I've been paying more attention on my way in and out of work in London (St. Paul's/Blackfriars area) this week and haven't actually seen any brakeless fixies at all so far. I'm sure there were more around my old office (near London Bridge) and do see quite a few fashion victims when I'm in places like Camden or Shoreditch of a weekend.
Most of the fixies had normal brake levers but I did see one or two with those ones that fit right inboard on the bars and those don't look a great idea.
I understand the Briggs family being upset but what this has demonstrated is that the cycling laws are there (although perhaps not always enforced) already. Ok sorting out "death by dangerous cycling" and "death by careless cycling" laws might be cleared but it's unlikely they'd be used more than once or twice a year anyway. Existing laws (either dangerous cycling or careless cycling) could even be used to crackdown on brakeless fixie riders without their being any need for an injury accident to have taken place. The Briggs family are also (perhaps understandably) ignoring the fact that the primary cause of the poor ladies death was choosing to cross the road when it wasn't safe to do so - so perhaps would be better campaigning for jaywalking laws.
This. It's not like the driving offences have been tightened up despite families campaigning…
Would this have been covered by presumed liability, incidentally?
Presumed liability is all about civil cases isn't it?
[quote=epicsteve ]The reason I think it's a piss poor article is that it ignores the point that the prosecution in this case was entirely reasonable, and that's a completely separate issue from the common perception that killing someone with a car gets you a slap on the wrist and nothing else (which we already know isn't entirely true from the sentencing info posted earlier in the thread).
I'm not sure it does ignore that - it suggests that a driver wouldn't have been charged the same in similar circumstances, which is simply pointing out the double standards. As I pointed out at the time, what the sentencing info you posted doesn't show is that killing a pedestrian (or a cyclist) with a car doesn't get you a slap on the wrist - not only because it doesn't go into that level of detail, but also because those figures don't show charge downgrading - it appears to be uncommon for such a case to result in a charge of DBDD.
The police have been targeting cyclists without brakes and riding on pavements for years in London, Shoreditch/Old St and Spitalfields being major targets.. all part of the clampdown on Drivers using the Cycling Only Boxes at traffic lights.. they also target inconsiderate riding etc..
Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?
[quote=scc999 ]
His sentence will probably be harsher than it could have been because of his knobbish attitude. Serves him right.
I feel that I should disagree with you there, but I really don't.
His knobbish attitude will affect his sentence - the judge pretty much pointed that out today. Ultimately it probably also affected the verdict, even if it shouldn't have I doubt the normal jury member can simply ignore that. It's also a major contributor to him getting less sympathy from me (amongst others on here) than I might normally give to somebody riding a bike.
No, it's the motorists that get let off lightly.
I'm not sure it does ignore that - it suggests that a driver wouldn't have been charged the same in similar circumstances, which is simply pointing out the double standards
That ignores the fact that "death by dangerous" is itself a form of manslaughter and there has been a recent case where the vehicle owners have successfully been prosecuted for manslaughter when they allowed a driver to take a lorry out with defective brakes.
If a motorcyclist took a speedway bike (those also don't have brakes and aren't meant for road use) on the road and hit and killed a pedestrian when it was proved they could have stopped in time if they'd had brakes - then I'd definitely expect them to be prosecuted for at least "death by dangerous" (a form of manslaughter).
No, it's the motorists that get let off lightly.
Did you actually read the article I linked?
[quote=ransos > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge
Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?
Just to point out that Martin Porter is The Cycling Silk, so we're kind of already discussing that (I'm not sure what the differences are between that article and his blog post we've already mentioned https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html )
Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?
My thoughts are, on skimming it, that it seems a very poorly informed article and is making assumptions about "wanton and furious" etc. and manslaughter that are incorrect.
If the "death by dangerous/death by careless" legislation covered bicycles I'm sure that's what would have been used, as it would be if a motorised vehicle had been involved.
Just to point out that Martin Porter is The Cycling Silk, so we're kind of already discussing that (I'm not sure what the differences are between that article and his blog post we've already mentioned
He argues that the cyclist had no chance of stopping within the distance he had available, even if he had had a front brake. Given that his speed did no seem unreasonable, I'm struggling to see the offence beyond construction and use regulations.
My thoughts are, on skimming it, that it seems a very poorly informed article and is making assumptions about "wanton and furious" etc. and manslaughter that are incorrect.
