[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

Ah, I get it - you're comparing front wheel only between pairs of frames.

Told you i was stupid 😳

I see some folks still assuming that the wanton & furious charge had to relate to riding style or speed - it doesn't, there is a wilful neglect option as well and I expect it's that one that was applied.

My reading is that wilful neglect only applies if the injury occurs because of that wilful neglect.

[quote=ransos ]My reading is that wilful neglect only applies if the injury occurs because of that wilful neglect.

+1 - the same defence applies as for the manslaughter charge (I think it was even you who first pointed that out steve?)

Though I'm not sure the verdicts were reached based upon a strict interpretation of the law...

To me it shows a front braked bike (which doesn't look much like a MTB) stopping in about 6m (brakes applied about 3m before the cones).

My error (apologies). Looking at the video again, I've realised that the first bike looks like a fixed gear bike with both front and rear brakes (although conceivably the rear could have been disconnected for the test).

Does anyone know how a speed gun like that used in the test works, i.e. how does anyone (including the user) know that the speeds shown were indeed the speeds at the precise moment before braking?

I'm guessing that the gun shows a speed reading all the time the button is pressed by the user, but that the recorded speed shown on the screen after the button is no longer being pressed, is the highest speed reading that was measured throughout the period the button was pressed. So it was not necessarily the speed immediately before braking.

The testing looks to me to be potentially riddled with errors and unreliability, and yet is probably the key piece of evidence used to get a conviction which may result in a prison sentence.

I could skid stop a lot quicker than that PC. and i don;t skid stop. my fixed wheel has two brakes.

also it looks like he's wearing police issue boots/ no foot retention. terrible way to slow a fixie.

[quote=epicsteve ]That testing video looks more amateur than the tests I did!

Real amateur hour.

The only reason I can see for the defence not trying to attack it is because they'll have done their own tests and proved the same thing i.e. a bike with a front brake could have been stopped significantly in the available time/distance but that particular brakeless fixie couldn't.

That would surprise me - I think they were simply avoiding the issue to concentrate on other aspects, because as appears to be the case, it hasn't necessarily been decided on the legal technicalities. I'm fairly convinced I could set up a test to show that Charlie could have been riding a fully road legal bike and not stopped in the space available. It might be open to the accusation that the rider wasn't trying to stop as fast as possible, but it would at least involve an instrumented bike with data logging which would give precise details of the speeds and distances - and in any case the defence already did the argument that the prosecution case was based upon perfection of action for the hypothetical cyclist with a front brake.

it looks like he's wearing police issue boots/ no foot retention

The bike had flat pedals, with toeclip and straps on the non-drive side pedal only.

[img] ?imwidth=1160[/img]

[quote=slowster ]Does anyone know how a speed gun like that used in the test works, i.e. how does anyone (including the user) know that the speeds shown were indeed the speeds at the precise moment before braking?

It isn't. It's the instantaneous speed at a certain distance from the gun. The distance is shown on the screen along with the speed - I'm assuming the unit is metres, in which case the first measurement is 22m before the stop line.

Awful, awful testing protocol.

My reading is that wilful neglect only applies if the injury occurs because of that wilful neglect.

Correct. Without their being an injury I think the strongest charge that could be applied is dangerous cycling, with a £2500 fine. My reading of that charge is that there couldn't be an effective defense from someone riding a fixie without a front brake.

The bike had flat pedals, with toeclip and straps on the non-drive side pedal only.

Is there a pic from the other side? Would be interested to see what sort of gearing was being run.

I'm fairly convinced I could set up a test to show that Charlie could have been riding a fully road legal bike and not stopped in the space available.

A fully road-legal bike where the rider was riding with his hands on the tops.
A road bike with cowhorn bars, TT extensions or an MTB with bar ends - there are any number of hand positions where he wouldn't have been instantly on the brakes.

I knew a courier who rode a fixed gear with a "front brake" fitted which was utterly useless, he admitted it was only there so the bike was road legal. He never once used it.

Is there a pic from the other side? Would be interested to see what sort of gearing was being run.

Most of the other media images are a side on image and low resolution, but I doubt you could estimate the gearing given the potential variation in sprocket size.

My reading is that wilful neglect only applies if the injury occurs because of that wilful neglect.

