[Closed] Charged with manslaughter: Riding a fixie

None as pious and holier than thou as a group of cyclists eh?

None as pious and holier than thou as someone who doesn't read the thread but still can't help potificating incorrectly about its content.

Bravo sir. And a big facepalm trophy for you.

A completely non-equivalent issue - if you drove a track car on the road and got stopped by the police (without committing any other offence) then you would have the book thrown at you in a way which would never happen if stopped on a track bike. The level of offence committed is on a totally different scale. Rightly so given the relative level of danger (which is recognised with all sorts of things you require to take a car on the road, but not a bike).

Is that true though?
A quick Google (and I'm really sorry for the Daily Wail links) shows several examples of crashes, near misses etc caused by turning normally road-legal cars into what are, to all intents and purposes, track cars:
http://www.****/news/article-4533234/Driver-120-000-Audi-R8-spins-control.html

http://www.****/news/article-4264366/Super-car-rubbish-driver-Motorist-nearly-crashes.html

No action taken, no prosecution (OK no death was caused so not exactly the same outcome), just let insurance sort it out.

This one is probably closer:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/petrol-head-killed-girlfriend-crashed-9376824

Modified car (though no mention as to whether it remained road-legal) and a charge of death by dangerous driving: guilty and 40 months jail plus a 5 year driving ban.

Right. So it is just a fashion thing then

That's not even close to a good reason.

Fashion for what reason? I don't ride amongst other people/cyclists so nobody else would even know what bike I am riding. It is about appreciation of a minimalist bike, again a very good reason for someone who is into bikes.

There is only one way to prove this to any of you. If anyone lives near the New Forest I am more than happy to show you the difference. We will ride along at 15 mph and both stop as quickly as possible - you using your front brake, me skid stopping.

Without doing that you are just making empty assumptions (and being fairly rude to someone just discussing a point - notice I am not defending the cyclist but discussing how less effective not having a front brake is)

None as pious and holier than thou as a group of cyclists eh?

Oh yes there are, STWers spring to mind, put "normal" cyclists to shame in that regard.

Expecting the met to start confiscating bikes with no brakes off the back of this court case.

They have the resources to police a 100m section of closed cycle path in Hyde Park to ensure cyclists dismount due to having to share the section with pedestrians, so I can't see there being any issue.

Stop people like this cool looking bloke:

[quote=crazy-legs ]Is that true though?
A quick Google (and I'm really sorry for the Daily Wail links) shows several examples of crashes, near misses etc caused by turning normally road-legal cars into what are, to all intents and purposes, track cars:

Eh? They might be high powered cars (and arguably quite dangerous to drive on the road), but they're totally standard road legal cars - at least the reporting doesn't suggest otherwise. Hence nothing like a track car in a legal sense - I think you've completely missed the point (the original suggestion was a track car which was never designed to be used on the road).

Without doing that you are just making empty assumptions (and being fairly rude to someone just discussing a point - notice I am not defending the cyclist but discussing how less effective not having a front brake is)

I'd love to take you up on that, but will be a while before I can get down. I'll even ride my fixed wheel down to compare if you like. Mine is 78 inches though, and I can't skid stop it easily.

I haven't been rude, and I pointed you to a very nice academic study by MIT that showed that a fixie will struggle to decelerate at 0.5g, and fails to meet the Massachusetts and Oregon standards for effective stopping distances. The UK has no such standards, but clearly requires a bike to have two independent brakes, (at least ) one of which must act on the front wheel (trikes typically have two acting on the front wheel).

Btw, any trial should focus on emergency braking, not planned stopping. And any trial would use both brakes not just the front. I can even bring a bolt on front brake to add to your bike to test for an improvement 😉

Without doing that you are just making empty assumptions

There are mathematical proofs showing that a)front brake is more effective than a rear brake; b) Controlled braking is more effective than skidding.

Observations based on mathematical proofs are hardly empty assumptions now are they.

But you can come to my office with your fixie to do some tests using survey grade differential GNSS equipment.

I don't understand how anyone who has ridden a bike with decent brakes could believe that the rear brake is as effective as the front. It's directly contradicted by experience every time you try to stop quickly.

I don't understand how anyone who has ridden a bike with decent brakes could believe that the rear brake is as effective as the front

That's why the big disc is on the front, isn't it?

Braking heavily (with any system) unweights the back wheel, making it less effective and more likely to lock.

Modified cars-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/boy-racers-told-you-modify-11666052

All modifications are meant to be notified to insurance co's but I'd hazard a guess that most modified cars are not.

I really hope the jury is giving it this much thought.
Hopefully they are not a bunch of right weapons though.

