[quote=chakaping ] It's just awful columnists having space to fill.
Oh teh ironing!
I think that I agree with the broad consensus here - he shouldn't have been riding a bike without a front brake on the road, whilst careless pedestrians stepping out are annoying I don't think they deserve to be killed and genuinely do my best to avoid them, and it appears that the rider did not ride in the most cautious way possible even considering the limitations of a fixed gear. In the same way as I feel with cars, if you're introducing the danger (going fast), you should take all possible precautions to mitigate this. Riding sensibly with a front brake seems reasonable.
(I think kids on brakeless BMXes are sort of a different issue, they don't generally travel faster than running pace).
Buuut, there is a far greater emphasis (and more severe charges) associated with this prosecution than would seem to often happen when a death is caused in a far more predictable way by a driver. This seems to be because cycling is something other people do and driving is something we all do, and mistakes happen yeah?... This is problematic for me.
Skid-stopping on a track bike isn't anything like as quick or controllers as having 2 brakes IME but it doesn't stop lots of people doing it because it looks 'cool'. Ironically we're going to see a trial by media of one d!ck cyclist versus the hundred of deaths each year by cars that are as equally devastating for victims and their families, but willfully ignored. Interesting to see whether the manslaughter charge sticks - how many motorists have been charged similarly for being involved in a fatal accident with dodgy brakes?
Skid-stopping on a track bike isn't anything like as quick or controllers as having 2 brakes IME but it doesn't stop lots of people doing it because it looks 'cool'.
Indeed it's a slow way to stop, but it saves the rims (It's a very very slow way to stop in the wet, which is pretty much the only time I did it, as it's not too bad on tyres then - I did use brakes as well but only for emergencies/sudden red lights/steep hills)
[quote=dovebiker ]how many motorists have been charged similarly for being involved in a fatal accident with dodgy brakes?
Dodgy =/= non-existent.
Riding a fixie is like removing the brakes from your car and relying on the engine to slow you down. If you'd done that and subsequently killed someone then I suspect the charges would be similar.
it saves the rims
Rims < life
This guy is clearly a knob. Whether he is guilty of a criminal offence is up in the air(beyond riding a fixie, for which he should be punished) .
He won't get an easy time in court. Nobody likes a knob, but also drivers get some sympathy because most people can imagine themselves in a similar scenario. Cyclists will at best get a neutral reception, sometimes negative.
philjunior - Member
(I think kids on brakeless BMXes are sort of a different issue, they don't generally travel faster than running pace).
The massive hill I live on is quite a busy road with cars parked on it. Frequently see kids my son's age (13) penking down it from after school hours to 2200h or so. There's a skatepark-lite at the top of the hill.
That's in the dark, no brakes, foot wedged in the frame to slow down. My boy would get a ****ting if I caught him doing it. Also get scooter rats and skaeboarders doing the same, dragging a foot on the ground to slow down.
No issues with them running brakeless at the skate park (jealous more than anything), but on a public road - that's going to end up messy for a child and their family, and the driver who's car they plough into.
Riding a fixie is like removing the brakes from your car and relying on the engine to slow you down
Only if you don't know how to stop. Resisting the pedals to come to a stop is really not how you stop a fixed wheel bike and that is what would almost equate to engine braking but even then not really.
The only way to stop quickly on a fixed gear is skid stopping (lots of little skids not one long skid) and as far as I know you can't do that in your brakeless car...
i ride 68in gear and can stop quite nicely too. having a dura ace front brake with swiss-stop pads helps.
I'll raise you 10 inches to 78 and TWO R650 deep drop dual calipers.
