farnham-weybourne-wildwood-aldershot-verdict-13466021

[quote=Bez ]The media handling of this one is particularly interesting (and is up for discussion while the trial is ongoing). For the most part it appears to be centrally reported by the Press Association, so the coverage is pretty well managed and you'll notice high consistency across most of the publishing houses.

I had noticed that and thought about commenting - the BBC article and the Guardian article (my usual first two sources) are almost word for word, with other articles being very close. It is rather peculiar - are you suggesting there is some agenda in reporting this is a part of (more than the usual anti-cyclist narrative)?

[quote=jambalaya ]From what I read of the court case today I hope he goes to prison for a very long time

I hope a lot of drivers who have walked free instead went to prison for a very long time. As above I'm not defending the cyclist at all if he is at fault, but at worst his actions are no worse than plenty of drivers who have been given a non-custodial sentence (or simply been found not guilty), and a brakeless bike is still far less dangerous on the road than any motor vehicle.

I suspect if you drove a track car which was never designed to be used on the road and killed someone with it you would get quite a long sentence

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).

if we, as cyclists want to be treated as humans, we need to obey all the laws, have fit for purpose bikes and be visible.

no point bleating on it's not fair, because it isn't.

fixie riders with no effective brakes riding beyond thier capabilities in central london do not help.

I wonder if there is an element of malice or deliberateness on the part of the cyclist for such charges to be libelled? (Emphasis on [i]I wonder[/i] as like the rest of us I haven't seen the evidence the CPS have).

[quote=FunkyDunc ]He rode his bike at the pedestrian and therefore had intent.

Intent to do what?

Having time to shout 2 warnings yet not swerving means he knew he was going to hit her.

I still think some of you are making quite big assumptions from the reported information - the 2 warnings appears to be based on a report from a nearby witness who didn't see the incident, and I can certainly think of circumstances in which a cyclist might shout 2 warnings to a pedestrian who steps out whilst still trying to avoid a collision. I doubt very much that he intended to have a collision with her!

I could be mistaken but when many car drivers/lorry drivers kill cyclists it's because they didn't see them. You don't hear of many cases where a driver see's a cyclist, hoots their horn and then continues to drive at the cyclist.

Apart from Bez's examples, there are plenty of cases where a driver might not see the cyclist/pedestrian they collide with, but they still [b]chose[/b] to do something reckless and dangerous which led to the incident. See my example a bit earlier of somebody choosing to park on the pavement and killing a little girl. I don't see how that is any less reckless than taking no avoiding action when somebody steps into the road (which is still a big assumption of the cyclist's actions).

FWIW just in case it needs pointing out (as I might be giving the opposite impression) I think it's a bloody stupid thing to ride a track bike on the road, and I'd be quite happy for the police to spend a bit of time stopping them (even if it would be far from the most efficient use of their time from a road safety POV).

If he had time to shout then
a) she had time to get out the way and
b) he had time to stop and/or swerve, even on a fixie.

It's possible that he shouted late (I very much doubt "twice" in any meaningful sense), but was expecting to pass just behind her (maybe he was shouting as a "punishment" like drivers often use their horns).

And so she stopped.

I've seen it myself and now wouldn't choose to shout (if I could avoid it in the sudden situation) if there's very little time as IMO/E it's easier and probably safer to let the pedestrian carry on their predictable route and attempt to miss them

[quote=bigrich ]if we, as cyclists want to be treated as humans, we need to obey all the laws, have fit for purpose bikes and be visible.

Woo - is this the "cyclists have to earn respect" argument?

I'm not quite sure why cyclists can't be treated as humans because they are humans. Personally I do try and avoid wearing my invisibility cloak whilst cycling - I have to admit you do have a point, those cyclists who make themselves invisible are part of the problem, and you can't really fault drivers who are looking at the space they're driving into for not seeing them.

It is rather peculiar - are you suggesting there is some agenda in reporting this is a part of (more than the usual anti-cyclist narrative)?

I'm saying that it's interesting and it's worth paying some attention to 😉 Stay woke and all that.

if we, as cyclists want to be treated as humans, we need to obey all the laws, have fit for purpose bikes and be visible.

