[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

Where did I suggest banning pedestrians? Check back a page or two and you'll see that like most (all?) on here I'm not in favour of making "jaywalking" illegal. This is similar to suggesting that cyclists don't ride down the inside of lorries at junctions, which I also think is sensible advice.

Do you think that walking into the road in front of a bicycle is a sensible thing to do, or should we discourage people from doing it?

However if I decide to swerve into an outside lane without checking then whilst it would be nice if the driver managed to avoid me it still is my problem.

Yes, but paying attention, passing with plenty of room and moderating your speed mitigates against the effect of the cyclist doing something unexpected.

Sod all use when someone decides to step out directly in front of you though. Unless someone designs one easily used whilst braking.

Very true. I think bells are pretty pointless in fact because any place where they could be safely used I'm as well speaking or shouting. Also given the number of people who've got headphones then relying on any sound based warning isn't necessarily effective. Even in the car or motorbike in any kind of emergency situation I brake first and only think about tooting the horn afterwards - although it is sometimes useful as an early warning as a situation develops (although I'll already be slowing, just in case).

However if I decide to swerve into an outside lane without checking then whilst it would be nice if the driver managed to avoid me it still is my problem.

Very true although if he either chose not to try and avoid you (assuming there was time to do so) or couldn't due to a defect in his vehicle then I would expect him to be prosecuted if there was an accident.

Very true. I think bells are pretty pointless in fact because any place where they could be safely used I'm as well speaking or shouting.

I commute on a shared path, and the bell is very effective from considerable distance, giving pedestrians plenty of time to move to the side. I find it more effective than calling out.

[quote=poly ]i am not sure I agree on the word easily in that sentence, effectively perhaps?
I think though that either you or I will need to go and have a chat with him and explain he is fighting the wrong battle (after all the net effect of DBD cycling will be very similar to Injury by W&F), if drivers don't wake up expecting to kill people today, cyclists really won't.

Good point, and one we've neglected. As you say, changing the law regarding causing a death whilst cycling is very unlikely to have the effect he desires of preventing another family going what he did.

He does appear to also be campaigning to encourage people not to ride without front brakes, and to enforce that law. Though in reality this is presumably the first case ever where the lack of a front brake [b]may[/b] have contributed to a death, and the chances are it will be many years (if ever) before another case, whether or not the law is enforced. Meanwhile 1000s of pedestrians will be killed by drivers without attracting national headlines.

The problem being that it's the unusual cases which attract the headlines and those campaigning for changes of law on the back of them get publicity - in order to prevent pedestrian deaths it's the cases which receive little publicity because they're commonplace where there are more important issues to address.

I commute on a shared path, and the bell is very effective from considerable distance, giving pedestrians plenty of time to move to the side. I find it more effective than calling out.

I used to have one but even when using it on a shared path (the Water of Leith one in particular) I found it almost useless because either people didn't hear it (headphones, or talking amongst their group), ignored it or panicked and reacted unpredictably. I found slowing way down and and saying "excuse me" as I got close worked better. Quite a few people riding on that shared path and pinging away on their bells seemed to think it gave then a God given right to steam up behind anyone without slowing as well, which isn't very safe.

Very true although if he either chose not to try and avoid you (assuming there was time to do so) or couldn't due to a defect in his vehicle then I would expect him to be prosecuted if there was an accident.

Really? I wouldnt. A casual look through Beyond the Kerb gives plenty of examples where drivers have killed cyclists and got away with it. Several times using the excuse the cyclist moved into their way even when the support for that looks dubious eg the death of Daniel Squire.

I used to have one but even when using it on a shared path (the Water of Leith one in particular) I found it almost useless because either people didn't hear it (headphones, or talking amongst their group), ignored it or panicked and reacted unpredictably. I found slowing way down and and saying "excuse me" as I got close worked better. Quite a few people riding on that shared path and pinging away on their bells seemed to think it gave then a God given right to steam up behind anyone without slowing as well, which isn't very safe.

I find that most people hear it from distance, and for the ones that don't, I follow up by asking to pass when I'm closer. In both cases I reduce my speed. I can only think of one altercation with a pedestrian, when ringing my bell, calling out, slowing down and waiting for a safe gap to pass were apparently not good enough...

Having followed this method in over ten years of daily commuting on a shared path, I'd say I have a pretty good sample!

I used to have one but even when using it on a shared path (the Water of Leith one in particular) I found it almost useless

I find use of a bell mixed at best. Not absolutely useless on some shared paths but its only real advantage of just slowing and saying hello is for those people who mutter about having a bell.

Really? I wouldnt. A casual look through Beyond the Kerb gives plenty of examples where drivers have killed cyclists and got away with it. Several times using the excuse the cyclist moved into their way even when the support for that looks dubious eg the death of Daniel Squire.