There is a very good reason for compliance with the law, it may not seem "necessary" - sure I can stop... but when the brown stuff hits the spinny thing for whatever reason (and this may be an unfortunate accident), it will, sadly, be what matters - same goes for having lights. It is the first thing they checked when they took (the remains of) my bicycle away after my accident.
kerley - Member
The only way to stop quickly on a fixed gear is skid stopping (lots of little skids not one long skid)
There is no way to [i]stop quickly[/i] without brakes! Period. Especially on a track bike with a short wheelbase and very hard, very narrow tyres. It may be possible to optimise the no brake retardation but it'll still be shocking compared to even a single front caliper. All you're ever going to do is slither down the road in a barely controlled tank slapper.
Please stop perpetuating the myth.
Apologies Bez, I didn't trawl far enough
[url= http://web.mit.edu/cwarner/www/FixedGearSkidSample.pdf ]Nice study on skid stopping from MIT[/url]
Comparison to previously established skidding models show the stopping distances average 5.8 ± 2.1 times than the model of the back-wheel locked skid
and
From these comparisons, it appears one needs to have at least some sort of front-wheel stopping mechanism in order to come to a sufficiently quick stop
It's not going to end well.
[b]The only way to stop quickly on a fixed gear[/b] is skid stopping (lots of little skids not one long skid)
No it isn't the [b]only way[/b]
It's the wrong way. The right way is to use your ****ing brakes ffs.
Latest radio news report is that he was doing 14mph also that the bike was tested and shown to take 4 times as long to stop as a normal bike.
Christ it's hard enough stopping sometimes with two brakes sometimes let alone one! I am unsure of the law but surely two brakes must/ should be mandatory!?
I don't live in London but was down there recently, jesus the cyclists are terrifying! They go so fast right next to parked cars, which to me always means hazard hazard hazard! i.e people appearing from nowhere between parked cars and/ or doors opening. It's not like that in Edinburgh I have to say. From what I see driving in London is a lot more aggressive than other cities, making it super unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians.
I am unsure of the law but surely two brakes must/ should be mandatory!?
It is.
Latest radio news report is that he was doing 14mph
That's really not that quick, if you consider how it would be framed if it was a driver being the d!*k. "Mr Smith was driving cautiously at a mere 14mph when the victim stepped out in front of him".
@andykirk - Two working brakes is the legal requirement but a fixed wheel may count as one brake.
[url= https://www.wheelbuilder.com/downloads/VeloNews_June09_BrakeTest.pdf ]A Dura Ace 7800 caliper will generate a deceleration of almost -1g[/url]. The MIT study couldn't get remotely close to such decelerations in their study.
v^2-u^2 = 2as, so s = u^2/2a and that means distance doubles as deceleration halves. 14 mph is 6.3 m/sec, so a good caliper brake might stop in 6.3^2/2*9.8 = 2m. I suspect that this calculation plus Figure 5 from the MIT study (8m) is where the ratio of 4 fold comes from.
If the CCTV shows she stepped out in a distance that an ordinary bike could not stop at 14 mph, then the young man has a defense (probably his only defense).
From BBC news website.
The court has been told crash investigators had concluded Mr Alliston would have been able to stop and avoid the collision if the bike had been fitted with a brake.
The trial continues
I suspect that this calculation plus Figure 5 from the MIT study (8m) is where the ratio of 4 fold comes from.
More likely it's from the practical testing the police did with the bike at the Hogg Hill circuit last year.
News article suggests victim was 9 metres in front of cyclist when stepped-out ~ theoretically enough distance for even brakeless fixie to stop. Not looking good for the perp.
My experience of riding a fixed gear with a fast road bike group meant that I needed 2 brakes as you tend to start downhills slowly, but the greater momentum carried you faster / further at the bottom and I sometimes needed the brakes to not run into the back of the group on narrow lanes - reaching 70kph on a 68" gear means 200rpm+
It might not be just about whether he could have stopped, it might also be about whether he tried to stop.
In the case of a civil claim, people would be looking at who's responsible for the harm, and a pedestrian stepping out without paying attention to oncoming traffic and looking at their phone would most likely be contributorily negligent.
However, this being a criminal trial is more a case of is riding a non-complaint bike a reckless act and was this recklessness the cause of death.