Seriously, can we all just f*** off with that ridiculous crap unless you also start saying that if we, as drivers, want to be treated as humans then we need to obey all the road laws, etc etc etc. (Rant abridged given the timing.)

You're simply playing into the hands of anyone using one individual as political capital, which is a cheap (but sadly effective) trick that trades on idle opinions rather than the objective use of evidence.

grow up, Bez.

That's the grown up response, is it? 😉

no, the grown up response is modifying your own behaviour to manipulate other people.

the sixth form/child/presidential response is why should I change when they wont?

no, the grown up response is modifying your own behaviour to manipulate other people.

Go on then, tell me which aspects of my riding I need to modify.

the sixth form/child/presidential response is why should I change when they wont?

That wasn't my response and you're missing the point entirely.

[quote=bigrich ]no, the grown up response is modifying your own behaviour to manipulate other people.

How is your manipulation of incompetent and sociopath drivers going? I have to admit I'm not having much success with my tactics of being a human and taking off my invisibility cloak and could do with some hints.

so, I'm lit up like a reflective flouro christmas tree at at 90's disco rave, I stop at lights, I clearly signal my intentions.

I get more room and more courtesy since I decided to stop being a reactive ****.

I ride 200 miles a week, in the city and countryside.

I didn't ask about you. I asked what I should do. I use lights 24/7, I stop at traffic lights, I signal. I mean, hell, I use reflective tyres and I've even stuck little reflective stickers on my Time pedals in attempt to cover my ass should the worst happen and the family doesn't want the phrase "contributory negligence" added to their woes. What should I do to combat (a) the fact that some drivers pass me dangerously closely and (b) the fact that some people vocally hate anyone who rides a bike? Because you say that I need to grow up by modifying my behaviour, to somehow influence something, and I'm buggered if I can see how. If I thought I could, I've done it, trust me.

The thing is, even though I'm doing all these things, people are still getting killed, the media is still full of anti-cycling editorial, below the line is full of sociopathic vitriol, I still get a pass close enough to make me instinctively say a bad word roughly every 20 miles, and so on.

I could literally kiss the arse of everyone who shows me a printout of their VED payment and it would not make the slightest difference. Equally I could send a hand written letter to everyone in the country asking them that if they ride a bicycle would they please not go through a red light because it's naughty, and that too would not make the slightest difference. And I could write a thousand words on here carefully explaining to you why it would not make the slightest difference, and that too would not make the slightest difference.

Fortunately, Bradley Wiggins is of the same school of thought as you, so you can have the stuff that I wrote about him, although I'm sure it won't make the slightest difference 😉

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-rise-of-the-idiots/

[quote=bigrich ]so, I'm lit up like a reflective flouro christmas tree at at 90's disco rave

Ah, so you're suggesting something more than just not using an invisibility cloak? I don't ride much at night, and I'm hoping somewhat naively that drivers will look where they're going.

I have to admit I am occasionally still a reactive **** after somebody has endangered my life, I'm not quite sure how drivers know in advance whether or not I am one - how do you imagine they know that about you in order to give you more room and courtesy?

hadn't been expecting much but even then was surprised just how poor the braking capability is with just a fixed wheel.

If you are riding around a velodrome with a 90 inch gear and don't have the techniques required to stop then yes it will seem hard to believe you can actually stop quite quickly with just a fixed wheel.

Do you think you can skid stop a 90in gear? 😆

Nice work bez. Sailed just close enough to the line for it not quite to be a personal attack although the direct quote gives that impression.

It was a fair statement that cyclists are not immune to the law. The car cars cited are horrendous but, from the scant details, an important feature of this case that there was wilful mechanical negligence,suggestion of ability for avoiding action AND a fatal outcome.

It's a highly unusual case and that's what piques media interest. But why let that get in the way of turning it to an anti cycling agenda for fuelling your twitter feed.

Bez - I'm a big fan of your writing and articles but

there has also been a lot of leverage of the Putney jogger incident to drive a clear anti-cycling narrative

Sounds a bit paranoid to me. I've not seen anything reported to link the jogger incident with anti-cyclist rhetoric, but I'm happy to be proved wrong by your usually far more thorough research.