The devil's in the detail in those cases. Certainly in the Daniel Squire one they guy admitted to having texted while driving (and therefore you'd think would be prosecuted for that) however it doesn't look like there was any evidence available (not in that article anyway) to effectively rebut his claim that the cyclist moved in front of him. Reading between the lines I expect it most likely was the drivers fault, but he got off because there wasn't enough evidence to prove it.

I find use of a bell mixed at best. Not absolutely useless on some shared paths but its only real advantage of just slowing and saying hello is for those people who mutter about having a bell.

And those grumpy gits would probably also complain even if you did use a bell.

I've always just said 'Excuse me', not loudly but firmly, and if the pedestrian has had to move to allow me through then I will say 'Thank you' as I pass.

I've never had a problem with grumpy gits muttering about having bell. I used to think that was maybe because I am not young, and possibly because of the way I project my voice to make sure they hear me (as I say - 'firmly').

However, I now suspect that the reason why I don't have any run ins with grumpy gits, is because in any interaction with a pedestrian the grumpy git is me. I am, as it were, an alpha grumpy git, and pedestrians somehow sense this.

So maybe some of you need to work harder on cultivating your own inner grumpy git. It may help you in your dealings with pedestrians and other cyclists. However, it may also make you a right miserable git.

IMHE Bells or horns are a planned response to a forseen situation which develops relatively slowly not a default reaction to an emergency. Any situation which requires immediate attention like braking or swerving it's the riding/driving that takes priority. I'd question anyone's riding/driving if their first defense mechanism was to go for the bell/hron.

There are very few circumstances where, to avoid an unexpected collision, you swerve but make no attempt to adjust your speed, or at the critical moment even having swerved you make no (or very limited) attempts to reduce speed further. I can accept that swerving and shouting might be good starting points, but even if it only becomes clear very shortly before impact that the shouting and swerving is having no effect, being able to apply the brakes you're legally required to have fitted will always make *some* (potentially small) difference.

That's a lot to fit within a very short space of time.

As an aside, a pedestrian stepped out in front of me yesterday. My instinctive reaction was to swerve round her. My bike has disc brakes and the road was dry.

If I'm riding in an busy urban environment I'll be riding (and driving) being prepared to stop or change speed as soon as something unexpected happens. Once I've had time to shout "Oi!!" I'll have had time to apply some pressure to the brakes as an instinctive reaction and potentially change direction. None of this is rocket science in terms of what I have to process, most of it is instinctive reactions.

Consciously deciding not to brake, for me, would be a more complex decision than deciding to try to brake.

Consciously deciding not to brake, for me, would be a more complex decision than deciding to try to brake.

totally agree. I was riding through Bank a couple of years ago on a fixed wheel bike (with a front brake) and a pedestrian stepped out about 5-10m infront of me. I was standing up as I was accelerating and only had time to shout 'aaarrrggghhh' and slam the brake on. went over the bars as I was stood up and landed in a heap on the road but missed the idiot pedestrian who wasn't looking. no time to consider avoiding him, but then others are wired up to react differently.

Bells. They were relevant in the days of rod brakes working on wet chrome rims, ie long stopping distances.

If you're close enough for the pedestrian to be a problem, it's not the time for a bell, but for brakes or avoidance.

The problem with avoidance is it may put you in front of a car and you end up the victim.

So brakes it is.

Riding a brakeless fixed wheel bike is plain dumb.

[quote=brakes ]but then others are wired up to react differently.

That's the thing. I also instinctively swerve rather than brake - that's not theoretical conjecture, that's exactly what I have done when a pedestrian has stepped out in front of me.

What's the consensus here then (stolen from lfgss)? Swerve or brake (rider in video didn't appear to do either and assumed pedestrian would continue!)

Personally, i'd have slowed and used a bell. They are useful IMO. It makes both parties aware of each other, you can't keep slamming the brakes on (especially in London).

BTW.. this is the thread the news outlets have been selectively taking comments from in some follow up "cyclists are bad" news stories:

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/139552/?offset=48000

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/cyclists-on-london-fixed-gear-and-single-speed-forum-complain-of-witch-hunt-against-cyclists-after-a3619741.html

Consciously deciding not to brake, for me, would be a more complex decision than deciding to try to brake.

Depends on the circumstances of the impending collision.

The one time I hit a pedestrian I didn't have time to brake, shout, sweerve, ring a bell or do anything "concious". Even if I did have time to actually begin to apply the brakes there's still the calculation of "can I stop in time?" (which you may or may not be in a position to make.

Braking AND swerving can lead to a skid / loss of control / crash anyway but again, that's a concious decision and often in the heat of the moment it doesn't happen in that way, you simply don't have time to react appropriately.