Regarding the effectiveness of fixies at stopping. Skidding is not as effective as controlled braking, and braking with the rear is not as effective as the front, in fact on a dry road a good emergency stop the back wheel will be on the point of lifting off the ground so 100% of the braking effort is done through the front wheel. A good fixie rider might be able to stop as quickly as a crap rider on a crap bike but then again crap riders rarely go over 10mph and my conscience would never let me ever choose to ride a bike with no front brake on the road as I know with one I can certainly stop faster.
However, this being a criminal trial is more a case of is riding a non-complaint bike a reckless act and was this recklessness the cause of death.
It shouldn't be. Gross Negligence (in UK law, not recklessness) only applies if the negligent act was otherwise lawful. Riding a brakeless fixie isn't.
Unlawful Act Manslaughter is probably what they are trying to prove, which brings the relevance of the stopping distance (that the unlawful act of riding a fixie on the road directly led to the death).
The guide is at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
It might not be just about whether he could have stopped, it might also be about whether he tried to stop.
Would an 'ordinary' cyclist, on seeing someone step into the road, stop, or slow, or swerve around them?
I got the impressioon that he had slowed and swerved, but that she either stopped or changed direction resulting in him still hitting her.
It might not be just about whether he could have stopped, it might also be about whether he tried to stop.
I seem to remember another pedestrian death in a collision with a cyclist, in that case he called out or rang his bell but didn't make any attempt (or enough) to avoid the pedestrian. He went to prison.
It shouldn't be. Gross Negligence (in UK law, not recklessness) only applies if the negligent act was otherwise lawful. Riding a brakeless fixie isn't.Unlawful Act Manslaughter is probably what they are trying to prove, which brings the relevance of the stopping distance (that the unlawful act of riding a fixie on the road directly led to the death).
Fair enough; so criminally negligent, rather than reckless. Either way it falls under the wider umbrella of involuntary manslaughter.
I got the impressioon that he had slowed and swerved, but that she either stopped or changed direction resulting in him still hitting her.
This seems to be the latest on that:
"CCTV footage played in the courtroom showed Alliston beginning to swerve as he approached Mrs Briggs at an average speed of 18mph - with crash investigator Edward Small saying she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash."
[quote=ninfan ]I got the impressioon that he had slowed and swerved, but that she either stopped or changed direction resulting in him still hitting her.
It's all a load of speculation, but if that is the case then there's his defence right there.
Fundamentally, as with all the drivers killing people, it's going to be down to whether all parts of the prosecution case can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. All the defence has to do is find reasonable doubt in one part of it, even if that seems a relatively trivial part. I reckon if his lawyer can show a reasonable possibility of the death not occurring if she hadn't stopped/changed direction (if that's indeed what happened), then he'll probably get off.
martinhutch - Member
f they're seeking manslaughter then maybe they think he hit her on purpose?
Manslaughter doesn't mean that.
No reason why that scenario couldn't be manslaughter.
I seem to remember another pedestrian death in a collision with a cyclist, in that case he called out or rang his bell but didn't make any attempt (or enough) to avoid the pedestrian. He went to prison.
This one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496757.stm
I reckon if his lawyer can show a reasonable possibility of the death not occurring if she hadn't stopped/changed direction (if that's indeed what happened), then he'll probably get off.
he shouldn't get off - he was deliberately riding around without a front brake as he thought it was cool, and he knew the consequences as is shown by this quote :
In 2015, he tweeted: “The time when you first take your brakes off and feeling like you’re in a lucasbrunelle movie,” in apparent reference to an American bike stunt film-maker.
i.e. this was the type of riding he aspired to :
Actually it's probably this one
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-25447028
I reckon if his lawyer can show a reasonable possibility of the death not occurring if she hadn't stopped/changed direction (if that's indeed what happened), then he'll probably get off.
