Forum menu
[quote=CaptainFlashheart ]
not fundamentally legally different to having a bald tyre).
But if you had deliberately made said tyre bald, told people about it and THEN gone out for a drive.....
It would still make no legal difference.
I note that in this case the cyclist claims to have been unaware of the law, which effectively puts him on the same footing as those who were unaware their car wasn't road legal, but it's completely irrelevant to the case, as the only question is whether there was an illegal act, not the cyclist's awareness of the illegal act.
I note that in this case the cyclist claims to have been unaware of the law, which effectively puts him on the same footing as those who were unaware their car wasn't road legal, but it's completely irrelevant to the case, as the only question is whether there was an illegal act, not the cyclist's awareness of the illegal act.
I suspect the only point of saying that (which I don't believe anyway - I'm 100% sure he knew that law) was so he could say he wasn't deliberately being illegal/risk taking but was just ignorant.
Might not make a legal difference but could make a difference to the juries view of the defendant.
From the Road Danger Reduction Forum
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/
Interesting read and more or less summarises my thoughts on it - namely that if he'd have been in a car, we'd never even have herad of this case. Might get a column inch on page 19 somewhere.
This has been front page in several tabloids, all scremaing emotive headlines such as "Boy, 18, KILLED mother of two due to ILLEGAL bike!"
Interesting read and more or less summarises my thoughts on it - namely that if he'd have been in a car, we'd never even have herad of this case. Might get a column inch on page 19 somewhere.
And even more worryingly, that he almost certainly wouldn't be facing a manslaughter charge.
An interesting take on it from the defence barrister in the most recent report I can find
And even more worryingly, that he almost certainly wouldn't be facing a manslaughter charge.
Causing depth by dangerous driving as an alternative to manslaughter I think.
In most of the cases where a car kills a pedestrian or a cyclist it's not down to someone deliberately driving an illegal vehicle on the road, with that illegality being to a key safety system like brakes. Where it has happened though there are cases (the tipper lorry case for example) where a manslaughter charge has succeeded and resulted in a prison sentence.
[quote=epicsteve ]In most of the cases where a car kills a pedestrian or a cyclist it's not down to someone deliberately driving an illegal vehicle on the road, with that illegality being to a key safety system like brakes.
No - but it's a question of moral equivalence. Driving a motor vehicle with non functional brakes is far, far more dangerous than riding a fixie without a front brake. Meanwhile the vast majority of deliberate decisions drivers take which lead to people being killed are also more dangerous than this. Yet such things are normalised.
Driving a motor vehicle with non functional brakes is far, far more dangerous than riding a fixie without a front brake.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Do I think driving a car with only rear brakes is stupid and dangerous and could contribute to someone getting killed? Yes.
Do I think riding a bike on the road without a front brake is stupid and dangerous and could contribute to someone getting killed? Yes.
At that location, at lunchtime on a weekday, I think it's pretty irresponsible riding a bike without effective brakes at a speed like that as the chances of a pedestrian stepping out in front of you is quite high. Even if it's primarily the pedestrians mistake that puts them in danger it's still something you need to be aware of - especially in somewhere like London where there are loads of tourists about as well.
Driving a motor vehicle with non functional brakes is far, far more dangerous than riding a fixie without a front brake
More dangerous than killing someone you mean?
This was an interesting quote I thought...
In his closing speech before the jury was sent out, Mark Wyeth QC, defending, questioned the manslaughter charge.He said: “The counsel of perfection that the prosecution put forward is so complete, if you reversed the outcome, if Mr Alliston went over the handlebars, had fractured his skull and died and Mrs Briggs got up and dusted herself off, what's to stop her from being prosecuted for manslaughter on the approach the prosecution take, because she should not have been there?"
He said Mrs Briggs had not used the pedestrian crossing 30 feet away from where the pair collided and Alliston had right of way.
"This is not a case of somebody jumping the lights," he said.
"This is not a case of an approach speed on this bike that was illegal, it's a 30mph area and the hazards that were in that road were not of Mr Alliston's making."
Mr Wyeth also accused prosecutors of failing to pay attention to his client's claim that Mrs Briggs stepped back slightly and put herself in the way of his bike.
He said: "The crown have run with this no brake point without, you may think, a proper analysis of the stepping back point.