It was written by a lawyer, apparently.
His knobbish attitude will affect his sentence - the judge pretty much pointed that out today. Ultimately it probably also affected the verdict, even if it shouldn't have I doubt the normal jury member can simply ignore that. It's also a major contributor to him getting less sympathy from me (amongst others on here) than I might normally give to somebody riding a bike.
Hopefully they've ignored his attitude, both during and after the incident, in finding him guilty or not guilty but it'll definitely be a factor in sentencing. He's lucky I'm not the judge because his facial piercings alone would get him some serious jailtime!
It was written by a lawyer, apparently.
One with a very clear agenda who appears to be spinning things for his chosen audience.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with Mr Porter in that article and blog - I'm inclined to agree with Steve's take that the only reason such charges were laid is because he couldn't be charged with the normal motoring offences (not that I entirely agree with Steve here 😉 - for a start DBCD which seems to be the normal charge for a driver in similar circumstances isn't really equivalent to manslaughter), so it's a bit disingenuous. Though of course we've discussed that earlier in this thread. I almost wonder if Mr Porter has been reading this thread (what is his username on here?), given how much of that article we've already discussed!
One with a very clear agenda who appears to be spinning things for his chosen audience.
You know this how?
I'm not sure I entirely agree with Mr Porter in that article and blog - I'm inclined to agree with Steve's take that the only reason such charges were laid is because he couldn't be charged with the normal motoring offences
Let's leave that aside for a moment. The bit that interested me was his argument that it was impossible for the cyclist to stop within the distance he had available. Does that stack up in your view?
[quote=epicsteve ]Hopefully they've ignored his attitude, both during and after the incident, in finding him guilty or not guilty
You are more optimistic than me in that respect!
Suggests he has been harshly treated. Thoughts?
Not very persuasive IMO, and he uses far too many words.
Rather than getting into whataboutery related to cars, it might be more useful to consider what would have happened if the fixie **** had ended up with the fatal brain injury.
Would she have been charged with manslaughter and convicted of wanton and furious pedestrianing?
You know this how?
Based on his postings, that article and him labelling himself "the cycling silk".
His agenda being the accurate one that cyclists get appalling treatment from the legal system.
Based on his postings, that article and him labelling himself "the cycling silk".
Is that the best you can do?
[quote=ransos ]Let's leave that aside for a moment. The bit that interested me was his argument that it was impossible for the cyclist to stop within the distance he had available. Does that stack up in your view?
As I just mentioned, we discussed that earlier on this thread - in fact his comments look suspiciously like they're paraphrased from one of my posts 😉
Though there is confusion over the available stopping distance I reckon he's accurate in his assessment of that.
Would she have been charged with manslaughter and convicted of wanton and furious pedestrianing?
I had hoped for a more substantive discussion...
Let's leave that aside for a moment. The bit that interested me was his argument that it was impossible for the cyclist to stop within the distance he had available. Does that stack up in your view?
I tried it on my own bikes and proved it was possible using both brakes - on my disc braked road bike I might even have been able to do it with just the front brake - but definitely not possible with just the rear being braked.
I would however agree that it probably isn't possible on every bike with two brakes (it would be touch and go on my disc braked mountain bike for example), however even on those the contact would have been at a very low speed.
I think what's confused some people (including him) was the mention in the trial of being able to stop in 3m - there is no chance of that being possible from 18mph but it probably related to tests at a lower speed but weren't well reported.
Though there is confusion over the available stopping distance I reckon he's accurate in his assessment of that.
So you agree that even if he had had a front brake, he couldn't of stopped? Given that his speed was agreed to be reasonable, what could he have done?
His agenda being the accurate one that cyclists get appalling treatment from the legal system.
On which I probably wouldn't generally disagree with him - just not convinced this case is a good one for raising that point. Also the last case I'm aware of where the same laws were used to prosecute when a cyclist killed a pedestrian (the one where the guy hopped on the pavement to avoid a red light, shouted a ped to get out of his way 'cause he wasn't planning on stopping then hit and killed her) the cyclist got off incredibly lightly IMHO.
[quote=epicsteve ]however even on those the contact would have been at a very low speed.