Correct. Without their being an injury I think the strongest charge that could be applied is dangerous cycling, with a £2500 fine. My reading of that charge is that there couldn't be an effective defense from someone riding a fixie without a front brake.

But what is the wilful neglect? If it's the lack of a front brake, then I would have thought that the same verdict would have to be given for both the manslaughter charge and the wanton and furious charge.

The 'effective defence' would be that the harm was not actually a direct result of the lack of a front brake.

[quote=crazy-legs ]A fully road-legal bike where the rider was riding with his hands on the tops.
A road bike with cowhorn bars, TT extensions or an MTB with bar ends - there are any number of hand positions where he wouldn't have been instantly on the brakes.

You wouldn't even need to go to that extreme - I reckon steve's guests' Halfords specials would probably be sufficient.

There is an argument that if brakes are fitted but totally ineffective the bike is still illegal - though I note that in the case referenced earlier where that appeared to be the case the cyclist wasn't charged with manslaughter. I imagine it's a lot harder to prove. But we're not talking about totally ineffective - we're talking about brakes which meet whatever US legal code which specifies effectiveness of brakes (mentioned near the start of this thread), a bike just meeting that still wouldn't have stopped.

I knew a courier who rode a fixed gear with a "front brake" fitted which was utterly useless, he admitted it was only there so the bike was road legal. He never once used it.

If it was useless then technically he'd be in breach of the same laws, especially if he knew it (and had commented on it publicly) and then was in an accident like this one.

The test I'd be interested to try is to check out the braking distance for a Boris bike and also for a cheapo bike shaped object.

Bit torn on this, on one hand I think if we want car drivers to face higher punishment for traffic crimes, so should this guy - I really think riding without brakes is a silly and reckless fad. But also think that he could have been on a standard road bike and the result would have been the same - result of the accident that is, not the court case.

You wouldn't even need to go to that extreme - I reckon steve's guests' Halfords specials would probably be sufficient.

They've gone home now so don't have access to try them now.

I might have a go with my TT bike later though. It has carbon wheels and pads (although pretty good brakes - Ultegra) and I'm interested in what effect those have. Braking seems pretty good but I haven't tried an emergency stop.

The causation issue isn't "could he have stopped" but "could he have reduced his speed enough to not cause death". That itself is dependent on the question "was shouting and hoping to avoid collision a reasonable approach or not". Only if it wasn't is the question of stoppability relevant.

In my experience, if you decide to avoid and not brake, the last thing you should do is shout. That will upset the pedestrian and make it more likely they will bolt in a random direction. As, tragically, appears to have been the case here.

I knew a courier who rode a fixed gear with a "front brake" fitted which was utterly useless, he admitted it was only there so the bike was road legal. He never once used it.

well why didn't he fix the brake then - what a d1ck. There is no argueing against the fact that an effective front brake will stop you faster, and not having one pretty much means that you are not bothered about the risk to other people - hence a selfish ****.

Other things that you need to be road legal, like pedal reflectors, are much more dubious but don't really put other peoples lives at risk, only your own for the limited scope of their effectiveness.

Try it on that in the wet, Steve! My TT bike is pretty rubbish at stopping in the wet with a similar braking setup.

Though be careful about not going over the bars if you're doing it in the dry - if those brakes do work OK, then you're going to go over the bars a lot easier if you have a good TT position. Certainly the CofG on mine is a lot further forwards, and I'm sure I couldn't do a 0.5g stop on it.

Try it on that in the wet, Steve! My TT bike is pretty rubbish at stopping in the wet with a similar braking setup.

I've got another wheelset with an alloy braking channel that I use in the wet and am planning to avoid using the Carbon wheels in anything other than the dry.

Though be careful about not going over the bars if you're doing it in the dry - if those brakes do work OK, then you're going to go over the bars a lot easier if you have a good TT position. Certainly the CofG on mine is a lot further forwards, and I'm sure I couldn't do a 0.5g stop on it.

Unlike with the other bikes I don't think I'll got for a really quick stop on the first go, just in case. I'm going to try stopping from various speeds on the roadie with hydro's as well because that 3m from 15mph in the video sounds like bollocks to me. 3m from 15kmph maybe.