And I think I, and most others on here, have fallen into the usual internet trap of trying to judge the actual circumstances on brief reports, rather than the full evidence the jury will hear.

The BBC article and the Guardian article (my usual first two sources) are almost word for word, with other articles being very close. It is rather peculiar - are you suggesting there is some agenda in reporting this is a part of (more than the usual anti-cyclist narrative)?

Bez gave the answer. The papers are all using Press Association copy filed from court. They didn't have a reporter there, so have to use it with minimal tweaks. There's no agenda, they just have no option but to use PA copy if they want to carry the story.

However, it's quite likely that now they've been alerted to an 'interesting' case in progress, some of them will send their own reporter for subsequent days, so they have more scope for their own 'take' on it. I'd expect the Mail to do exactly this, whereas the Guardian etc will probably stick with PA.

Are there any cases where a car/lorry has killed a pedestrian/cyclist due to the fact that they had purposefully removed all the brakes from their vehicle because it was fashionable. ?

If there are, then it would be a valid comparison.

Do you think you can skid stop a 90in gear?

No, that was my point. The poster who couldn't comprehend stopping with no brakes only had experience of a bike on a velodrome which would have a high gear.

I ride around on a 60in gear and can stop quite nicely thank you...

riding round london without a front brake on a fixie is just stupidly irresponsible - he'd had a previous fixie where he had removed the front brake and tweeted about being like those guys in that courier movie.

Derestricting an e-bike to power-assist over 15.5mph is going to open up the rider to similar charges if they have an accident and it gets noticed.

I've hit a cyclist who walked across in front from the opposite side of the road behind a bus. Was able to shout and swerve but glanced her and went into the kerb. She went down hard, but we were both OK. Stopping in time was out of the question.

This cyclist has been charged with manslaughter and also furious driving/pedalling as a fall-back. I suspect the cctv and expert evidence will show that even with proper brakes, the ability to stop in time to avoid the collision will not be proven beyond reasonable doubt and he will be acquitted.

I ride fixed wheel a lot, and always countenance two proper brakes. My suspicion is that this young man thought 1) its a cool bike - planet X track bike as used in our club 2) didn't need a brake because it's fixed.

Ignorance, as he has found out, is no defence in law, but I doubt he was doing anything dangerous or reckless. Pedestrians do step out without warning or thinking and he just seems to have collided - and the bike was found to be defective. Brakes are the first thing to be checked by the police in an accident.

I don't think there are any winners in this case. But it would be good to see the Police clamp down on "fixies". I hate that term btw.

A woman's life tragically cut short and a lads ruined for the foreseeable future. Terribly sad for all involved.

Sounds a bit paranoid to me. I've not seen anything reported to link the jogger incident with anti-cyclist rhetoric, but I'm happy to be proved wrong by your usually far more thorough research.

The Daily Mail managed it in an opinion column.
There was also a Sky journalist (Adam Boulton) who tweeted that joggers and cyclists "didn't fit" on congested innner city streets and should be restricted to purpose built tracks.

Sounds a bit paranoid to me. I've not seen anything reported to link the jogger incident with anti-cyclist rhetoric, but I'm happy to be proved wrong by your usually far more thorough research.

Right you are 😉

The most prominent example is Jan Moir's piece in the Mail, "There's no selfish oaf like a hogger jogger or lycra lout", which is laughably transparent but a pretty sturdy example of weaponising the jogger incident to a wider context. I'm not even going to quote it because it's so full of threadbare tropes and blatant aiming of vitriol that I'd struggle to choose which bit to paste in.

In the Mirror, Fiona Phillips' response to the jogger incident kicked off with, "the traffic light-ignoring cyclists, the pedestrian crossing-ignoring cyclists, the pavement-hogging cyclists, the cyclists-cum-detectives with Go-Pros on their helmets, the Lycra-clad Tour de Pavement cyclists and the by-law offending cyclists".