Yeah I know we've also done this one before, but given the way I understand she was injured, that would be insufficient basis for the prosecution to claim (beyond reasonable doubt) that the death wouldn't have resulted from such a collision. Hence I think both charges could have been defended on that basis.
[quote=ransos ]So you agree that even if he had had a front brake, he couldn't of stopped?
There is certainly reasonable doubt.
Given that his speed was agreed to be reasonable, what could he have done?
Hired a better lawyer who argued this point properly!
Yeah I know we've also done this one before, but given the way I understand she was injured, that would be insufficient basis for the prosecution to claim (beyond reasonable doubt) that the death wouldn't have resulted from such a collision. Hence I think both charges could have been defended on that basis.
That might be the reason why they found him not guilty of manslaughter i.e. death from the incident was unlikely/unforseeable, but injury wasn't.
[quote=epicsteve ]Also the last case I'm aware of where the same laws were used to prosecute when a cyclist killed a pedestrian (the one where the guy hopped on the pavement to avoid a red light, shouted a ped to get out of his way 'cause he wasn't planning on stopping then hit and killed her) the cyclist got off incredibly lightly IMHO.
Probably - I think I also suggested earlier in this thread that there appeared to be all the necessary elements there for a successful manslaughter prosecution. Certainly the cyclist in that case was far more to blame than in this one (the obvious difference being which party was mainly responsible for the collision).
I had hoped for a more substantive discussion...
Well I've made a more useful point than m'learned friend, who spent about 1,500 words saying what we already know - cyclists get a rough deal in court compared to drivers.
What [i]would[/i] happen if a pedestrian stepped out into the path of a cyclist and the cyclist died as a result of hitting them?
I'm not sure a pedestrian is obviously more vulnerable than a cyclist in a collision, so I don't know if the cyclist should have a greater duty of care.
I think this argument illustrates potential anti-cyclist bias more effectively than Mr Silk's.
What would happen if a pedestrian stepped out into the path of a cyclist and the cyclist died as a result of hitting them?
I think they could be prosecuted for manslaughter (the gross negligence variant) although I don't think they could be prosecuted for the unlawful and dangerous act version, as crossing the road isn't itself illegal.
These sorts of incidents are pretty rare though, so it's speculation on whether they would/wouldn't prosecute. My guess is that there wouldn't be a prosecution if there weren't other contributing factors, but there might well be if the ped stepped off onto the road while texting.
What about this as a comparison from 2016.
Lady opens taxi door, door floors cyclist, cyclist gets hit by van, cyclist dies, lady gets fined £80 for killing a cyclist...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-39157452
As much as Charlie Alliston sounds like an unpleasant arrogant jerk for whom I have no sympathy, I can't help thinking (based on admittedly limited second hand accounts from the media) that this may be a miscarriage of justice.
Thanks to the poor and sometimes inaccurate reporting by the media, we still do not know exactly what the expert evidence was in respect of what the stopping distance would have been with a fixed gear bike with a front brake, but as has been discussed in this thread, it sounds like that distance may have been very close to the 6.65m distance identified by the defence from the point when Charlie Alliston swerved.
I think this is crucial to the whole case: whether the defendant would have been able to stop, say, 20cm before the collision, or would still have collided albeit at a much lower speed, is not the issue. The issue is that if the stopping distance would have been so close to 6.65m (whether more than 6.65m or less), then a competent cyclist on a fully braked bike would not have known for certain whether he could prevent the collision by braking. The reports suggest that the fatal injuries were not dependent upon the collision speed, and so might have occurred even at a very low collision speed, such as might have occurred with a fully braked bike.
Swerving was probably the better choice, regardless of brakes: with 6m separation it should be fairly easy for a cyclist to swerve around and avoid an object as narrow in profile as a pedestrian. Unfortunately it sounds like the defendant, having committed to his swerve, was surprised by the pedestrian stopping her forward movement (probably because of his shouted warning) and stepping back into his path.
This suggests that not only was there not a strong direct link between the lack of a front brake and her death (ergo no manslaughter conviction), but also that there are no actual good grounds for the 'wanton and furious' conviction. In other words, if you accept that the lack of a front brake could not be said beyond a reasonable doubt to have been the cause of the death, and that a competent cyclist with a fully braked bike might reasonably have acted exactly as Charlie Alliston did in swerving etc., then what exactly was 'wanton and furious' about his riding? (You could argue his speed was wanton and furious given the absence of a front brake, but - as with the manslaughter charge - that seems questionable if the lack of front brake made no difference to the outcome.)