With the emphasis being on his ability to stop I'm not so sure. "Stopped/changed direction" doesn't trump he should have just braked and pulled up to avoid the collision. Same as when you drive, you sound your horn, brake and swerve if needed. Not braking just assuming a pedestrian on hearing your horn will get out of the way won't cut it in court.
Not braking just assuming a pedestrian on hearing your horn will get out of the way won't cut it in court.
Especially if you didn't have effective brakes and therefore it could be argued that the reason for not braking was only because you couldn't.
@Horatio.The first link was the one I was thinking about. Got the going to jail bit wrong. I blame my age !!!
Not braking just assuming a pedestrian on hearing your horn will get out of the way won't cut it in court.
Did you read the example of the bus driver I posted earlier?
This one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496757.stm
If the reporting is accurate then he appears to have got off very, very lightly.
CCTV footage played in the courtroom showed Alliston beginning to swerve as he approached Mrs Briggs at an average speed of 18mph - with crash investigator Edward Small saying she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash."
****ing hell, that's a long long time not to manage to stop - even accounting for the initial "must've seen me, they'll move out of the way" reaction. It does genuinely sound like if he was riding with anything like an effective set of brakes he would've pulled up quite comfortably - I was a little suspicious of the fixed wheel no front brake causing the accident thing when I first heard about it.
[quote=taxi25 ]Same as when you drive, you sound your horn, brake and swerve if needed. Not braking just assuming a pedestrian on hearing your horn will get out of the way won't cut it in court.
Except the context (as given by the quote at the start of my post) is that he did slow down and swerve, and this could have been sufficient to avoid the collision were it not for the pedestrian's subsequent actions.
Though as pointed out by Bez, an expectation of what another road user is going to do appears to be sufficient defence in motoring cases - as I pointed out, you simply have to introduce reasonable doubt in some aspect of the case, and it appears sufficient to show that the victim's actions were in some way at fault (referencing Helen Measures). Though I'm not sure if there is a difference here between the proof required for DBCD/DBDD and manslaughter which actually makes it harder to use such defences in manslaughter cases.
she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash
So riding along at 18mph and a person steps out giving you 3.8 seconds to react and ultimately stop.
A lot of riders would not have stopped in time, brakes or no brakes
Don't go too hard on the numbers at this stage. Something is missing from reports, because the distances that have been given are covered in around 1 second at 18mph, not 3.8. Currently available details do not make it entirely clear what most of the distances/times relate to.
The chances of the expert reports being accurate are reasonably high, but we're not currently seeing an accurate and clear communication of them in the media.
I dunno if we'll see the footage, but this is all assumption without at least a detailed description of its contents.
Purely hypothetically, it can sometimes feel safer to steer around an unexpected obstacle than to perform an emergency stop.
Barfoot, under cross-examination by Miss Ascherson, said: “I saw her cross the road on the right and she was comfortable in doing that as she had enough time on that side of the road. ?“I thought she was going to stop in the centre but when I realised she was going to carry on I shouted, blew my horn and braked as hard as I could.
It seems like he sounded his horn and braked upon realising the woman was moving in front of him. He should have seen this earlier but didn't. The cyclist at the centre of this thread was riding a bike that didn't give him the braking option (according to the court). Anyway the case is on going we'll find out what the court decides soon enough.
3.8 seconds seems like plenty of time to stop to me. Can't find good info on bike stopping times but from 20mph on a motorbike it's supposed to be something like 1.8s to stop (including reaction time).
If the tests the police did prove something similar then the difference between say 2 seconds with brakes and 8 seconds (the quoted 4x from the tests they did) is going to be significant given that 3.8s falls almost midway.
There is no way to stop quickly without brakes! Period. Especially on a track bike with a short wheelbase and very hard, very narrow tyres. It may be possible to optimise the no brake retardation but it'll still be shocking compared to even a single front caliper. All you're ever going to do is slither down the road in a barely controlled tank slapper.Please stop perpetuating the myth.