[quote=greyspoke ]The causation issue isn't "could he have stopped" but "could he have reduced his speed enough to not cause death". That itself is dependent on the question "was shouting and hoping to avoid collision a reasonable approach or not". Only if it wasn't is the question of stoppability relevant.

I don't believe shouting and hoping to avoid a collision is a reasonable approach, but given the apparent cause of death the question of how much he'd have had to reduce his speed is a tricky one - I think the prosecution had to prove that he'd have avoided the collision by braking (though that's not the only requirement) in order to make their case.

In my experience, if you decide to avoid and not brake, the last thing you should do is shout. That will upset the pedestrian and make it more likely they will bolt in a random direction. As, tragically, appears to have been the case here.

I tend to agree. From the POV of trying to avoid such collisions. I don't believe there is anything negligent about shouting though (when combined with other actions to avoid a collision).

I really think riding without brakes

with only one brake. the fixed wheel is a brake. don't perpetuate the tabloid myth.

I don't believe shouting and hoping to avoid a collision is a reasonable approach, but given the apparent cause of death the question of how much he'd have had to reduce his speed is a tricky one - I think the prosecution had to prove that he'd have avoided the collision by braking (though that's not the only requirement) in order to make their case.

Not necessarily - for manslaughter they'd just need to prove that the death related to the higher speed of impact (and sounds like they didn't manage that). The wanton and furious is slightly different - the wilful neglect only has to relate to the situation where there was an injury, as was the case here, although there is a "cause" element to that as well which is also open to interpetation.

with only one brake. the fixed wheel is a brake. don't perpetuate the tabloid myth.

I prefer the term "without effective brakes" myself.

on the question "was shouting and hoping to avoid collision a reasonable approach or not".

I think this was the cornerstone of his defence. And probably were a judgement by the jury of his character came in, he tried to persuade them that he did everything reasonable to avoid the collision, but they didn't believe him. I don't think I do either,my feelings are that obviously he didn't intend to run her over, but a close pass whilst shouting abuse would be fine.

I think this was the cornerstone of his defence. And probably were a judgement by the jury of his character came in, he tried to persuade them that he did everything reasonable to avoid the collision, but they didn't believe him. I don't think I do either,my feelings are that obviously he didn't intend to run her over, but a close pass whilst shouting abuse would be fine.

I'm kind of inclined that way myself. What he shouted (something like "get out of my effing way" twice) won't have helped either.

If that was the juries thinking then the verdict on the "wanton and furious" would still be ok (i.e. even if it didn't relate to him having effective brakes it'd still relate to wilful neglect).

[quote=franksinatra ]Just listened to the victims husband being interviewed on Radio 4. He is now campaigning for cyclists to fall under the same road laws as car drivers so, in this case, the charge would have been death by dangerous driving.
He was incredibly composed, measured and eloquent. He is a cyclist himself and is very pro cycling and the changes to law and awareness that he is now campaigning for seem perfectly sensible and justified.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091s82b#playt=02h10m02s

I've now listened to that - wow, he comes across really well in that, I'm not sure I would manage to be so composed and sensible in the circumstances. On the surface everything he says is totally sensible, and almost everything he suggests is a good idea - I'm hoping that awareness of this case alone might give a lot of those riding without brakes cause to reflect.

The only issue is the one I mentioned above - the subjective nature of the dangerous and careless driving offences is likely to result in cyclists being held to a much higher standards than drivers. I'm not sure that is sufficient for me to object to his suggested changes - the issue is more that drivers aren't held to a high enough standard. For both of the recent cases which appear to be being referenced http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33236920 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm death by dangerous cycling wouldn't seem an inappropriate charge based on the strict legal criteria used for drivers. I'm still not quite sure why the rider in the first case (with no brakes in an area where cycling was banned) wasn't charged with manslaughter though! In reality of course such cases which might merit those charges are incredibly rare.

I suppose it's that I agree with Cycling UK, that any such changes should also include a shake up of the offences related to driving and the level of proof required for them: https://twitter.com/WeAreCyclingUK/status/900369914627796992

Yes, the police video looks pretty amateur, but I think there is a lot of pointless quibbling going on here- Especially with the stopping distance with brakes: I've just had a go with a disc draked hybrid & without actually measuring it, my own stopping distance looks pretty much like the one in the police video. In fact it was quite interesting to see how quickly you can stop, without locking or lifting a wheel. I've not ridden a fixie, but is anyone seriously arguing that a rear wheel retardation only bike can stop in the same distance as one with both brakes, let alone one using the fixie method. So the vid isn't 100% accurtae but it gives a realistic demonstration of the issue in my view.