(I lived right by the New Forest for 20 years and would of loved to have taken up the challenge right up till about a year ago when I moved away)

There was quite a big "fixie scene" in Southampton a few years back, I've seen some fairly skilled riders do some cool shit, including stopping from pace in a quick and controlled manner.

But none of them stopped as quickly as I managed when A car pulled out in front of me without looking. I was very grateful for good, working brakes in that instance.

MrPottatoHead - Member
...Personally I do think jaywalking should be a crime in the UK on certain roads...

No. Driving or riding at speeds when you can't stop in time for an unexpected event should be a crime.

So should driving when blind. "ISMIDSY" should be an admission of guilt, not an excuse.

MrSmith - Member
I really hope the jury is giving it this much thought.

😆 sure they are

Jury service was an eye opener for me, before that I naively thought that most people are basically good hearted and intelligent enough to understand basic information.

Last time I looked, track cars have brakes. Front and rear.

[quote=MrPottatoHead ]Personally I do think jaywalking should be a crime in the UK on certain roads.

It already is https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35#rule6

aracer - Member
"MrPottatoHead » Personally I do think jaywalking should be a crime in the UK on certain roads."
It already is https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35#rule6
br />

All that is purely advisory except the bits that say MUST NOT.

So today's update claims he was travelling at 18mph:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40960346 ]BBC[/url]
That's really not that fast on a road bike, so hardly riding furiously.

I really don't understand why anyone would ride a fixie anywhere other than a track race though and I'm not defending the lack of a front brake.

If the deceased did step out in front of him whilst not paying attention (allegedly on the phone, which should easily be verifiable) then no way should he be convicted of manslaughter, especially when you see how rarely a motorist is convicted of such offences in much less questionable scenarios.

[quote=epicyclo ]All that is purely advisory except the bits that say MUST NOT.

Like the bit in the link I gave? 🙄

That's really not that fast on a road bike, so hardly riding furiously.

You could probably claim context on that one as well.
18mph through a crowded pedestrianised precinct or on a busy congested section of the London FreeCycle course (with families, kids etc) probably counts as "riding furiously".
18mph on a city street is proabbly about the same speed as most of the cars if not slightly quicker.
18mph on an A-road means you're in the bloody way and a danger to all those hard-working, law-abiding motorists who may have to slow down momentarily.

Part of the problem here is that to a jury of non-cyclists, 18mph is far faster than they've ever ridden on a bike therefore it's reckless, dangerous blah blah.

In spite of the fact that if it was a 20mph zone and they were in a vehicle, it's virtually certain that they'd be exceeding that limit given half a chance.

aracer - Member
epicyclo » All that is purely advisory except the bits that say MUST NOT.
Like the bit in the link I gave?

There no mention of jaywalking as a crime though, is there? Just certain prohibited places like motorways and behaviour on crossings.

The roads belong to people, drivers of cars are just licensed to use them. The behaviour of drivers has turned each city block into an island whereas once people used to throng on the roads between them. It would be hard to go back though.

That BBC article reports on the charge against him, which from what I can tell is this:-

35 Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years

So I'd say that the prosecution needs to prove:-
- "wanton or furious driving" - that would reflect his speed, the maintenance of his bike, its legal compliance etc up to the point that his "driving" his bike is "wanton". Perhaps a less likely test to be passed beyond reasonable doubt due to the level of intent required
OR
- "wilful misconduct" - that would require some evidence of deliberately trying to hit her, even if mischieveously, which I don't think is being offered as a route of prosecution
OR
- "wilful neglect" - that could equally pivot around the absence of a road legal bike, and then on evidence as to a) the contributory effect of a bike's inability to slow if a front brake isn't present and b) whether the woman who died did something that he could not reasonably have been expected to respond to, even if his bike had had a front brake

Note that "wilful" is a well defined and understood legal term and "wilful neglect" will also be well understood by the judge as a concept.

Also of note from that is the bike - from reading here I'd have put him on a flat bar, trendy, 70s styled commuter. This looks like a carbon track bike to me, designed and intended to be ridden fast on a track, and therefore in the same mode on the road if used as such? Doesn't look like fashion vs safety, looks like speed vs safety.

If the deceased did step out in front of him whilst not paying attention (allegedly on the phone, which should easily be verifiable) then no way should he be convicted of manslaughter

Despite the various definitions of manslaughter previously discussed fitting the situation perfectly ?

Doesn't look like fashion vs safety, looks like speed vs safety.

From his social media postings it looked like he bought the track bike because he thought it made him cool. Most of his social media posts on fixie riding have been fashion/looks related.

nealglover - Member
If the deceased did step out in front of him whilst not paying attention (allegedly on the phone, which should easily be verifiable) then no way should he be convicted of manslaughter
Despite the various definitions of manslaughter previously discussed fitting the situation perfectly ?

