Sure if as you suggest he had intended to pass close or clip her then gross negligence might be possible, but I’ve not seen any suggestion that his actions were anything other than trying to avoid a collision.

I’m not suggesting it on this particular case either – more just to say that there are other ways that hitting and killing a pedestrian could be viewed as manslaughter (although very difficult to prosecute I expect).

In this case it’ll all be down to attempting to prove or disprove the link between two key things that are not open to dispute i.e.:
– riding without a front brake is willfully illegal
– the pedestrian died after being hit by the cyclist

One thing I know for sure, riding a fixed wheel on the road without a supplementary brake is the action of a dickhead.

Yup, personal experience. 😳

– riding without a front brake is willfully illegal

I don’t think ignorance of the law is a defence as far as I know, otherwise people would be driving cars around with no insurance or MOT and the defence would be, what’s an Mot? What’s insurance?

What do you know about the law anyway?

Fair point 🙂

If anyone lives near the New Forest I am more than happy to show you the difference.

Bugger, I was there when you posted that and I couldn’t get any internets 😉

arguing amongst themelves about whether it was OK to punch a hipster

I don’t think there would be any argument on that point…

@ aracer/epicsteve

Surely it’s down to which “act” the prosecution are citing for the manslaughter charge…

Is it the earlier act (or omission?) of not fitting a front brake to a bicycle he intended to use on the road? Or the act of collision (more specifically his actions in the moments leading up to it)?

The former would better suit a gross negligence based case, the latter unlawful act manslaughter, and based on the reported lines of questioning it’s not clear which they are pursuing…

The “wanton and furious” charge might also muddy things a bit, as they’re probably going to approach that from a slightly different angle to the manslaughter charge to improve the chances of some sort of conviction, hence evidence supporting both charges will be heard…

@ aracer/epicsteve

Surely it’s down to which “act” the prosecution are citing for the manslaughter charge…

Is it the earlier act (or omission?) of not fitting a front brake to a bicycle he intended to use on the road? Or the act of collision (more specifically his actions in the moments leading up to it)?

I’m sure it’s the former – the investigation of the activities around the crash from both the defence and prosecution will be about making or breaking the link between the illegal act of riding without effective brakes and the death i.e. the prosecution will be saying that the only reasonable response would have been to brake if that had been an option (and his own illegal act denied that as an option), with the defence probably saying that his activities in attempting to avoid a collision were reasonable and whether or not he had brakes won’t have made a difference.

On the “wanton and furious” charge I’m struggling slightly to see how the rider could be guilty of that but not guilty of manslaughter but assume there most be some associated technicalities.

The former would better suit a gross negligence based case, the latter unlawful act manslaughter

I think you have those the wrong way round.

From the available reports I would more likely (but not certainly) infer that the prosecution is arguing unlawful act manslaughter.

From the available reports I would more likely (but not certainly) infer that the prosecution is arguing unlawful act manslaughter.

What annoys me is the huge number of instances where motorists have killed cyclists or pedestrians under very siumilar circumstances and are not charged with anything. The incident that ninfan cites above ^^ with the car in North Wales skidding on ice, all his tyres were bald and he killed 4 people. Fine of £180.

Agreed – I’m quite sure it’s unlawful act they’re going for, the approach of both sides would be somewhat different otherwise (I don’t think the manslaughter charge would even be on the table otherwise, given plenty of other cases where gross negligence could apply which haven’t been prosecuted for manslaughter – it’s the undisputed illegal act which makes this case unusual).

It removes the need to prove the link between the illegal act and the death, which I think we all agree now is the crux of the manslaughter case. There do appear to be other difficulties with that which don’t apply to the manslaughter charge, but I’ve not looked into it at all.

It removes the need to prove the link between the illegal act and the death, which I think we all agree now is the crux of the manslaughter case. There do appear to be other difficulties with that which don’t apply to the manslaughter charge, but I’ve not looked into it at all.

I think it still needs a proven link between the illegal act and an injury though – which I’d have thought in this case is the same thing as having the connection to the death.

Though as he mentioned, they determined that the bald tyres made no difference (tread on tyres doesn’t help with grip on ice), hence the necessary link between the illegal act and the deaths wasn’t present. Whilst I agree about illegal acts by drivers and drivers making conscious choices to do them, they tend to be subjective illegal acts rather than specific and undisputed ones. I certainly agree that there is something wrong with the law in the way drivers escape prosecution (I still have no idea how Helen Measures was found not guilty).

No requirement for an illegal act, it’s all about negligence (not gross negligence as would be required for manslaughter)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a28

I still tend to agree he’ll probably get off that – as mentioned the conduct of his cycling was no worse than plenty of people who haven’t been prosecuted. I do wonder whether to some extent it’s a “trap” charge designed to limit the scope of the defence on the manslaughter charge – otherwise admitting negligence might actually be a valid defence to that.