"Their preoccupation with brakes and speed is in contrast with what the defendant was saying, which was really about the position of Mrs Briggs and she was, in due respect, the hazard."
stepped back slightly
I don't think that helps his defence as it makes it sound like he planned to pass her close at speed but it all went wrong.
I don't think that helps his defence as it makes it sound like he planned to pass her close at speed but it all went wrong.
Well yeah, basically I think you can surmise that he did intend to make a close pass, and his main intent was to avoid a collision, and yes it obviously went wrong...
So instead they're contending that her own actions contributed at least as much as fixie boys, and that either party [i]could[/i] have died, as much as a result of her having stepped into the road as his lacking a front brake... had he died would she now be facing a combo "Manslaughter/reckless and wanton walking" charge?
Yes they're "victim blaming" (I said they would earlier in this thread) but to some extent they have to fight fire with fire, and they're only trying to win this one case, not the whole [i]"cycling debate"[/i]...
It's not pretty, but it's about all they've got I suppose...
[quote=imnotverygood ]More dangerous than killing someone you mean?
Well yes, like killing 4 people.
But I'd bet 100s if not 1000s of miles are done every week on brakeless fixies without killing anybody.
But I'd bet 100s if not 1000s of miles are done every week on brakeless fixies without killing anybody.
And your point is?
That in absolute terms it's not actually that dangerous a thing to do - possibly safer than driving around in a fully road legal car.
That in absolute terms it's not actually that dangerous a thing to d
So riding a bike without effective brakes isn't dangerous, just illegal? Is that your point?
u ok hun?
I think that was what I just wrote, yes.
My basis for comparison here is ~5 people a day killed on the roads by vehicles other than brakeless fixies.
As it happens I spent some time this morning crunching traffic statistics.
For UK there are 508 billion vehicle km travelled annually during which there are 1770 fatalities and 144,480 injury crashes. That equates to one death per 286 million km of vehicle travel, one injury crash per 3.5 million km of vehicle travel. (Based on 2013 OECD road safety data UK)
Applying standard statistics in order demonstrate with 95% confidence and 80% power that the failure rate for brakeless fixies failiure rate is 20% better than general vehicles you'd need to record 35.5 billion km if considering fatalities or 435 million km if considering injury crashes.
I don't think there are that many brakeless fixie riders out there in order to draw such conclusions 😉 But yes if I were to take a stab in the dark I'd guess they would be safer than general vehicle in terms of causing deaths, less certain in terms of causing injuries.
Applying standard statistics in order demonstrate with 95% confidence and 80% power that the failure rate for brakeless fixies failiure rate is 20% better than general vehicles you'd need to record 35.5 billion km if considering fatalities or 435 million km if considering injury crashes.
I'm confused by this. Would you need to record so many fixed gear bike (without brakes) miles as that to make a statistically meaningful analysis? Presumably there will also be an overlap with car vehicle miles, since many fatalities and injuries associated with fixed gear bikes without brakes will involve a car as well (and it may be that the car driver is wholly at fault and the lack of front brake is irrelevant).
I suspect that the great majority of fixed gear bikes without brakes are ridden in London and major cities, which might distort the picture (much higher general traffic levels and greater risk).
Lastly, to state the obvious, I would expect the overwhelming majority of the people killed and injured, to be the riders (usually the most vulnerable road user in any accident). The fact that this court case is unusual in that a pedestrian was killed, and a manslaughter charge brought, is what has made it so newsworthy.
But that assumes that the risk to other road users is similar. 100Kg of bloke and bike travelling at 30kmh has somewhat different kinetic energy compared to 1500Kg of car and driver travelling at 30kmh or (more likely given our 30mph [s]targets[/s] limits) 50kmh.
Something that happens every day, like five deaths on the roads, isn't newsworthy at least not in a national sense. If the rate rose or dropped by a significant amount then that tends to be newsworthy but otherwise it seems that society regards it as a price worth paying for the convenience and tax revenue of motor vehicles.
Not sure how this will conclude TBH, I suspect the point (if proven) that the woman was on her phone when she stepped into the road will have a bearing. Pedestrians seem to think that bikes are pootling along at 5 - 10mph rather than moving at similar speeds to the rest of traffic so even when (if) they see a bike they assume that there's plenty of time to continue their manoeuvre. Then when they realise that the bike [b]is[/b] moving much quicker than they thought they panic. None of the above excuses the defendant from riding a track bike on the road though.
