[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

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

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

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...

though if I was defending him I'd be trying to show that his lack of brakes was irrelevant

So would I as I don't believe the lack of brakes was relevant. However it does then lead to the question of why they didn't bother try to slow down/stop, why they risked carrying on regardless etc,.

Although you could then argue that they thought they would make it, the person would move like they always did before etc,. but they misjudged it. A person dying was a very, very unfortunate and unlikely outcome.

Absolutely nothing like engine braking

More like ABS I'd say, a locked wheel is no good to anyone when braking so you'd try to manually keep the brakes on the edge of a skid with a rapid on /off to keep maximum braking potential without losing control?

Computers are probably a lot better at that than hipsters.

It also sounds as though involuntary manslaughter fits almost every case of death by inadequate driving, so why isn't it used there?

I think that death by dangerous driving is legally a form of involuntary manslaughter. From wiki:
"Because of a reluctance by juries to convict when the charge was manslaughter, a statutory offence of "causing death by dangerous driving" was introduced. Following the Road Traffic Law Review Committee (1988), the Road Traffic Act 1991 abandoned recklessness in favour of the pre-statutory objective test of "dangerousness", i.e. did the driving fall far below the standard of the competent and careful driver. The Committee also recommended that manslaughter should be an optional charge for the more serious driving cases. There is the possibility of charging an aggravated taking without consent for less seriously dangerous driving where death results. An equivalent, in many American states, to motor manslaughter, is vehicular homicide. An equivalent to causing death by dangerous driving in Canada under the Criminal Code is Causing death by criminal negligence."

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

Fair comment - I was (somewhat intentionally) missing the lawyer's point. It does surprise me that the testing was not more rigorous and scientific, including comparing the bike involved in the accident with the same or similar bike fitted with the legal minimum front brake (as opposed to a mountain bike) and also getting one or two experienced fixed riders who were used to leg braking to perform the test.

What the prosecution are trying to prove is:

This is where the killing is the result of:

[list][*]the defendant's unlawful act (not omission);[/*]
[*]where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183;[/*]
[*]whether or not the defendant realised this.[/*][/list]

If those two conditions are true, the guy is guilty.

Because of the unlawful act (riding a fixie), the bar is set differently to if it were a case of gross negligence. If he was riding a normal bike, it would be easier to argue a way out of negligence. But he wasn't and negligence doesn't appear to be the basis of the manslaughter charge.

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. Probably not.

Because most people aren't ****ing stupid enough to ride a bike on the road with no brakes.

Some people clearly are that stupid. Which is a shame for the woman who died, and her family.

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?

I have a club-mate who races on the track (he's part of the German national team set-up) and all his road bikes have brakes.

I don't care how good a fixie rider you are in your imagination - there is no hiding from physics.

You put that a lot better than I could have done Neal. Well said.

It is so difficult to dissect and discuss these court cases - any court case really - from press coverage, which can never be as thorough or detailed as the evidence led and examined in minute detail in court, nor can we hear the detailed legal arguments that take place regarding the law(s) in question, and on top of that we can't see the demeanour of the witnesses and accused to form an opinion on their credibility like the jury can.

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...

Thanks, I ride a hundred miles a week on a fixed wheel bike. I've also ridden brakeless in training for (and raced) the London Nocturn fixed wheel criteriums. I would not have dreamed of riding in heavy traffic in London with such poor braking. And yourself?

I've also had to give evidence in a fatal cycling accident, and know the difference between what the media are reporting and the necessary establishment of facts.

The fact is the defendant was riding a bicycle that was defective in the eyes of the law. Said defendant was involved in a fatal accident. That he chose to do so may be contributory to a manslaughter charge. I personally think it will not be proven beyond reasonable doubt - hence the second "furious" charge, but that is speculation.

It is also a fact that stopping a fixie is inferior to stopping a bike with caliper brakes. That is the root of the argument.

The actions of the pedestrian may not have helped her cause, but sadly she is not here to give her side of the story.

Sounds like he fits the definition of involuntary manslaughter to a tee!

100% sounds like it was written for this exact situation

For involuntary manslaughter the prosecution still need to effectively demonstrate 'gross negligence' and that's not as clear cut as you might think, as ever it comes down to the same old estimation of what a "reasonable person" would consider negligent and the prefixing of that measure with the word "gross" means that the degree of negligence has to be demonstrated to be far below plain old "regular" negligence...