So how I have been riding AND stopping for 10+ years is now a myth.
Out of interest, have you actually ridden a track bike with a low gear with a good level of experience in skid stopping?
Slithering down the road would suggest not....
So how I have been riding AND stopping for 10+ years is now a myth.
Correct.
philjunior - Member
CCTV footage played in the courtroom showed Alliston beginning to swerve as he approached Mrs Briggs at an average speed of 18mph - with crash investigator Edward Small saying she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash."
**** hell, that's a long long time not to manage to stop - even accounting for the initial "must've seen me, they'll move out of the way" reaction. It does genuinely sound like if he was riding with anything like an effective set of brakes he would've pulled up quite comfortably - I was a little suspicious of the fixed wheel no front brake causing the accident thing when I first heard about it.
That was 3.8 from stepping out, no info on if they were visible to the cyclist or even on that side of the road. Or equally as in the other post about the driver, the rider might have assumed the person would stop in the middle of the road, so only shouted when they realised their paths were about to converge. We dont know.
Repeating the point about the lack of clarity in current reports: there has been no explicit mention of whether the cited times include reaction time, though given the numbers involved (and there are multiple reported values so this information, too, is unclear) I very much suspect they do not. If they do not then they need to be added. You may want to look up the sort of reaction times the police quote in prosecutions of drivers, but they're generally at least 1.5 seconds.
[quote=chakaping ]Purely hypothetically, it can sometimes feel safer to steer around an unexpected obstacle than to perform an emergency stop.
That's exactly the feeling I have with this case. Fundamentally you don't need to come to a complete stop to avoid running into a pedestrian in the road - I'm sure I've steered around a few and I'd be surprised if most people here haven't. I'm still assuming that the cyclist didn't intend to hit the pedestrian and that he would have avoided her but for her subsequent actions in the 3.8s after she entered the road. If that is the case, the defence of the bus driver is extremely pertinent - if he was expecting to avoid her and at the point he realised he wasn't he couldn't have stopped even with a front brake (as was the case with the bus with fully functional brakes) that completely removes the legality of his bike from the case.
That was 3.8 from stepping out, no info on if they were visible to the cyclist or even on that side of the road. Or equally as in the other post about the driver, the rider might have assumed the person would stop in the middle of the road, so only shouted when they realised their paths were about to converge. We dont know.
I see that from subsequent comments - and one would not reasonably expect every road user to stop every time a pedestrian steps onto the road on the other side of a traffic island.
So how I have been riding AND stopping for 10+ years is now a myth.
I don't think there's any debate about the fact that it's possible to stop a fixie with no additional brakes. But equally there's no debate about the fact that you can't stop it as quickly as you can if you add a front brake. You can ride for as many years as you like, you don't get to change physics.
Obviously reaction/thinking time is a factor before anyone could begin to apply brakes (providing they have them), but to state the obvious there is no substitute for good roadcraft and awareness. Flat bars are better for riding in traffic, but if you are going to ride a drop barred bike [edit - in a busy city centre type environment], then you should be able to brake without moving your hands on the bars, e.g. hands on the hoods rather than the tops of the bars.
Purely hypothetically, it can sometimes feel safer to steer around an unexpected obstacle than to perform an emergency stop.
This requires very good awareness of what is happening all around you, i.e. constantly checking, otherwise you risk swerving into the path of a car behind you.
'm still assuming that the cyclist didn't intend to hit the pedestrian and that he would have avoided her but for her subsequent actions in the 3.8s after she entered the road.
The problem for the guy in this case is that it can and will be argued that the reason he didn't try to stop was because he couldn't, and the reason he couldn't stop was because he was knowingly riding an illegal bike without effective brakes. It'll be argued that a forseable potential consequence of the latter was the former, hence the manslaughter charge.
3.8 seconds seems like plenty of time to stop to me.