I do wonder whether to some extent it’s a “trap” charge designed to limit the scope of the defence on the manslaughter charge – otherwise admitting negligence might actually be a valid defence to that.

Perhaps.

For some general comparison; wanton & Furious cycling case, involving a death. The difference of course being the collision occurred on the pavement vs the road (presumably the bicycle itself was road legal)…

I had thought they were using the combination of manslaughter and W&F cycling a bit like careless/dangerous driving are used to negotiate a conviction while allowing the defendant to avoid/reduce a prison sentence… But I’m not so sure now, the officer’s evidence on controlling/slowing a bicycle could contribute to either charge…

I had thought they were using the combination of manslaughter and W&F cycling a bit like careless/dangerous driving are used

It works differently, in that if the charge is DD then the jury always have the option to find for CD instead. Equally, anyone charged with DD has the option to plead guilty to CD, which leaves the prosecution with the option of accepting that plea and dropping DD, or continuing to press for DD at trial (the CD plea being unaffected by the result of that trial).

Interesting – I reckon the W&F charge is going to be harder to prove in this case, where the manner of cycling was perfectly reasonable up until the collision.

Though also I wonder why they didn’t bring a manslaughter charge in that case – from what I can see all the evidence was there for unlawful act manslaughter, which I’d certainly feel quite comfortable with the cyclist being convicted for in that case. But then that also applies to the van driver who killed a kid on the pavement we mentioned at the start of this thread (TBH the unlawful act manslaughter charge appears easier to prove than the dangerous driving one he got off, as the defence can’t argue that driving on the pavement is something all drivers do – they’d have had to argue that a sensible person wouldn’t think it dangerous). Is there a reluctance to consider driving on the pavement as an illegal act given it’s so normalised (and that the relevant law dates back to 1835)?

Interesting – I reckon the W&F charge is going to be harder to prove in this case, where the manner of cycling was perfectly reasonable up until the collision.

My reading of “wanton and furious” was that, despite how it sounds, the style of riding doesn’t need to be a factor:
“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 …”

I’d have thought the “wilful neglect” probably applies here.

Ah, I see where you’re going with the suggestion that the defence for the manslaughter charge also works as a defence for that then – if the “wilful neglect” is the lack of brakes.

I’d have thought the “wilful neglect” probably applies here.

I’d suggest that only case law will reliably tell you whether it is or not. (See also “misconduct” in the same statute.) I can see arguments either way.

From another thread:

does this raise issues about the regulation of bikes on the road? Cyclists without training on the road legalities (like a theory test)? This case could have knock on effects for all riders in urban areas.

I doubt it – new law made to address an issue of people breaking an existing law doesn’t tend to be good law. In general the legislative process in this country is also fairly sensible, new laws don’t tend to be introduced on the basis of single anecdotes.

I’m sure DM readers will be frothing about cracking down on cyclists, but in reality things will carry on much as they were – most police forces now seem to have recognised and agreed with the WMP assessment of the relative importance of policing drivers and cyclists.

Ah, I see where you’re going with the suggestion that the defence for the manslaughter charge also works as a defence for that then – if the “wilful neglect” is the lack of brakes.

That was my thinking. Not sure why both charges have been presented but it couild be:
1) Hoping that there would be a plea bargain around a guilty plea to the wanton charge
2) Maybe thinking that the jury might go with the thinking that causing injury could be reasonably forseen as a potential outcome from riding without the front brake, but that causing death (considering how infrequently pedestrians are killed by cyclists) wasn’t.

It’s certainly an interesting case.

If the behaviour of the pedestrian is as alleged by the cyclist, i.e. stepping into the road without paying attention to the traffic, possibly using a phone, and moving erratically/unpredictably backwards back into the path of the cyclist, then I can sympathise with him. Most of us have probably been in a situation where a pedestrian steps into the road in front of us and then there is a panicked stalemate as neither the cyclist nor the pedestrian knows what to do because they don’t know in which direction the other will go (or they simultaneously both move in the same direction to try to avoid each other, remaining on a collision path as a result).

However, that does not excuse the illegal lack of a front brake. I know that when I have been in similar situations I have instinctively covered the brake when a pedestrian steps into the road in front of me, even if I know that providing they continue walking they will have walked far enough towards the middle of the road to be out of my path by the time that I am level with them. If they have stopped/hestitated/stepped backwards(possibly in panic as a result of seeing me rapidly approach them) then I will have braked as well as trying to swerve to avoid them.

However, it sounds like the injuries the woman suffered were not dependent upon the speed of the collision, and could have occurred with the impact of being knocked over by even the lowest speed collision. If so, it could only be said with certainty that brakes would have made a difference if the braking distance was sufficient for the cyclist to come to a stop, rather than just reduce his speed on impact.