[quote=epicsteve ]Not necessarily - for manslaughter they'd just need to prove that the death related to the higher speed of impact (and sounds like they didn't manage that).

I agree - but proving that would have been incredibly difficult if they'd tried. Apologies for not making that clearer.

aracer - I smell an appeal if that was what the jurors were shown and what the evidence was based on. It's so flawed as to be laughable.

[quote=imnotverygood ]Yes, the police video looks pretty amateur, but I think there is a lot of pointless quibbling going on here- Especially with the stopping distance with brakes: I've just had a go with a disc draked hybrid & without actually measuring it, my own stopping distance looks pretty much like the one in the police video. In fact it was quite interesting to see how quickly you can stop, without locking or lifting a wheel. I've not ridden a fixie, but is anyone seriously arguing that a rear wheel retardation only bike can stop in the same distance as one with both brakes, let alone one using the fixie method. So the vid isn't 100% accurtae but it gives a realistic demonstration of the issue in my view.

But the details are important "pretty much like" doesn't cut it - the science says that you can't stop in 3m from 15mph, hence the testing must be flawed. Nor is "realistic demonstration" sufficient. Because the issue isn't whether a fixie without a front brake can stop as fast - everybody agrees that it can't. The issue is whether he'd have been able to stop in the distance available with a front brake. The testing purportedly shows that he could have - I believe the testing is flawed and that there's still a reasonable doubt whether he'd have avoided the collision by braking with a front brake.

That isn't pointless quibbling - it's crucial to the case in a couple of respects. Firstly it validates his decision to swerve rather than brake as the actions of a reasonable and sensible cyclist. Most importantly though it removes the direct link between the illegal bike and the death, because there remains the possibility of the death occurring if he'd been riding a legal bike.

you wonder why the defence wouldn't perform trials with experienced fixie riders (or even the accused) to show what the stopping distance is relative to properly braked bikes if it was a major line of their defence.

The defence would not have needed to get its own tests done. The first thing it should have done is identify a suitable expert who could review the police evidence. Based on the comments on this thread, it looks highly likely that such an expert would able to completely tear apart the police testing.

There would be no need for tests from the defence, if they could simply cross examine the police witness in court and completely destroy the credibility of the evidence they presented. For example, if the speed gun recorded the speed at a different point the barrister simply needs to ask the question "What was the speed immediately prior to braking?", which the police witness could not answer.

If that evidence had been discredited, then the prosecution case might even have collapsed there and then.

Ok - just did some more tests (I'm working from home co-ordinating the response to an ITT so am bored!):

The (very, very grippy) road outside my house is now bone dry. This time I paced out 6m and put a markers at the start and finish. I re-tried using both brakes on my disc braked roadie and was able to stop within the distance from 18mph fine - in fact I could do it modulating the brakes to avoid the back wheel lifting if I wanted.

I then tried from 18mph using the TT bike with carbon wheels and carbon specific pads (wheels and pads are both brand new and the pads are the ones that came with the wheels, tyres are part worn 23mm GP4000's). No chance I could stop in 6m - it was closer to 7m although that was consistent and didn't feel unsafe. Very strange smell from the pads after a few attempts though! Of all the bikes I have here I think that's probably the one with the longest braking distance however all my bikes have decent brakes and tyres on them so still don't know how it'd compare to cheapo bikes.

I also had a go back on the disc braked bike to see what speed I'd need to be doing to stop in 3m and that seems to be around 12-13mph or so. I then tried braking from the same speed with just the rear brake and, as expected, that took around 6m.

I'm surprised no one has discussed making jaywalking a crime in built up areas.

I'm surprised no one has discussed making jaywalking a crime in built up areas.

There have been a couple of mentions in the thread. Not on the basis that it should be done, but on the basis that if the family wanted to campaign for a change in the law then that might be the most effective one.