It's about degrees of culpability and demonstrating where the defendant sits on a scale which is open to interpretation...

I'm not saying he's in the right, I'm simply questioning the appropriateness of the charge...

The CPS may simply be playing the same game they do with driving offences, take a dangerous driving charge to court expecting a canny defence to advise their client to plead guilty to careless driving in order to avoid prison...

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?

I have some relevant experience ~4.5 years commuting on a fixie (with a front brake) in all weathers.

IME you can't really do "emergency braking" through the pedals, panic and lock the pedals and the rear wheel will most likely kick you up the arse while your inertia still carries you forward, you can however do controlled deceleration, over a bit of distance... A front brake is really a necessity and I would advise anyone considering fixed on the road to ideally have both front and rear brakes...

I have in the last few months gone back to a freewheel, simply because my commute now includes a couple of fairly steep descents and having my legs flying round isn't so fun...

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?

1. A brakeless fixie can be stopped.
2. A fixie with an additional front brake can be stopped more quickly.
3. A brakeless fixie is not legally roadworthy.
4. A fixie with an additional front brake is legally roadworthy.

These four points are all matters of fact, not opinion.

The only other pertinent fixie-related detail is the degree of difference between points 1 and 2, the significance of which (among other things) is for the court to decide based on the available evidence and the investigators' reports.

For involuntary manslaughter the prosecution still need to effectively demonstrate 'gross negligence'

Nope...

No negligence required, just an unlawful act that could reasonably be foreseen to put someone at risk of harm.

Just seen this reported on the BBC 10 o'clock news, loads about the cyclist killing the woman, shouting at her on the ground, no mention of the key point about the bike being a fixie, thanks BBC for dumbing down an important issue and providing further fodder for the anti cyclist lobby.

[quote=slowster ]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.

That isn't the point though - plenty of drivers fail to negotiate hazards on the road and aren't even prosecuted, the question is whether his skill levels were such that the chances of him hitting her were no higher than if he had fully working brakes, not whether he ultimately failed. Nobody is suggesting that the rules don't apply - he's not being prosecuted for breaking the rules (which would be an open and shut case).

[quote=kerley ]However it does then lead to the question of why they didn't bother try to slow down/stop, why they risked carrying on regardless etc,.

I think he did slow down a bit - however as explained above, the obvious thing to do is simply to swerve to avoid the pedestrian which should be sufficient to avoid a collision, and if he considered he could avoid a collision that way it's not completely unreasonable for him not to come to a complete stop (we're talking about a bike and a pedestrian here - on a typical carriageway you should be able to fit at least 2 bikes and 2 pedestrians).

Regarding the other argument going on, I have a fixie, it has a front brake, I wouldn't dream of riding it on the road without one (though it has no rear brake - so shoot me). Clearly the stopping distance is significantly more without a front brake, I'm not sure why there is any debate about this. Personally I rarely use the brake, preferring to control speed through my legs, but it's there if I need it.

As for the correct outcome I'm a bit torn - despite the arguments I'm making above I won't shed any tears if he's found guilty, I reckon he has been negligent and whilst I can excuse any comments he made in the heat of the moment, his comments on social media later are pretty cold and heartless. However I'd feel pretty uncomfortable if he gets a significantly harsher sentence than those killing with motor vehicles with a similar level of culpability (which is quite low relatively IMHO - most drivers who kill have made a similar conscious decision to do something illegal).

he's not being prosecuted for breaking the rules (which would be an open and shut case).

He is really.
As explained in the definition of involuntary manslaughter. It requires an unlawful act (riding a bike with no brakes)

Yes, but it also has other requirements - he's not being prosecuted just for breaking the rules would have been better wording. I don't think there is any dispute over whether he broke the rules, I doubt the defence barrister is bothering wasting any time on that (unless there's some flaw with the prosecution case on that point).

if you've got skillz, then the rules don't apply to you

I'm going to be gutted if this isn't fact!

Apart from the matter of legality, for me this raises one question: why would anyone be so stupid as to sacrifice their ability to stop quickly when necessary? Just to look cool? Utterly pathetic, if you ask me. Fixie riders: stay on the track, where you belong.

most drivers who kill have made a similar conscious decision to do something illegal

May well be different here, unless there's one or more cyclists in there.