As I said, I am not shedding any tears for Charlie Alliston, but this judgement seems to suggest that cyclists will be held to far higher standards than any motorist. If - rather than braking - you swerve to avoid someone who steps into the road in front of you without warning, and when they become aware of you they panic and step backwards into your path, and are injured or killed as a result, then this case suggests that you could similarly be charged and found guilty of wanton and furious cycling, and receive a prison sentence.
My very first thoughts on reading of the conviction were - like many of the comments above - that it was a fair judgement. Having reflected, I now have a horrible suspicion that the jury have ignored the evidence, the law and the facts in order to deliver the verdict they felt was right, and that those feelings were driven by prejudice.
Apparently the defendant has shown a complete lack of remorse.. maybe this has also been instrumental in influencing the decision.
To those asking:
My father in law was killed in a collision when a pedestrian stepped out from behind a tall hedge. It's thought he hit him at 20+mph with no time to brake.
There was no prosecution as it was judged, quite rightly in mine and our families view, to have been an accident. Albeit one with a tragic outcome.
He was on the bike, wearing a helmet. Was remarkably uninsured except for the brain injury that was the cause of death.
The key difference between this and the case being discussed is that (I imagine, as I wasn't there) no one was acting like a knob, before or after the collision.
The police told us the pedestrian was distraught and inconsolable at the scene. He wrote us a very touching letter afterwards and I didn't see him posting like billy-big-balls on social media (or at all!)
All in all some key differences that impact how likely prosecution is to be chased. I wonder how it would have panned out if it had been an unapologetic 'chav' with 'previous'...
Guardian report:
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge ]Here[/url]
EDIT: Sorry, missed p17 somehow, it's been done.
That guardian piece is from the guy who blogs as "the cycling silk". Hard to believe he's a lawyer.
Hard to believe he's a lawyer.
Right now Charlie Alliston is probably thinking exactly the same thing about his barrister.
Petition for helmets to be a legal requirement for all pedestrians?
My very first thoughts on reading of the conviction were - like many of the comments above - that it was a fair judgement. Having reflected, I now have a horrible suspicion that the jury have ignored the evidence, the law and the facts in order to deliver the verdict they felt was right, and that those feelings were driven by prejudice.
^^This^^
The manslaughter conviction would have been based on the lack of a brake, The wanton and Furious charge as I understand it would be based on his actions leading up to and during the event an excess of speed or erratic maneuvers.
So the jury's decision was that riding without proper brakes wasn't a reckless act? But cycling on the road at between 1/2 - 2/3rds the prevailing speed limit and attempting to avoid a collision was?
Viewing "wanton and careless driving" as the nearest applicable charge to "careless driving" available for a cycling offence you maybe have to ask were they bending interpretation of the law to suit the idea of "proportionality" or put more simply the idea that they had to get the little git for something...
Apparently the defendant has shown a complete lack of remorse.. maybe this has also been instrumental in influencing the decision.
A "lack of remorse" is arguably consistent with his not guilty plea, his conduct and choice to post comments online fall under the heading of "millennial ****tery" but that isn't what he was charged with... It's going to affect his sentencing, and you can bet the usual suspects will go apoplectic if he's not given a significant custodial sentence...
The whole case has made me wonder if perhaps it would make sense to simply extend the scope of dangerous/careless driving to include injuries or deaths caused by cyclists, bear with me; it's a road going vehicle the use of which is governed by the same acts and regulations. Plus we're told causing death by dangerous driving carries the same weight as a manslaughter charge which apparently you can be charged with in connection to a cycling collision. It arguably puts cyclists on an even footing with drivers as the law recognises us as having equal responsibility/culpability for our actions...
How legal is a really shit front brake?
I bet there are some shocking side pull brakes on supermarket bikes that have been "set up'" by the less technically minded amongst us.
How about chav bikes where the cable only pulls one side of the brake?
As for the lack of remorse could he not just claim Aspergers or some other new condition that young people seem to suffer from these days?
Why is this top story on every news outlet?
Good god if this shite country didnt hate people on bikes enough already this is just feeding the zombies.
Man bites dog
+ the accused comes across a weapons grade a-hole. Always bound to attract attention.