I'm not really sure what relevance the stats have to this case - it's not really acceptable grounds to not prosecute a case just because it's unusual or other things are of higher risk. The case is definitely unusual (as are any cycing/pedestrian fatalities in the UK) however there appears to be very little dispute on this and other cycling forums that was a case to be made for manslaughter as it definitely fits the description. It's also definitely the case that, using the 18mph speed and 6.65m braking distance mentioned, a bike with legal brakes had the potential to stop (or slow very close to a stop) whereas the biked in question, with just a fixed wheel, could not.
There is definitely room for dispute on whether the braking capability and the death are actually linked and, given no-one here has seen the CCTV footage, none of us are sure of that.
I suspect that the great majority of fixed gear bikes without brakes are ridden in London and major cities, which might distort the picture (much higher general traffic levels and greater risk).
While the standard of cycling in London can be marginal at best it's my experience that it's the fixed bike riders that are the worst - especially when it comes to things like jumping lights and riding through pedestrian crossings between pedestrians that are crossing. No idea whether that's to do with the bikes themselves (e.g. harder to stop/harder to start) or whether it's to do with the type of rider who's attracted to the style of them though.
[quote=twisty ]I don't think there are that many brakeless fixie riders out there in order to draw such conclusions
I'm sure you're right if you were wanting to do the statistical comparison to road legal cars - though I note that brakeless fixies probably don't do many miles on motorways, and that the miles per death for cars on the sort of roads people do ride fixies on is undoubtedly much lower than your raw figure.
Though to come back to the original point I was making, how many miles per death for motor vehicles with non functional brakes?
[quote=epicsteve ]I'm not really sure what relevance the stats have to this case
None - this case is an anecdote and tells you nothing about the statistical risk. It's just a sidetrack we've gone off on because I raised the issue of the deliberate decision to ride without a front brake being less dangerous than lots of deliberate decisions drivers take leading to deaths (for which they'd likely face lesser charges).
None - this case is an anecdote and tells you nothing about the statistical risk. It's just a sidetrack we've gone off on because I raised the issue of the deliberate decision to ride without a front brake being less dangerous than lots of deliberate decisions drivers take leading to deaths (for which they'd likely face lesser charges).
If the guy in this case does get found guilty then I'm expecting him to get a suspended sentence, primarily due to the pedestrian also having contributed significantly to the accident.
Apparently 94% of drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving get a custodial sentence, with the most common sentence being in the 3 to 5 year range. Where drugs/drink was an aggravating factor then the custodial rate was slightly higher (95%) and sentences were quite a bit higher (average sentence was 53.5 months).
Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (which could be seen as the closest to this case) then 27% got a custodial sentence (average of 14 months) with the vast majority of the rest getting either community service or a suspended sentence.
Apparently 94% of drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving get a custodial sentence, with the most common sentence being in the 3 to 5 year range. Where drugs/drink was an aggravating factor then the custodial rate was slightly higher (95%) and sentences were quite a bit higher (average sentence was 53.5 months).Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (which could be seen as the closest to this case) then 27% got a custodial sentence (average of 14 months) with the vast majority of the rest getting either community service or a suspended sentence.
Slightly confused by your splits here - I think you might be wrongly making a distinction between "custodial" and "suspended" sentences - my understanding (happy to be corrected, IANAL) is that a 14 month jail term, suspended for two years (for example) is still a custodial sentence.
I guess what I'm asking is, is your 94% figure above people who actually served time, or does it include a proportion who were given custodial sentences, but ones which were suspended?
I guess what I'm asking is, is your 94% figure above people who actually served time, or does it include a proportion who were given custodial sentences, but ones which were suspended?
Actually served time. The other 6% all got suspended sentences.
Ta
The conviction rate for causing death by dangerous is only 65% - apparently it's low due to the number that get downgraded to death by careless during the case. The conviction rate for death by dangerous aggravated by drugs/drink is 91% and for death by careless it's 88%.