I've done the maths and yes it does (I was wrong). It is around 25 metres away at 14mph which is a long way ahead to see someone.
if you are going to ride a drop barred bike, then you should be able to brake without moving your hands on the bars
Ironically, the braking system that offers a quicker response than any other is a fixed wheel.
[quote=slowster ]This requires very good awareness of what is happening all around you, i.e. constantly checking, otherwise you risk swerving into the path of a car behind you.
Though if you're making that argument, then an emergency stop is equally (or more) likely to cause issues with a car behind you - the only possible issue with a car behind when swerving is if that car is attempting to overtake you, and given the circumstances of a pedestrian having entered the road the bets are off regarding the behaviour of any driver still overtaking.
This requires very good awareness of what is happening all around you, i.e. constantly checking, otherwise you risk swerving into the path of a car behind you.
I know I have made an instinctive decision to steer round pedestrians who launch themselves into the road before.
I can usually tell if a vehicle is imminently overtaking me - and would certainly take the chance in a split-second decision.
[quote=epicsteve ]The problem for the guy in this case is that it can and will be argued that the reason he didn't try to stop was because he couldn't, and the reason he couldn't stop was because he was knowingly riding an illegal bike without effective brakes.
Not necessarily a problem - again remembering the standard of proof required, it simply has to be shown that his actions weren't unreasonable. I'm not sure speculation on the thought processes of the defendant is admissible evidence!
[quote=chakaping ]I know I have made an instinctive decision to steer round pedestrians who launch themselves into the road before.
The defence rests its case!
i loved his social media post
how he will heal but his bike is broken , dunno if that would have entered manys heads having just nailed someone and tweeting about it later? (source daily fail) but did he really post "Hopefully it is a lesson to be learned on her behalf.'
you can understand maybe the anger whilst the girl was spark out on the floor being adreniline whilst your shouting at someone but really it seems the victim blaming has been stroing with this one
it was he who claimed she was on her mobile, did the police get info to confirm, this if no ??
I see that from subsequent comments - and one would not reasonably expect every road user to stop every time a pedestrian steps onto the road on the other side of a traffic island.
you don't ride round london expecting pedestrians to not step out at you all the time - it's probably more of a hazard than cars are.
I can think of a few sets of traffic lights near London Bridge, for example, that have absolutely no indication to pedestrians as to when to cross, although the road furniture is clearly designed for pedestrians to cross there.
To ride around on a bike that is not as fully equiped as it can be to stop as fast as possible is just massively negligent and selfish. A front brake is so much more effective than a rear brake, which in turn is a lot more effective than a skidding tyre.
Not necessarily a problem - again remembering the standard of proof required, it simply has to be shown that his actions weren't unreasonable. I'm not sure speculation on the thought processes of the defendant is admissible evidence!
Will be interesting to see how it goes as I expect the prosecution will counter each and every claim from the defendant on why he didn't stop, given there was plenty of time (which appears to be a key claim of theirs), with their proposition being the only reason was because he couldn't.
It's almost the best reason to make sure you have a road legal bike because at least that argument can't then be used. That plus the abject stupidity involved in riding a bike without effective brakes in London traffic of course.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]To ride around on a bike that is not as fully equiped as it can be to stop as fast as possible is just massively negligent and selfish. A front brake is so much more effective than a rear brake, which in turn is a lot more effective than a skidding tyre.
It is, but that doesn't mean it was the cause of the death, which is what is being argued about (not the only thing being argued about, though if I was defending him I'd be trying to show that his lack of brakes was irrelevant - IANAL).
It is, but that doesn't mean it was the cause of the death,
Does it need to be the cause or does it just need to be a contributing factor? Even the argument about there not being enough time to stop even on a bike with brakes could be countered by the prosecution if there was at least time to slow down, potentially to the extent that the accident wouldn't then be fatal.