Problem is here that he had time to shout what appears to have been a coherent sentence (as opposed to just an OOOIII-aarrrgh!) which means he had time to process things a bit more. In him swerving [u]and[/u] yelling though, she was alerted and seems to have then stepped into his altered path.

In that video there was plenty of time to take some action. I definitely wouldn't have steamed on like that guy did, and swerving wasn't a safe option either so I'd have slowed down until I was sure the ped would get clear and probably shouted as well.

Interesting, in that situation I'm not sure there was much time to react. The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible. I'd have been aiming for between the pedestrian and the curb and I'm not certain I'd have avoided that collision.

Interesting, in that situation I'm not sure there was much time to react. The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible. I'd have been aiming for between the pedestrian and the curb and I'm not certain I'd have avoided that collision.

I'd say that collision is about 90% pedestrian at fault. On the phone, not looking, unpredictable change of direction. I'm not sure I'd have avoided that either - aim to pass behind him, maybe slowed a fraction but basically that ped has seen a gap in the traffic and decided to cross. Fairly safe to assume he's goimng to carry on and the speed of the cyclist was hardly excessive for the road and conditions.

Interesting, in that situation I'm not sure there was much time to react. The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible. I'd have been aiming for between the pedestrian and the curb and I'm not certain I'd have avoided that collision.

The pedestrian steps into the road at around 49s-50s, and the cyclist was around maybe 8m from him. Maybe the video is deceptive, but it seems to me that at no point did the cyclist reduce speed as a precaution: they were expecting the pedestrian to have continued moving on just enough for them to pass by without colliding and without slowing down even slightly.

I am not suggesting that I have not made similarly poor decisions on occasion in the past, or that I will never do so again, but that was poor cycling.

Fairly safe to assume he's goimng to carry on

No it isn't, as the video demonstrated. The only thing you should assume is that every other road user, man, woman, child, animal is a potential hazard, and you should always try to ensure a sufficient margin of safety (speed and distance) to protect yourself from their sometimes unpredictable behaviour.

Frustrating seeing transport crashes seen through a frame of fault and punishment, rather than root cause analysis and prevention of reoccurrence. The fault and punishment is important - obviously - but its not clear to me that the analysis, learning and prevention of reoccurrence bit is adequately addressed in road traffic collisons

"The only thing you should assume is that every other road user, man, woman, child, animal is a potential hazard"

I don't like the word Hazard used in a loose way like this - though I note that it seems to be normalised as such during the Driving Test Theory exam with deer running into the road classed as "hazards".

In Risk management "Hazard" is usually the source of the potential damage/adverse outcome not the likely victim of it. using "Hazard" as a term for vulnerable road users is a partial responsibility shifting onto the victim.

In a Cyclist v Child the "hazard" would almost certainly be the faster moving heavier of the 2 cos ffisics.

I think my instinctive reaction would have been to swerve, though that would be dependent on being sure I wasn't swerving in front of a vehicle (there wasn't one there, but you'd need to know that). Very hard to double think it though, and I'm not sure there was any 100% perfect option for the cyclist - it feels like a good chance of the collision happening even if he'd braked.

Interesting, in that situation I'm not sure there was much time to react. The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible.

There was no time to react after the ped had turned back, but plenty of time from when he started to enter the road. Wonder what was in the cyclists mind - could have been a number of things:
1) Ped will be clear by the time I get there so no need to slow
2) Ped, what ped?
3) Look at that dimwit, I'm going to buzz him and see him jump so I can show the footage to all the world on youtube later

Gonna be harsh here. If you think it was ok to keep riding at speed to pass behind a guy stepping out clamped to a phone & not looking in your direction I think you need to have a good look at your riding technique.
EDIT: Without seeing the evidence obvs, it really wouldn't surprise me to find that that video is pretty much a carbon copy of what we are discussing. Look how that has fared for the boy on the bike.

[quote=epicsteve ]There was no time to react after the ped had turned back, but plenty of time from when he started to enter the road. Wonder what was in the cyclists mind - could have been a number of things:

Only about 2s from ped entering road to collision. That's barely more than the real world reaction times mentioned earlier in this thread. But we're not asking the cyclist to react, we're asking him to make a decision. Do you really think he had time to compose any of those thoughts and act on it? Doing nothing (or to be strictly accurate, making the choice to pass behing the pedestrian) probably wasn't a conscious decision at all.

As I wrote before, even if his reaction had been to brake, I doubt that would have avoided the collision (I don't believe you can even tell from the video that he wasn't in the process of braking).

In Risk management "Hazard" is usually the source of the potential damage/adverse outcome not the likely victim of it. using "Hazard" as a term for vulnerable road users is a partial responsibility shifting onto the victim.

