Forum menu
All these people saying a skilled rider on a fixie can brake as effectively as if they were on a legally equipped bike seem to be missing the key point.
Maybe, but as importantly, they clearly don't know what effective braking is. Laws of physics do not change for awesomely skilled riders no matter how awesome their skills are.
He failed to brake and hit her, so he's proved himself not to be that skilled rider and exactly the person the law on proper brakes was aimed at. Whether he would have hit her on legal bike is another point
Um
Where to begin?
Whens your next column Bez, I've been waiting ages!
Was working as a courier for 8 years in London (with 2 disc brakes). I don't know how the couriers that ride fixed without a front brake do it. But they seem to manage and ride very fast.
I did hit a woman once who walked out on her phone from a crowd waiting to cross. There was not even time to think about braking, if I'd have hurt her I would have still felt terrible though. As it happened she was fine and I had concussion.
I have one. Of course the track bike fork must be drilled for a brake, but if one is so worried about the aero effects of a hole, you can plug it.
so the brake is a fair distance from where you hands are likely to be, so increasing braking time, and you have no plugs, so if you do hit someone you are likely to inflict a serious injury ?
I have bars like that and brakes at the bar ends so I can apply them quickly. You can get them from Brick Lane Bikes, so that must count as fashionably good enough. surely ?
Whens your next column Bez, I've been waiting ages!
Er, dunno. I should probably sort that out.
Er, dunno. I should probably sort that out.
Please, I always enjoy your columns and blogs on The Kerb
Anyone that removes legally required safety devices (from anything) purely to look cool, is a complete idiot.Doing so is entirely unreasonable.
Have you got a bell and reflectors on your bike?
A bell isn't required except at the point of sale of a complete bike, I happen to have one on my commuter. All my bikes have reflectors.
Oh heck, I've just remembered that I ride my brakeless unicycles on the road - I'm one of them aren't I?
Oh heck, I've just remembered that I ride my brakeless unicycles on the road - I'm one of them aren't I?
Unless you've got one of them new-fangled unicycles with a chain, you're ok.
Have you got a bell and reflectors on your bike?
Yes.
I have a bell on my Off-road bike, and both a bell and reflectors on the one that goes on the road (which is rare)
Edit- in fact, it's got extra reflectors as it's got 3m reflective tape on the stays/forks.
Whether he would have hit her on legal bike is another point
And a very important point. If he had been riding a bike with 2 brakes but rather than using them decided to swerve but ended up hitting the pedestrian the lack of brakes is not really the issue.
If he had wanted to stop even a fairly inexperienced fixed gear rider could stop from 14mph in 25 metres.
If he had wanted to stop
If
Seriously, is there even one good reason not to have at least a front brake fitted
After years of riding with one I realised I didn't need it and could stop pretty much as quickly without using it.
Same reason, to a lesser extent) that a lot of people don't run a rear brake (they don't need it)
It was not for hipster, fashion, looking cool unless I am trying to impress the horses I ride by.
Not needing a front brake up the world of lovely old steel track bikes with beautiful fork crowns that cannot be drilled for a brake.
If that is not a good reason I don't know what is.
We should thank kerley for possibly making the most pertinent contribution to this thread and giving us an insight into what is probably the same self-entitled and selfish mindset that the accussed has.
Even if you can stop in an impressive distance, that distance would always be shorter with the application of a front brake, thereby decreasing the chances of seriously injuring whoever you might hit.
So by implication this means that you don't really care about injuring someone else in such a situation, which does sound a lot like the accussed.
A bike with 2 brakes will stop more quickly than a bike with 1 brake.
A brakeless fixie on the road will have less control than a bike with standard brakes, because you can either skid the back wheel, or you can use your legs to slow the wheel...but a proper brake will be better.
Disc brakes are good
Big disc brakes are better
[quote=kerley ]After years of riding with one I realised I didn't need it and could stop pretty much as quickly without using it.
Are you 12? On school holidays? Because I wasn't much older than that when I learnt the physics which shows that can't possibly be true.