My source is the sentencing guide for bereaved families produced by Road Peace earlier this year, which can be found at: [url= http://www.road-peace.org.uk/resources/RoadPeace%20Sentencing%20of%20Causing%20Death%20by%20Driving%20offences%20England%20Wales.pdf ]RoadPeace sentencing guide[/url]
Surprising figures - I wonder how the breakdown compares for incidents where a pedestrian or cyclist is killed and the driving is the sort of thing which is normalised. Are the majority of those cases where people in cars are killed (the one being driven dangerously, or another car) and the driving is more obviously reckless? It's a lot easier to kill a pedestrian or a cyclist, so the level of recklessness might seem less - would Helen Measures have got off if she had killed the driver of an oncoming car?
Relevance? Charlie wouldn't have killed the occupant of a car by riding in that way.
The conviction rate for causing death by dangerous is only 65% - apparently it's low due to the number that get downgraded to death by careless during the case. The conviction rate for death by dangerous aggravated by drugs/drink is 91% and for death by careless it's 88%.
Don't forget for context on those figures that the "Death by.." offences were introduced in large part because juries were unwilling to convict for manslaughter, as they should have been, with the strong suggestion that jurors' were heavily influenced by thoughts of "there but for the grace of God.."
The jury system really isn't as good as many people would like to think it is.
The stats seem simply to tell us that the CPS are reasonably good at getting a conviction for something if theory decide to try. Tells us nothing about all the cases where they or the Police decide not to, which is surely more interesting.
The jury system would work, and work well but for one important factor... it is the GENERAL PUBLIC who sit as jurors. And as I have said before the general public is stupid. They are also biased to some degree due to being human.
Having read all 14 pages of this thread, there are very good arguments and counter arguments throughout. From people who have [i]at least[/i] a basic understanding of what is happening. Joe blogs, who doesn't cycle, and drives everywhere in his Mondeo won't think this far in depth. Even if this level of information IS given in court, it would be highly unlikely that they could all agree on who is at fault and by how much.
The jury system really isn't as good as many people would like to think it is.
It's probably quite fine if you look like a "respectable" person doing things the jury members see as normal, such as driving a car too fast while texting. Probably a bit crap if you're a young fixie rider with no front brake and an attitude.
In the first case an almost certain killing gets you less severely penalised than we might expect given other ways of killing, in the second I fear that a very unlucky death may see you hammered.
In the first case an almost certain killing gets you less severely penalised than we might expect given other ways of killing, in the second I fear that a very unlucky death may see you hammered.
The jury doesn't do the sentencing.
I think those stats on sentencing do something to bust the myth of convicted drivers getting off scot free constantly. The reality is that the statutory driving offences relating to deaths requiring "beyond reasonable doubt" judgements on whether the driving "fell far below" or just "fell below" acceptable standards of a competent or careful driver. And whilst the judge can (and will) direct the jury on this (if it gets to a jury trial, as opposed to a magistrates trial) then the jury are ultimately making judgements on all of those factors. And all the research shows that the majority of drivers believe that their approach to driving is better than average.
Once the jury has made its decision on the guilt or otherwise, its then back in the judges hands as to the sentencing, and sentencing guidelines are generally well adhered to.
Surprising figures
I suspect we're as much the victims of tabloid journalism as anyone else, with only the low end sentencing getting reported and causing some outrage. Certainly the sentencing seemed a lot heavier than I'd expected.
I've been mulling this over yet more...
It's ultimately all about the assessment of risk and what is "Reasonably foreseeable". Those of us who ride bicycles on the roads tend to fit brakes on the basis of what might be considered an [i]"undocumented personal risk assessment"[/i] but what risks are we actually considering? I would contend the primary consideration is normally the rider's own safety, being able to control speed and stop in order to avoid collisions that might cause your own injury or death and perhaps a secondary consideration being to avoid liability for any damage to other peoples property, riding into and damaging cars and other items, for want of a brake could end up incurring unwanted bills.
I don't actually believe many cyclists really consider the hazard they pose to pedestrians on a par with their own safety. Self preservation tends to be most peoples beginning and end point...
I think what needs to be considered in all of this is what is "reasonably foreseeable" for any cyclist when it comes to potential interactions with pedestrians...
It is reasonably foreseeable (especially if you are and "experienced courier") that there will be inattention from ped's, this may well be, in part, due to distraction by mobiles or earphones preventing them from hearing bells or shouted warnings, but it's not outside the realms of possibility and common experience...