And I have not had time to read the whole 9 pages, nor am I a practising law professional, nor am I on the jury, so my opinion means squat, much like all of the others here.

If the deceased did step out in front of him whilst not paying attention (allegedly on the phone, which should easily be verifiable) then no way should he be convicted of manslaughte

My view is that a conviction for manslaughter is perhaps unlikely, but that choosing to ride a bike without effective brakes and then killing someone could certainly fit the bill for involuntary manslaughter.

So I should clarify - if she stepped out directly in front of him giving him no opportunity to avoid the collision (in in effect failed to give way) then he is not at fault.

If he had time to shout twice then wouldn't he have also have had time to at least start braking, and therefore at lower the likely-hood of the impact being fatal, had he actually had brakes?

The defendant is in the witness box today according to the media, but there has been no reporting of yesterday's evidence/proceedings.

I am puzzled that there has apparently been no further challenging of the prosecution's technical evidence from the police crash investigator/expert, some aspects of which sound highly questionable, e.g. the use of a mountain bike for comparison of braking performance with the track bike, and its reported 3m stopping distance.

Maybe the defence will be producing its own technical expert witness and test results after the defendant's own testimony, but I would have thought it would be better to rebut the prosecution's expert witness without delay. Also the reporting of the defendant's lawyer's cross examination of the police expert witness did not seem to suggest that the defence would be producing its own expert witness evidence and testing which would contradict and undermine the prosecution evidence. However, we are only getting very limited second hand - and possibly inaccurate - snippets from the press.

This looks like a carbon track bike to me, designed and intended to be ridden fast on a track, and therefore in the same mode on the road if used as such?

Not necessarily , I have the same bike, it's a Planet X carbon track bike, for road use I'd be knocking the gearing back a fair amount from the ratio I had is set up for on the track, and for most people this would limit the top speed. It would be easy enough to ride it slowly, it's not a flat out only design. I was toying with converting mine to road use, new drilled forks and front brake but not sure I'll bother now.

Maybe the defence will be producing its own technical expert witness and test results after the defendent's own testimony

Either that or they did the tests themselves and their results were worse than the police testing. I'm not entirely sure whether, on dry tarmac, my road bike on slicks or mountain bike on knobblies would stop quicker.

Claimed speed 18 mph, so regardless of gearing etc he was within the speed limit of the road.

3 metres stopping distance is kind of irrelevant if one were to accept the standard highway code reaction time of 2 seconds; at 18mph 3 metres is covered in less than 0.5 seconds (16 metres in 2 seconds)

As for the shouting, that could seem to include an initial shout of warning and then a subsequent shout at the pedestrian in anger (or other stress-induced) emotion after the collision; so again not necessarily all of the story.

Did the mountain bike they used for the test have disc-brakes?

[quote=epicyclo ]There no mention of jaywalking as a crime though, is there?

Apart from the "Pedestrians MUST NOT be on motorways or slip roads except in an emergency" bit in the specific link? Hence it is a crime on certain roads which was the original suggestion (the links to the relevant law are given at the bottom).

Did the mountain bike they used for the test have disc-brakes?

Would that make a difference on dry tarmac? I'd have thought the tyres would be more of a limiting factor.

[quote=sargey2003 ]3 metres stopping distance is kind of irrelevant

As noted above, it's also implausible given it's far less than the HC stopping distance for a car at that speed.

The limiting factor on dry tarmac given good brakes and good tyres should be the geometry - ie the maximum braking is just less than what would throw you over the bars. Which is where you get 0.5g from.

If he had time to shout twice then wouldn't he have also have had time to at least start braking, and therefore at lower the likely-hood of the impact being fatal, had he actually had brakes?

From reading this in the guardian:

He said Mrs Briggs had started to cross the road and moved out of his path, but then "stood back" in front of him.

Probably already said..

I get the impression he saw her step into the road, shouted his approach but reckoned that he could get between her and the kerb.

People have done this with me but people and animals are unpredictable and you have to compensate for this. Its a reason why I prefer the road to purpose built mixed-use cycletracks.

I can imagine that he's watched that cycle messenger video on Youtube where they tear-arse around Manhattan, missing people and cars with inches to spare and thought it was "the thing to do".

epicsteve - Member
Did the mountain bike they used for the test have disc-brakes?
Would that make a difference on dry tarmac? I'd have thought the tyres would be more of a limiting factor.

*It does and I choose discs

[url= http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1547234/quotes ]I like to ride. Fixed gear. No brakes. Can't stop. Don't want to, either.[/url]

Etc....