[quote=Tim ]Big disc brakes are better
I prefer 622s on my road bike.
Perhaps kerley would like to appear as an expert witness in this trial? Though I'm not sure if he should be for the prosecution or defence?
Not needing a front brake up the world of lovely old steel track bikes with beautiful fork crowns that cannot be drilled for a brake.
If that is not a good reason I don't know what is.
It's not and there isn't one.
I almost (almost) feel sorry for the defendant. Basically a combination of fashion victim/arrogance of youth with the most disasterous outcome imaginable.
From reading drivel like the quoted text, I think this case needs a guilty verdict to set an example for all the other arrogant tossers.
I had someone looking the wrong way up a one way street, on their phone and then stepped out and very nearly took me out.
I was coming down the hill at about 30mph with a car on my tail, there is no way I could have stopped in time, but I could shout multiple warnings, which stopped her at the last moment.
[quote=Tallpaul ]I almost (almost) feel sorry for the defendant.
I would if he came across more sympathetically in what he said and wrote post accident.
The primary cause of the collision still appears to be a pedestrian walking into the road without looking properly whilst distracted by a phone (if reports of that are to be believed). But as I'd suggest with cyclists doing silly things on the roads, the penalty for that shouldn't be death and it's hard to get away from the possibility that the collision might have been avoidable by somebody with a different attitude.
But as I'd suggest with cyclists doing silly things on the roads, the penalty for that shouldn't be death and it's hard to get away from the possibility that the collision might have been avoidable by somebody with a different attitude.
Perhaps if she had been wearing a helmet and hi-vis...
Back to semi-sensible discussion (i.e. ignoring kerley's contribution) - as others have said, proving that he was breaking the law and someone has died does not prove manslaughter.
I suspect the penalty for riding a non-compliant bike is a bit lower than for manslaughter, hence the charge. I would also suspect that he has also been charged with riding an bike without adequate brakes, and I have heard other charges also.
Not needing a front brake up the world of lovely old steel track bikes with beautiful fork crowns that cannot be drilled for a brake.
If that is not a good reason I don't know what is.
Right. So it [b]is [/b]just a fashion thing then 🙄
That's not even close to a good reason.
Massive fail kerley. Sorry.
A bike with 2 brakes will stop more quickly than a bike with 1 brake.
Actually, that one's up for debate. Depending on where the centre of mass can (or rather can't) be positioned, the rear brake may be theoretically redundant.
^ also the depends on the quality of each brake! lots of people riding clunkers with dreadful, rusty brakes around here.
so the brake is a fair distance from where you hands are likely to be, so increasing braking time, and you have no plugs, so if you do hit someone you are likely to inflict a serious injury ?
That's not my bike, obviously - it was an example of the Goldfinger easily removable clamping brake lever! Two bolts and the brake system is off the bike. Takes almost no time.
Mine clamps to a set of track drops plugged of course), and obviously I cover the brake lever when riding in traffic - from Dulwich to Herne Hill if I'm riding there. My normal fixed wheel bike has standard drop bar brake levers.
If that is not a good reason I don't know what is.
Is this a troll's tell? 😉
[quote=ninfan ]Perhaps if she had been wearing a helmet and hi-vis...
I'm expecting the defence barrister to bring that up 😉
Perhaps if she had been wearing a helmet and hi-vis
Actually I was looking at some data which suggests that there are significantly more pedestrian traffic deaths than cyclists, and a majority of those the cause of death is head trauma, so there is evidence to suggest that more benefit would be derived from getting pedestrians to wear helmets rather than cyclists.
Yup, roughly three times more. And car occupant head injuries outstrip both.
But we digress…
It's not even a particularly stupid comment in the circumstances - based on the limited evidence available there seems a good chance a helmet would have saved her life - it appears to be the sort of impact they protect against.
This case comes to mind: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918
wrong post
Devil's advocate and I'm sure it's been said but I can't be bothered reading all the pages.....