Setting aside the legal compulsion to have brakes on either wheel it is quite reasonable to expect someone cycling in such an environment to have two working brakes fitted as a mitigation against collisions in general including those with inattentive pedestrians or any other road user... In making that statement you've sort of defined the minimum standard or expectations of a "reasonable person" to avoid collisions I think, and that's where he fall short, so there is some charge to answer...
The grey area comes when you try and determine a level of risk taken, and equate it to a degree of culpability. So the statistics nerds roll out an analysis of national accident figures, focussing on a rather broad spread look at likelihood) and others jump straight to comparing the potential Death toll for a brakeless bicycle Vs a brakeless Range rover (focussing on comparative consequences), but you have to focus on the details of the incident really.
Risk is best assessed by looking at potential consequences and the likelihood of those consequences being realised in a specific situation.
The potential for some sort of negative consequence is quite high i.e. significant injury to others is likely and a single death is possible, though it might be considered less likely due to the lower mass and speed of a bicycle Vs a motor vehicle (also a present hazard), you are always going to compare the different hazards present in the environment to one another, and it's fair to say motorised vehicles present more potential to cause pedestrian deaths.
It's worth noting that context/location plays a significant part in the estimation of likelihood, it's not [i]just[/i] that he was riding a brakeless fixie, it's where he was riding a brakeless fixie: In an area with a significant number of pedestrians, many of whom were likely to not have their full attention on their surroundings and any traffic hazards. Had he been cycling in the countryside with fewer/no pedestrians present, but faster moving motorised traffic then the balance of risk would have been further towards the cyclist being injured/killed, but he wasn't, the environment placed him in the position of posing a greater hazard to another group.
IMO He undertook a degree of risk on the basis of an assessment of the hazards that applied to himself, but failed to consider the [u]reasonably foreseeable[/u] hazard he posed to others.
In terms of the reasonably foreseeable consequences that risk posed to others, causing a pedestrian injury was likely, but I would hesitate to say that causing a pedestrian death is something anyone would typically expect and hence you could argue most people would perhaps fail to foresee that particular outcome.
Therefore in terms of culpability I don't believe he's right at the top of the scale, Assuming he's found guilty of the manslaughter charge, I would hope the Judge considers this when sentencing...
This case ably demonstrates practical reasons for complying with the law and having legal braking capability because if he had a front brake fitted it's very, very unlikely he'd be in court at the moment. Not having the front brake has led to the speculation about whether he didn't stop or slow significantly because he didn't have the capability, or whether the nature of the situation meant that braking capability wasn't a factor.
There's two bikes in the bike shed at work where the brake lever literally pulls to the bar without effectively operating the brake. These bikes aren't owned by bike enthusiasts (obviously).
I'd bet good money a fixie without a front brake could stop more quickly.
99% sure the owners of these bikes aren't even aware of the implications of the above case, so not sure what difference it'll make.
There's two bikes in the bike shed at work where the brake lever literally pulls to the bar without effectively operating the brake. These bikes aren't owned by bike enthusiasts (obviously).I'd bet good money a fixie without a front brake could stop more quickly.
99% sure the owners of these bikes aren't even aware of the implications of the above case, so not sure what difference it'll make.
Don't think it would make any difference - they'd be just as liable to those charges as he was. They'd probably argue the brakes worked before the crash though, plus it might not be as obvious that the brakes weren't effective as not having one.
The grey area comes when you try and determine a level of risk taken, and equate it to a degree of culpability.
...because it's entirely subjective. Otherwise, a great deal of this current case would be concerning the missing element which would almost certainly have been a central feature had the outcomes been reversed, and by any objective reckoning at least as pertinent as in many (perhaps most) of the cases where it is a feature.
I refer, of course, to the highly negligent decision of the pedestrian to attempt to negotiate fast moving urban traffic, while [b]not wearing a helmet[/b].
The clear difference here is that he chose to take the front brake off. The act of actively doing something before hand makes the big difference compared to someone that hasn't maintained their bike or someone who is riding too quickly but on a full functioning bike.
That's why there was a case a couple of days ago when a guy got 4 years for driving too fast and crashed his car killing his friend. He was prosecuted for dangerous driving and not manslaughter. If he had taken the seat belts out of his car, as it was more thrilling to drive without them, then he would have been prosecuted for manslaughter I would have thought.
It's the conscious pre-planned act that is the issue.