Without the no brakes thing I doubt there would even be a prosecution as even if the cyclist made the "wrong" decision in how he attempted to avoid the pedestrian (who clearly contributes significantly given they'd stepped onto the road without ensuring it was safe to do so, especially as there was a crossing not all that far away) he wouldn't have been denied a key option due to his illegal, brakeless bike.
Though if you're making that argument, then an emergency stop is equally (or more) likely to cause issues with a car behind you - the only possible issue with a car behind when swerving is if that car is attempting to overtake you, and given the circumstances of a pedestrian having entered the road the bets are off regarding the behaviour of any driver still overtaking.
A driver is is unlikely to position his car directly behind a cyclist, since he/she will probably be looking to overtake at the first opportunity (unless the road is extremely narrow and/or the cyclist is in primary position). Swerving suddenly into the middle of the lane is going to be inherently dangerous: it is likely to put the cyclist directly in front of the middle of the car, and make it much more difficult/impossible for the driver to likewise take avoiding action and swerve to miss the cyclist.
A driver probably has a better chance of avoiding a cyclist who comes to a sudden stop in a straight line, and I would hope that if I took any kind of evasive manoeuvre in those circumstances, it would be instinctively to bail out/crash to the left (over the kerb and onto the pavement).
[quote=epicsteve ]I expect the prosecution will counter each and every claim from the defendant on why he didn't stop, given there was plenty of time (which appears to be a key claim of theirs), with their proposition being the only reason was because he couldn't.
That isn't really how it works - the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the only reason he didn't stop, when swerving around a pedestrian in the road is clearly a course of action cyclists take even with working brakes. Plenty of reasonable doubt in that assertion.
[quote=epicsteve ]Even the argument about there not being enough time to stop even on a bike with brakes could be countered by the prosecution if there was at least time to slow down, potentially to the extent that the accident wouldn't then be fatal.
Probably wouldn't be fatal - if the prosecution was using that argument all the defence would have to show is a possibility of the death still occurring (pretty hard for the prosecution to counter). Reasonable doubt.
Honestly the more I think about this, the more I think if the cyclist has a decent barrister he'll get off - though like all of us I'm still working on guesswork based on the reporting.
I'm surprised the CPS have pursued a manslaughter charge, do we know what particular flavour of 'Manslaughter' is he actually accused of?
The requirement for safety features on bicycles exist, and I doubt he could claim to be unaware that a bicycle is supposed to have two working brakes to be used on the road in the UK... so there is an area of contributing negligence that falls squarely on the accused.
A driver in similar circumstances would probably have a causing death by careless driving (the careless act being a lack of proper vehicle maintenance or using a non-road legal vehicle) but there is no direct equivalent charge for a cyclist... So they've opted for Manslaughter as quick cover all charge...
He may be able to challenge the charge on the basis of his intent though; he didn't go out looking to collide with and injure/kill a pedestrian, he attempted to warn her and take some avoiding action, The deceased's own actions [i]may[/i] have been a contributing factor, so there is possibly a case for some "lesser" charge to be pleaded guilty to, but what charge would fit? [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence ]'Recklessness' or 'neglect' leading to a death?[/url] in order for a manslaughter charge to be found I believe the prosecution need to essentially make a "Gross negligence" case stick.
which are subtly different but can still carry significant prison sentences. He undoubtedly deserves to be found guilty of something, but I don't believe 'manslaughter' is quite right...
The charge is of course meant to be a headline grabber, the goal being to assuage some of the more negative public/media sentiment pitched towards cyclists, and rather visibly punish one under the guise of deterrence. Of course you have to question the appropriateness of prosecuting and potentially sentencing some vapid Shoreditch, hipster along the same lines as a drunken, fighty Saturday night meathead, would the public interest really be served by imprisoning him?
I'm surprised the CPS have pursued a manslaughter charge, do we know what particular flavour of 'Manslaughter' is he actually accused of?
Involuntary probably - doesn't need intent I think.
"Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation."
3.8 seconds seems like plenty of time to stop to me. Can't find good info on bike stopping times but from 20mph on a motorbike it's supposed to be something like 1.8s to stop (including reaction time).