If this was a car driver this forum would be baying for blood, the pedestrian walking out with no warning happens all the time to car drivers and the standard line trotted out on here is to drive defensively and expect the unexpected.....seems when a cyclist mows someone down the forum has an outpouring of sympathy and indulges in a spot of victim blaming the likes of which gets vilified when a car driver does it.
None as pious and holier than thou as a group of cyclists eh?
None as pious and holier than thou as a group of cyclists eh
No,just a bunch of people thinking it would be nice if journalists, policemen and lawyers displayed the same level of concern and moral outrage over the hundreds of killer drivers as they have over one (allegedly) killer cyclist.
Sorry, I'm sure it's probably been said already but too lazy to read though 8 pages of comments..
Surely, even with a properly braked bike, you should ride at a speed that you are able to stop safely at? Yes a front brake may well have helped in this case, but if he was going too fast to stop or avoid this accident, regardless of the bikes condition, he is at fault entirely, and has very little to defend himself.
f this was a car driver this forum would be baying for blood
If you read the thread you'd probably see that most people aren't supporting the cyclist in this particular case (other than the very occasional fixie riding God to whom physics apparently does not apply). Quite a few folks suggesting they don't think the manslaughter charge will be provable, but that's not the same as supporting the defendant.
I can't be bothered reading all the pages.....
ermm.....
you probably should read the other pages; my summary would be that we are broadly in agreement (with 1-2 exceptions) that not having brakes is a ****ty idea, that he deserves what is coming to him, and really the only discrepancy is why making a conscious choice to not have a brake leads to a manslaughter charge whereas making a conscious choice to *exceed the speed limit / use your phone / insert example of your choice* while driving leads usually to an 'unlucky, could happen to anyone' charge of being careless.
Surely, even with a properly braked bike, you should ride at a speed that you are able to stop safely at?
Is that practical if you are riding on the road and a pedestrian just steps out? What speed would you regard as safe if someone could step out right in front of you?
Not saying that sit situation in this the case (i.e. the prosecution argument being that if he had proper brakes he'd have been able to stop), but it's difficult to see what a safe speed is for any road user if you applied those rules.
[quote=deviant ]Devil's advocate and I'm sure it's been said but I can't be bothered reading all the pages.....
If this was a car driver this forum would be baying for blood
...
None as pious and holier than thou as a group of cyclists eh?
Top STW there - can't be bothered to read all the comments, so assumes what people are saying 😆
Nice summary steve and jon - I've been pleasantly surprised not to be shot down for suggesting the cyclist probably has a reasonable defence (but then you'd have to read the whole thread to work out my attitude rather than take a single post in isolation).
Is that practical if you are riding on the road and a pedestrian just steps out? What speed would you regard as safe if someone could step out right in front of you?
sadly there's no black and white answer to this. At the risk of going off topic, we've seen in the past the classic smidsy response to being pulled out on by cars and people then saying it's entirely the driver's fault (which it is) and others (like me) saying even so, we have to ride within [i]reasonable[/i] limits because in most cases we're the ones who end up injured / dead. And while your assessment of the risk might lead to a different idea of reasonable, I'd gain no satisfaction from being 100% blameless but also badly injured / having badly injured someone if i felt there were reasonable steps i could have taken to avoid it.
(and included in that would be stuff like having brakes, fwiw)
Actually, that one's up for debate. Depending on where the centre of mass can (or rather can't) be positioned, the rear brake may be theoretically redundant.
True, I know what you mean, but generally surely a decent brake will offer more control and braking power than a locked wheel or using your legs to slow a wheel
Surely, even with a properly braked bike, you should ride at a speed that you are able to stop safely at?
That depends how far ahead of you the pedestrian steps out, doesn't it?
the cyclist probably has a reasonable defence
His defence is almost certainly that his lack of brakes didn't create a risk of harm to the deceased that isn't there on a legal bike - it has to be given the argument that the prosecution are constructing. This thread shows that this could be accepted by some people and rejected by others so it will come down to the lawyers and the jury.
He's a knob, but that isn't illegal. Might prejudice a jury though...