I wonder if the manslaughter charge would have been brought if there were not a CCTV recording that could be examined. Without that recording, reliable scientific analysis of the accident sufficient to determine speeds and stopping distances etc. would probably have been impossible.

With regard to the reaction time, a decision would also be need to be taken by the investigator (and accepted by the jury) as to what action the cyclist should have taken and when. It may not be so simple as stating that the cyclist should have slammed the brakes on (or rather [i]been able[/i] to slam his front brake on) as soon as the woman stepped into the road. It's been reported that she stepped into the road (and presumably started to walk across the road) and then stopped/stepped back, possibly triggered by the warning shout from the cyclist. An assessment would need to be made of the precise point at which a reasonably competent cyclist should/would have realised that a collision was likely and performed an emergency stop, but possibly even before then a reasonably competent cyclist would already have begun to brake as a precaution to reduce speed (rather than stop) in response to the hazard that existed the moment she stepped into the road, even if no collision would have occurred if she carried on walking across the road.

As for the question of comparison with a mountain bike, disc brakes, front and rear brakes, knobblies vs slick mountain bike tyres, all these potential variables must throw a big question mark over any stopping distance with brakes given by the police expert witness. It just sounds incredibly unscientific and amateurish to go to trial with technical evidence which the defence could so easily pick apart to create reasonable doubt. They would not even need their own testing, just to ask the police witness what the consequences on the tests were:

- of using a bike with front and rear brakes (as opposed to a fixed bike with a front brake)
- of using a bike with V or disc brakes (as opposed to a fixed bike with a front calliper brake)
- of using a bike with completely different tyres (width, contact patch, tyre pressure etc.)

[quote=closetroadie ]From reading this in the guardian:

He said Mrs Briggs had started to cross the road and moved out of his path, but then "stood back" in front of him.

Not so explicitly - I haven't read the latest Guardian story - but it's what I've assumed from the start based on the initial reporting. Seems like a pretty good defence to me, given that as I've suggested a few times, it's not all that unreasonable to attempt to avoid a collision with a pedestrian in the road by steering around them. If such action would have avoided the collision then I'm struggling to see the difference in negligence between the pedestrian then stepping back into your path at the last moment and a pedestrian stepping off the kerb in front of you at the last minute.

I think all he has to show is that a reasonable person wouldn't consider the lack of brakes to make a difference to the outcome.

Surely a "reasonable cyclist" would, even if going at 20mph through there, would have the brakes covered by their fingers "just in case" and if he had time to scream "get out of the way" twice, that's at least enough time for the brakes to be applied and a significant amount of speed scrubbed off.

I'm no expert cyclist, but in busy areas that's exactly how I would behave.

I'm struggling to see the difference in negligence

Negligence doesn't come into it...

[quote=slowster ]With regard to the reaction time, a decision would also be need to be taken by the investigator (and accepted by the jury) as to what action the cyclist should have taken and when. It may not be so simple as stating that the cyclist should have slammed the brakes on (or rather been able to slam his front brake on) as soon as the woman stepped into the road.

The investigator can offer his opinion, I'm expecting the defence to introduce a "reasonable" (probably expert) witness or two to suggest that the cyclists initial reactions were reasonable in the circumstances at the time, based on the expectation that a pedestrian wouldn't step back into the path of an oncoming cyclist.

but possibly even before then a reasonably competent cyclist would already have begun to brake as a precaution to reduce speed (rather than stop)

That's a really interesting one - if I was the defence barrister I'd be trying to get the prosecution investigator to suggest that, even if (as it appears) the cyclist didn't slow down at all. Because it's the sort of slowing which a fixie is actually really good at, and certainly the lack of a front brake wouldn't limit it at all. If they're trying to make the case we assume, then the cyclist not slowing down is irrelevant, because the illegality of the bike doesn't then come into it.

Regarding the testing of braking distances, I'm wondering whether the defence hasn't argued much (or at all) with that because it's not important to their defence, and they don't want the jury to get interested in the idea that the stopping distances might be relevant.

[quote=grumpysculler ]Negligence doesn't come into it...

To a certain extent it does, even though it's not a "gross negligence" charge. Check the case law (links above, I think you gave one yourself with some references!) which gives examples of defences. It's not quite as black and white as the strict wording of the law suggests - showing a disconnect between the illegality and the outcome appears to be sufficient defence. If the pedestrian had stepped off the road straight in front of him he wouldn't be in court, showing the equivalence between that and what did happen may be sufficient defence (and IMHO it also makes him rather less morally guilty irrespective of the outcome of the case).