This is silly. You are trying to shoehorn road safety into fitting the perspective of the work related safety industry and its precise definitions. To suggest that this is victim blaming is nonsense. The key point is that as a road user (or a pedestrian) you only have control over your own actions, and the best way you can protect yourself and others, is to view other road users and pedestrians as being potentially unpredictable and a hazard to you and themselves, and the best way to mitigate the risks to yourself and them is to give yourself a good margin of safety at all times wherever possible.

Interesting video. I got clipped by a car on a pedestrian crossing after I changed my mind half way across and stepped back into the path of a car driving behind me.

Only the wing mirror but shook me up a bit and taught me to look more carefully in future. Is this any different?

[quote=Flaperon ]Interesting video. I got clipped by a car on a pedestrian crossing after I changed my mind half way across and stepped back into the path of a car driving behind me.
Only the wing mirror but shook me up a bit and taught me to look more carefully in future. Is this any different?

It depends on the context of the car passing behind you (and what sort of ped crossing). Did you step out onto the crossing when the car was already coming down the road and needed to do an emergency stop to avoid you?

Though the existence of the pedestrian crossing changes the context somewhat anyway.

1) Ped will be clear by the time I get there so no need to slow
2) Ped, what ped?
3) Look at that dimwit, I'm going to buzz him and see him jump so I can show the footage to all the world on youtube later

I like to think of myself as a considerate cyclist, but I have a feeling I'd have stopped pedalling, covered the brakes (but not actually used them to slow down), and then swerved to go between the pedestrian and the pavement.

Although I do like to think I'd have left more room than that guy did.

slowster - Member

The pedestrian steps into the road at around 49s-50s, and the cyclist was around maybe 8m from him. Maybe the video is deceptive, but it seems to me that at no point did the cyclist reduce speed as a precaution: they were expecting the pedestrian to have continued moving on just enough for them to pass by without colliding and without slowing down even slightly.

I am not suggesting that I have not made similarly poor decisions on occasion in the past, or that I will never do so again, but that was poor cycling.

The pedestrian almost clears the bus lane, then a second before the cyclist would have passed him, does a 180 and steps back infront of the cyclist.

I'm all for "assume everyone is an idiot and trying to kill you", but that only works upto a point, you can't assume that every road user is about to do a 180 and crash into you, you'd never be able to go anywhere.

It depends on the context of the car passing behind you (and what sort of ped crossing). Did you step out onto the crossing when the car was already coming down the road and needed to do an emergency stop to avoid you?

No, I was about 3/4 of the way across the road, realised I was going the wrong way, and did a beautiful u-turn into the path of the car in almost exactly the same way as the pedestrian in the video. The car in my case reduced speed so he'd pass behind me as I crossed.

What sort of ped crossing?

Zebra.

Flaperon that car shouldn't have been there. You're supposed to wait until the pedestrian clears the road before entering the crossing.

I pick option 3, that vid looks like a close pass to me, maybe he planned to say something as he passed within a hairs breadth?

Personally would have made a shoulder check as soon as he stepped out, eased up and veered off towards the curb, ready to shout a loud "Oi" if he did something else stupid. He's already shown himself to be stupid for crossing without checking, why would you want to be near the idiot?

The pedestrian almost clears the bus lane, then a second before the cyclist would have passed him, does a 180 and steps back infront of the cyclist.

I'm all for "assume everyone is an idiot and trying to kill you", but that only works upto a point, you can't assume that every road user is about to do a 180 and crash into you, you'd never be able to go anywhere.

We want car drivers to give cyclists at least 1.5m clearance when they overtake, and preferably more, to allow for errors, wobbles and the unforeseen. This is no different: the cyclist should have shaved his speed (or if he did brake at all, then he needed to brake more), so that the pedestrian would be further away by the time he drew level, and so that he had a comfortable margin of safety to protect him if the pedestrian behaved unpredictably.

We want car drivers to give cyclists at least 1.5m clearance when they overtake, and preferably more, to allow for errors, wobbles and the unforeseen.

Indeed, but it's hard for anyone to give the right amount of space when they do something unpredictable. If bikes give peds that could step of the pavement at anytime we never be able to cycle lanes, among other things.

Has it been established that the pedestrian in this case was looking what she was doing?

It seems to me that the accident itself was probably fifty-fifty with the major aggravating circumstance being the bike being solely reliant on its fixed gear for braking.

As the speed of impact is estimated at 18mph it is pretty damn unlucky that the woman was killed. I think the cyclist should face pretty harsh sanction, but resurrecting some arcane offence just to achieve this highlights the anti-cycling prejudice at work here. Had a pedestrian stepped in front of car doing 18mph I doubt very much the driver would have been pursued as vigorously.

Indeed, but it's hard for anyone to give the right amount of space when they do something unpredictable. If bikes give peds that could step of the pavement at anytime we never be able to cycle lanes, among other things.