More GCSE Physics;
v=u+at, so t = u/a and bikes can stop at about 1g but this is very hard to do, if you assume 0.5 g then
14 mph = 6.26 m/s, so t = 6.26/(0.5*9.8) = 1.3 seconds
18 mph = 1.6 seconds.
Add on some reaction time to that. The fixie will be stopping at no more than 0.5g based on the testing by MIT.
Theory is fine, but the practical is much harder. I ran a coaching session with riders testing their brakes for emergency stops. The pre-session bike checking was the most careful I've ever done!
I thought the [url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/crash-cyclist-shouted-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded ]Guardian report[/url] contained a couple of interesting points
Firstly the bike which was used to determine the stopping distance with brakes was not the same or a similar fixed gear bike fitted with a front brake, but a mountain bike, presumably fitted with front and rear (disc?) brakes.
Secondly, the hypothetical argument posed by the defence lawyer to the expert Police witness:
“I’m an experienced courier. I’ve got two years’ experience as a courier running around central London. I’ve been riding fixed-wheel bikes since 2014 and, whilst the bike is new to me, I’m very familiar with road bikes without front brakes. Would that put me in a better position to navigate hazards than a serving police officer?”
That line of argument overlooks the fact that his client failed to navigate the hazard posed by the woman who died, and seems to suggest that if you've got skillz, then the rules don't apply to you.
[quote=kerley ]
Riding a fixie is like removing the brakes from your car and relying on the engine to slow you down
Only if you don't know how to stop. Resisting the pedals to come to a stop is really not how you stop a fixed wheel bike and that is what would almost equate to engine braking but even then not really.
The only way to stop quickly on a fixed gear is skid stopping (lots of little skids not one long skid) and as far as I know you can't do that in your brakeless car...
That can't be right? I'd have thought that the tyre skidding is a sign that you've exceeded the amount of retardation that your legs can supply (even momentarily). That's why it's a number of little skids - you're attempting to pass through that sweet stop of maximum braking but no skidding. If you were good enough, you'd know exactly just how much pressure that required and be able to control so as not to skid at all.
Just like engine braking then.
Sounds like he fits the definition of involuntary manslaughter to a tee!
Sounds like he fits the definition of involuntary manslaughter to a tee!
100% sounds like it was written for this exact situation
It also sounds as though involuntary manslaughter fits almost every case of death by inadequate driving, so why isn't it used there?
he didn't go out looking to collide with and injure/kill a pedestrian
if you go out in London traffic with all those pedestrians about with an ill equiped bike that can't stop in time then effectively you are going out with a reasonable expectation that you are going to hit some pedestrians and probably injure them. Killing he might not have expected but his reaction indicates that the collision was not that unexpected.
if he did it intentionally then it would be murder so no he did not intend to kill anyone hence the manslaughter charge
That line of argument overlooks the fact that his client failed to navigate the hazard posed by the woman who died, and seems to suggest that if you've got skillz, then the rules don't apply to you
It seems to say n experienced cyclist how rides fixie will be better at stopping than a copper who does not ride bikes never mind fixies
I cannot speak for others but the volume of cycling i have done and experience does lead me to consider myself better than a non cyclist at riding a bike
YMMV
NB Not true if we are discussing fixies as i have ridden one twice [ which is still probably more often than most people including the hypothetical person on the bus but not hipsters .
Just like engine braking then.
Absolutely nothing like engine braking. Engine braking does not apply many small skids to the driven wheels, in fact it doesn't even try to stop the wheel at all and just slows them down (fairly gently)
I can very safely ride around and stop effectively on my brakeless bike but I would not even attempt to drive a car without brakes. It is really not comparable in any way.
Have the people here arguing against stopping on a fixed brakeless bike ever ridden one for a number of months and have any experience in stopping one?
No need to answer, the comments make it very obvious that you haven't...