The video only shows the MTB stopping in 3m from 15mph and the fixed gear bike stopping in 19m from 16mph. Presumably there must have been some other tests, since I recall at least one report of a test using a fixed gear bike with front brake.
Are those the actual tests? Speed taken with a speed gun with a resolution of 1mph at a point some distance before the tester started braking. Braking distance measured from a cone where the tester aims to start braking when travelling over 60cm every 0.1s. Tester apparently has no idea how to stop a fixie quickly.
Let's do the maths again - if travelling at 15mph a 0.5g stop takes 4.6m, I can't read the distance meter clearly, but to be generous I'll assume 3.2m as that was mentioned at some point - a 15mph stop in 3.2m would be a 0.72g stop.
Looking at that side on shot, there's no way he could stop at 0.72g without pitching over the bars - in fact I don't think you could even do a 0.5g stop on that bike with that position, he's so high up and forwards. Yet the back wheel never even skids.
I smell an appeal if that was what the jurors were shown and what the evidence was based on. It's so flawed as to be laughable.
I'm thinking it should be able to tell at what point the tester actually started braking (and probably even a more accurate speed) from analysis of the video, and wondering if I can be bothered...
I can be bothered:
Point A:
[url= https://s2.postimg.org/6tn2k8qw9/charlie-alliston0092.jp g" target="_blank">https://s2.postimg.org/6tn2k8qw9/charlie-alliston0092.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
4 frames later:
[url= https://s2.postimg.org/iwse7t1yh/charlie-alliston0096.jp g" target="_blank">https://s2.postimg.org/iwse7t1yh/charlie-alliston0096.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Point B:
[url= https://s2.postimg.org/jatq7em21/charlie-alliston0099.jp g" target="_blank">https://s2.postimg.org/jatq7em21/charlie-alliston0099.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
4 frames later:
[url= https://s2.postimg.org/5jp956x49/charlie-alliston0103.jp g" target="_blank">https://s2.postimg.org/5jp956x49/charlie-alliston0103.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Point C: at this point the tester supposedly hasn't started braking:
[url= https://s2.postimg.org/6kphube3t/charlie-alliston0108.jp g" target="_blank">https://s2.postimg.org/6kphube3t/charlie-alliston0108.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
4 frames later:
[url= https://s2.postimg.org/7cs5tiiax/charlie-alliston0112.jp g" target="_blank">https://s2.postimg.org/7cs5tiiax/charlie-alliston0112.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
check out the positions of the wheel reflectors
The video only shows the MTB stopping in 3m from 15mph and the fixed gear bike stopping in 19m from 16mph. Presumably there must have been some other tests, since I recall at least one report of a test using a fixed gear bike with front brake.
That isn't what the video shoes to me.
To me it shows a front braked bike (which doesn't look much like a MTB) stopping in about 6m (brakes applied about 3m before the cones).
Then the fixie takes a long time to stop but the rider is clearly completely inexperienced so this is not a test relevant to the case where the rider was experienced.
There are lots of other significant factors not addressed too, weight of the rider for example
Both speeds are unknown as the method of measurement is crap.
Complete incompetence.
Regarding the trial and verdict - Am I missing the point here, but shouldn't the priority of the police/justice system be to encourage the preservation human life and a safer society?
Whilst riding a bike with no front brake is dangerous behavior which rightfully gets some attention I am disappointed at the complete lack of attention regarding the dangerous behavior of a pedestrian stepping into live carriageway without looking properly and paying attention to their phone rather than the traffic around them.
To be fair from what I've seen in the BBC roundup of the front pages, the newspapers writing about the case are using the "no remorse" quotes from the judge.
Which almost suggests a normal cyclist who'd have been devasted wouldn't have been charged. But then again just because he's a £&@" doesn't mean he deserves a guilty verdict for what is essentially an accident were the other party has more liability (with a horrible outcome)...
As a London cyclist it feels to me that phone zombies have just been given another excuse not to bother looking before crossing, or stopping on the pavement for cyclists. Almost like the onus is on us to keep them safe while they wander into the road?!
To a degree, yes. The onus is on you to expect a few dozy pedestrians, and ride/drive accordingly.
To a degree...
A bit like the argument for presumed liability.
nathb - Member
...Almost like the onus is on us to keep them safe while they wander into the road?!