The Times published an article about "Jogger rage" with its single large pull quote saying "They remind me of those obnoxious ‘lycra lout’ bikers who cause havoc by whizzing through the byways" and a photo caption "The jogger - potentially the greatest threat to human life since cyclists took to the pavements".

The Express went with "new breed of Lycra-clad fanatics", "two-wheeled marauders" etc.

At the lower end: Adam Boulton of Sky tweeted that "Joggers and cyclists don't fit" in cities; the Guardian bundled cyclists in with a piece on "the hell of urban pavements".

Here's something that's actually worth reading on the matter:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/fighting-over-scraps/

Parrallels with this case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496

non-road legal vehicle contributing to the death of another road user.

I ride around on a 60in gear and can stop quite nicely thank you..

i ride 68in gear and can stop quite nicely too. having a dura ace front brake with swiss-stop pads helps.
(plus a cross-top lever on the top of drops for riding in london traffic, you know, for when people randomly step out in front of you.)

If they're seeking manslaughter then maybe they think he hit her on purpose?

in the run-up to this trial there has also been a lot of leverage of the Putney jogger incident to drive a clear anti-cycling narrative across various media outlets.

You're not implying this is some kind of conspiracy are you? It's just awful columnists having space to fill.

f they're seeking manslaughter then maybe they think he hit her on purpose?

Manslaughter doesn't mean that.

if we, as cyclists want to be treated as humans, we need to obey all the laws, have fit for purpose bikes and be visible.

If this guy represents cyclist then does Jimmy Saville represent men?

I don't behave like either of them, and i'm not sure i should be punished for either of their law breaking.

There's a widespread view that certain uses of street space are "legitimate" (i.e. driving) and others are "illegitimate". And the Putney jogger fallout really fits in with that.

Down in Bristol there's a project where residents can apply to have their street closed so kids can play in it. From the outset the local paper started targeting them with negative articles, overstated the funding they received, accused them of nepotism (the founder was the mayor's daughter, although as far as I can tell this hindered them more than helping them).

There are plenty more examples. It's not necessarily the media's narrative but they are happy to go along with it.

I suspect the cctv and expert evidence will show that even with proper brakes, the ability to stop in time to avoid the collision will not be proven beyond reasonable doubt and he will be acquitted.

I ride with the Redbridge club which uses the cycling circuit at Hogg Hill and some of the folks from the club recall being at the track last year when the police were testing the bike used in this incident. So it does look like some research has been done on the implications on braking distance and how it relates to this case.

I spend a day riding track bikes at the velodrome for a corporate thing and based on that experience I'd say the difference between stopping distances between my road bike, with brakes front and back, and a track bike with just the fixed geat is definitely not trivial.

I'd say the difference between stopping distances between my road bike, with brakes front and back, and a track bike with just the fixed geat is definitely not trivial.

I've always thought the greater part of braking was done at the front, what with weight transfer and all so I'd be surprised if a fixie could come close unless it's got a front brake.

I've always thought the greater part of braking was done at the front, what with weight transfer and all so I'd be surprised if a fixie could come close unless it's got a front brake.

I've tried to find studies online and there doesn't seem to be anything really definitive however various studies seem to indicate that a fixie without a front brake takes somewhere over twice as long (2.2-2.3 has been mentioned) to stop as a bike with proper brakes (and that's with excellent fixie technique).

I spend a day riding track bikes at the velodrome for a corporate thing and based on that experience I'd say the difference between stopping distances between my road bike, with brakes front and back, and a track bike with just the fixed geat is definitely not trivial.

Depends on the gear ratio and how good you are on it. Skid stops are perfectly possible if you're good enough and have a low enough gear. Higher gears found on actual track racing bikes are much much more difficult to control in that manner becasue they're not intended for skid stops.

The sensationalist reporting about his speed is annoying. "nearly 20mph" on a fixed gear weighing 100kg all up is "dangeorus" whereas 20mph in a car is too slow, difficult to adhere to...

https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/897402397416452096

Just on a tangent, I briefly had a Kona Jake with canti brakes which were alarmingly shit in the wet - taking maybe five times as much distance to stop as in the dry.

Would I have been regarded the same as this guy if I'd killed a pedestrian?