I mean, I hate to do this - but if you follow the "five whys" of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys

Collision between cyclist and pedestrian
Why? - The Pedestrian was unaware of cyclist approaching
Why? - The Pedestrian was not paying due care and attention
Why? - The pedestrian was on their phone and not following the highway code (which states pedestrians should use crossing when available)
Why? - (this particular portion of) The highway code is not law
Why? - The highway code contains advisory as well as mandatory guides.

Therefore, make the highway code, or the part referring to pedestrians using crossings, law.

I'd be interested in other peoples "five whys" on this. You see here I didn't include anything about the speed of the cyclist or the braking situation, because ultimately if the pedestrian was not in the road or was aware of the cyclist then this event may not of happened.

In my mind, the reason the deceased died is due to the brakes/speed/lack of evasion situation, but the brake isn't the cause of the accident.

[b]Please not, this is exploratory thinking, I'm not saying either party is/is not to blame. I'm thinking about problem solving at this stage[/b]

We don't ask those kind of questions because it is victim blaming. Unless they're on a bike, then it was totally their fault. 🙄

Collision between cyclist and pedestrian
Why? - The Pedestrian was unaware of cyclist approaching
Why? - The Pedestrian was not paying due care and attention
Why? - The pedestrian was on their phone and not following the highway code (which states pedestrians should use crossing when available)
Why? - (this particular portion of) The highway code is not law
Why? - The highway code contains advisory as well as mandatory guides.

Therefore, make the highway code, or the part referring to pedestrians using crossings, law.

I'd be interested in other peoples "five whys" on this. You see here I didn't include anything about the speed of the cyclist or the braking situation, because ultimately if the pedestrian was not in the road or was aware of the cyclist then this event may not of happened.

In my mind, the reason the deceased died is due to the brakes/speed/lack of evasion situation, but the brake isn't the cause of the accident.

Hah. Do you work in QA?

The crime/misdemeanour of Jaywalking was introduced in America as a "deliberate effort by promoters of automobiles, such as local auto clubs and dealers, to redefine streets as places where pedestrians do not belong."

What follows after jaywalking? Jaybiking?

Hah. Do you work in QA?

lol, in a dev team who follow lean practices so used to adopting problem solving strategies for all sorts of bizarre tasks.

@plyphon changing the law so the pedestrian was committing an offence would not in any way affect the question of whether the cyclist was committing an offence. Possibly you are operating on a "single cause" assumption, but the law recognises there can be multiple causes of something: as long as something is a substantial cause of something else, then it is causative.

And I am struggling with your penultimate paragraph. The pedestrian died as a result of the collision (a very clear line of causation there). So the cause of the collision was the cause of death, surely?

Collision between cyclist and pedestrian
Why? - The Pedestrian was unaware of cyclist approaching
Why? - The Pedestrian was not paying due care and attention
Why? - The pedestrian was on their phone and not following the highway code (which states pedestrians should use crossing when available)
Why? - (this particular portion of) The highway code is not law
Why? - The highway code contains advisory as well as mandatory guides.

[quote=greyspoke ]@plyphon changing the law so the pedestrian was committing an offence would not in any way affect the question of whether the cyclist was committing an offence.

That's not really the point - he's looking at the best way to prevent such accidents (in the context that that's what the husband is calling for).

I tend to agree with some parts of the reasoning, but not others, and not the conclusion. Yes, the main cause of the collision/death was the pedestrian stepping into a road into the path of a vehicle on it and then relying on the cyclist avoiding the collision.

I imagine that if Charlie Alliston's lawyers wish to appeal the verdict on the grounds of the flaws in the police tests, then the burden of proof will now be on them to show that the test results were flawed, and also that correct testing would give results that would materially undermine the prosecution case.

In other words, now that the jury has seen and apparently accepted the police tests and given its verdict, it will no longer be sufficient for the defence simply to raise doubts about the tests. I suspect that for an appeal to be allowed/succeed, they would now need to undertake their own tests, and for those tests to give decisively different results compared with the police tests.

I presume that Charlie Alliston's defence was paid for by legal aid. I doubt that the legal aid pursekeepers will be willing to fund such testing now (after the trial) on a speculative basis, and I suspect that Charlie Alliston lacks the means to pay for it himself (and his unlikeability will not encourage anyone else to pay for it).