Indeed.
Just as we would like the onus to be on drivers to avoid hitting cyclists.
The onus is on the rider to avoid giving the Darwin Award to the unwary/stupid/suicidal.
I do have some misgivings about the result.
If I was swerving, I wouldn't be touching my brakes. However I probably wouldn't be going fast in such a situation - lemmings are everywhere.
And the rider is an utter ****t for riding with no brakes.
Interesting bit on the BBC Breakfast with Rob Hales saying he's a bit of a dick for riding a brakeless fixie on the road (basically echoing most of us here) and a lawyer saying there's no point in changing the law as it's pretty much got it covered.
The whole case has made me wonder if perhaps it would make sense to simply extend the scope of dangerous/careless driving to include injuries or deaths caused by cyclists, bear with me; it's a road going vehicle the use of which is governed by the same acts and regulations. Plus we're told causing death by dangerous driving carries the same weight as a manslaughter charge which apparently you can be charged with in connection to a cycling collision. It arguably puts cyclists on an even footing with drivers as the law recognises us as having equal responsibility/culpability for our actions...
Husband just on the Today Programme suggesting the same thing, Very reasonably, and very calmly.
Maybe he's right. 😐
Just listened to the victims husband being interviewed on Radio 4. He is now campaigning for cyclists to fall under the same road laws as car drivers so, in this case, the charge would have been death by dangerous driving.
He was incredibly composed, measured and eloquent. He is a cyclist himself and is very pro cycling and the changes to law and awareness that he is now campaigning for seem perfectly sensible and justified.
check out the positions of the wheel reflectors
Care to elaborate?
Front wheel reflector at each point in the first of each pair of frames is as near as I can get in the same position. The front wheel has rotated rather less 4 frames later in the final pair of frames.
Verdict as i predicted. Guilty of something, as he's a wrong un. Personally I think he'll win on appeal. Can't see what exactly was furious about swerving out of the way of a pedestrian. Most commuters will have done this instinctively, shouting at the same time.
The Today interview was very good. And I agree about enforcing the existing laws. The requirements are for redundancy in braking. Front brakes are mandated where practical (some trikes for example can have two rear) Some stopping distance requirements would also be welcome.
[quote=franksinatra ]Just listened to the victims husband being interviewed on Radio 4. He is now campaigning for cyclists to fall under the same road laws as car drivers so, in this case, the charge would have been death by dangerous driving.
I don't think it would have been. Because the crucial factor in this case was the illegality of the bicycle, which isn't a part of the the proof required for DBDD. That requires "the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and
it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."
I don't believe there is good evidence for that in this case. From a purely objective POV I don't think there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of Careless Riding.
Therefore the only way such a conviction would have happened is jury bias regarding the subjective nature of such charges - would cyclists be held to much higher standards than drivers? Because such death charges related to drivers are already bad law when related to deaths of vulnerable road users in jury trials - the problem being that such road users are killed by driving in a manner which a typical jury member drives. IMHO cyclists would be held to much higher standards than drivers.
As I mentioned earlier cyclists and pedestrians are already badly served by the justice system, I don't think Mr Briggs' proposals will address that in any useful way. In order to improve safety for pedestrians you need to address the laws relating to the road users who killed 409 pedestrians in 2015.
https://twitter.com/WeAreCyclingUK/status/900369914627796992
@ aracer
might be me not understanding but what does that prove? Assuming the wheels are the same size, they must rotate at the same speed (otherwise the bike will be compressing / elongating as one wheel travels further than the other - and while there may be some flex in a frame we're not talking mm distance here)
If you brake with one brake then the other unbraked wheel has to slow down by the same amount. The only time that's not true is if one wheel locks and skids - which i'd assume in this case would not be the front brake; or if it wheelspins - and I'm assuming that's not the case here either.
[It might be that you're showing a rear wheel skid meaning the front has rotated more, but because you're assessing that with a reflector that could rotate faster or slower to the same point 4 frames later you interpret that as the front moving less]
He is now campaigning for cyclists to fall under the same road laws as car drivers so, in this case, the charge would have been death by dangerous driving.
Most likely Death by Careless Driving, which as we all know often results in a slap on the wrist.
Most likely Death by Careless Driving, which as we all know often results in a slap on the wrist.
which is arguably what he deserved
[quote=theotherjonv ]@ aracer
might be me not understanding but what does that prove?
That the tester is already braking before the point the stop is measured from.
TiRed - MemberThe Today interview was very good.
I just wished they'd asked him whether he felt phone zombie/stepping out into the road without looking contributed and had any bearing on what happened. Yes I know it's insensitive but it's a valid question.
has the CCTV been released, if not is it likely to be so?
That testing video looks more amateur than the tests I did!
The only reason I can see for the defence not trying to attack it is because they'll have done their own tests and proved the same thing i.e. a bike with a front brake could have been stopped significantly in the available time/distance but that particular brakeless fixie couldn't.
BTW I see some folks still assuming that the wanton & furious charge had to relate to riding style or speed - it doesn't, there is a wilful neglect option as well and I expect it's that one that was applied.
Ah, I get it - you're comparing front wheel only between pairs of frames.
Told you i was stupid 😳
I see some folks still assuming that the wanton & furious charge had to relate to riding style or speed - it doesn't, there is a wilful neglect option as well and I expect it's that one that was applied.
My reading is that wilful neglect only applies if the injury occurs because of that wilful neglect.
[quote=ransos ]My reading is that wilful neglect only applies if the injury occurs because of that wilful neglect.
+1 - the same defence applies as for the manslaughter charge (I think it was even you who first pointed that out steve?)
Though I'm not sure the verdicts were reached based upon a strict interpretation of the law...
To me it shows a front braked bike (which doesn't look much like a MTB) stopping in about 6m (brakes applied about 3m before the cones).
My error (apologies). Looking at the video again, I've realised that the first bike looks like a fixed gear bike with both front and rear brakes (although conceivably the rear could have been disconnected for the test).
Does anyone know how a speed gun like that used in the test works, i.e. how does anyone (including the user) know that the speeds shown were indeed the speeds at the precise moment before braking?
I'm guessing that the gun shows a speed reading all the time the button is pressed by the user, but that the recorded speed shown on the screen after the button is no longer being pressed, is the highest speed reading that was measured throughout the period the button was pressed. So it was not necessarily the speed immediately before braking.
The testing looks to me to be potentially riddled with errors and unreliability, and yet is probably the key piece of evidence used to get a conviction which may result in a prison sentence.
I could skid stop a lot quicker than that PC. and i don;t skid stop. my fixed wheel has two brakes.
also it looks like he's wearing police issue boots/ no foot retention. terrible way to slow a fixie.
[quote=epicsteve ]That testing video looks more amateur than the tests I did!
Real amateur hour.
The only reason I can see for the defence not trying to attack it is because they'll have done their own tests and proved the same thing i.e. a bike with a front brake could have been stopped significantly in the available time/distance but that particular brakeless fixie couldn't.
That would surprise me - I think they were simply avoiding the issue to concentrate on other aspects, because as appears to be the case, it hasn't necessarily been decided on the legal technicalities. I'm fairly convinced I could set up a test to show that Charlie could have been riding a fully road legal bike and not stopped in the space available. It might be open to the accusation that the rider wasn't trying to stop as fast as possible, but it would at least involve an instrumented bike with data logging which would give precise details of the speeds and distances - and in any case the defence already did the argument that the prosecution case was based upon perfection of action for the hypothetical cyclist with a front brake.
it looks like he's wearing police issue boots/ no foot retention
The bike had flat pedals, with toeclip and straps on the non-drive side pedal only.
[img] 
?imwidth=1160[/img]
[quote=slowster ]Does anyone know how a speed gun like that used in the test works, i.e. how does anyone (including the user) know that the speeds shown were indeed the speeds at the precise moment before braking?
It isn't. It's the instantaneous speed at a certain distance from the gun. The distance is shown on the screen along with the speed - I'm assuming the unit is metres, in which case the first measurement is 22m before the stop line.
Awful, awful testing protocol.
My reading is that wilful neglect only applies if the injury occurs because of that wilful neglect.
Correct. Without their being an injury I think the strongest charge that could be applied is dangerous cycling, with a £2500 fine. My reading of that charge is that there couldn't be an effective defense from someone riding a fixie without a front brake.
The bike had flat pedals, with toeclip and straps on the non-drive side pedal only.
Is there a pic from the other side? Would be interested to see what sort of gearing was being run.