If it is accepted by the court where a bike had brakes and in such a situation the cyclist had a choice of braking or swerving, that it would not be unreasonable for the cyclist to do either (even if it is subsequently determined with 20:20 hindsight and testing that he made the wrong choice in swerving, and that braking would have prevented the collision), then it does seem that the culpability of the cyclist in this case where he lacked brakes and swerved is lower than what might be expected to justify a conviction for manslaughter. In such circumstances I would have thought that careless cycling would be the appropriate charge (but in a perverse paradox, maybe the bike would need to have had a brake fitted that he could choose not to use as it were, in order for him to be charged with careless cycling, and because it didn’t have a brake, he was not guilty of careless cycling in taking the only option available to him and attempting to swerve).

If he is not convicted of manslaughter, then I can imagine that the family of the women who was killed may be very disappointed, in the same way that cyclists were disappointed that the Rhyl accident was not considered manslaughter, because the defective tyres had no bearing on the accident.

It’s understandable that we want to be able to find a simple cause to blame and someone to punish fairly harshly in these circumstances. It’s disconcerting to be forced to conclude that things are much less clear cut and that the consequence of an easily made simple error of judgement can result in a cyclist or a pedestrian being killed, and that we ourselves might just as easily be a victim or the guilty party.

The outcome of this case is probably less important than whether the attention it has attracted prompts some changes by London cyclists (not riding track bikes on the road without brakes), the police (a campaign to seize and destroy such bikes), and pedestrians (when crossing the road paying attention and not using a phone).

I’m slightly surprised that there isn’t a fallback charge of “Dangerous Cycling” although max for that is only a £2500 fine. It might be either that there it might not apply where it’s the bike that’s illegal rather than the way it’s being ridden – or perhaps the prosecution don’t want to give the jury that as an “out”.

The definition of Dangerous Cycling is:

Dangerous cycling.

(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.]

I’m hopeful it might make a difference to the first, I’d hope the second doesn’t happen (it would be a waste of police time compared to addressing the behaviour of drivers instead – I’m also not sure they have the power to seize and destroy for a breach of construction and use regs!) I’d be very surprised if it makes more than a tiny difference to the behaviour of pedestrians.

That I reckon – the entirety of this case appears to rest on the undisputed illegality of the bike. I’m not sure there is any suggestion of negligence in the way it was ridden (hence I now agree with your take on W&F) – if he had been on a legal bike, swerved and hit and killed the ped I doubt he would be in court.

Imagine what it would be like if the jury was composed of STWers.

Similar to if it was made of Wu Tang fans?!

the court: All right. I’m going to excuse you. Juror Number 59, come on up.

juror no. 59: Your Honor, totally he is guilty and in no way can I let him slide out of anything because —

the court: Okay. Is that your attitude toward anyone charged with a crime who has not been proven guilty?

juror no. 59: It’s my attitude toward his entire demeanor, what he has done to people.

the court: All right. We are going to excuse you, sir.

juror no. 59: And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/

Just did a very quick and unscientific test (including the measurements being done via pacing!) on the slight damp but still very grippy road in front of my house.

All tests from 18mph as shown by my Garmin, starting to brake as the front wheel crossed the same line in the road;

Road bike using both brakes: Completely stopped in about 5.5m
Road bike just using rear brake: Completely stopped in about 11m
Mountain bike using both brakes: Completely stopped in about 6.5m

When using both brakes on the road bike the rear wheel was well off the ground for much of the time. Given the amount of grip that was available I suspect I wouldn’t have been able to stop all that much quicker if it was totally dry.

Road bike is brand new and has 25mm Vittoria Corsa’s and Ultegra hydro’s
MTB has 2.1″ Conti Speed King Supersonics (well worn at the back) and XTR hydro’s

I only tried a couple of times for each (with no significant variation) and suspect I could have improved a little with practice but that’d be less realistic compared to a real-life situation anyway.

Found this stopping distance calculator:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

From 18mph it gives 5.74m for “wet concrete” and 3.74m for “dry concrete” so given the former is very close to my test then perhaps I’m wrong thinking that a completely dry road wouldn’t have made much difference.

Just did a very quick and unscientific test (including the measurements being done via pacing!) on the slight damp but still very grippy road in front of my house.

All tests from 18mph as shown by my Garmin, starting to brake as the front wheel crossed the same line in the road;

Road bike using both brakes: Completely stopped in about 5.5m
Road bike just using rear brake: Completely stopped in about 11m
Mountain bike using both brakes: Completely stopped in about 6.5m

When using both brakes on the road bike the rear wheel was well off the ground for much of the time. Given the amount of grip that was available I suspect I wouldn’t have been able to stop all that much quicker if it was totally dry.

Road bike is brand new and has 25mm Vittoria Corsa’s and Ultegra hydro’s
MTB has 2.1″ Conti Speed King Supersonics (well worn at the back) and XTR hydro’s

For completeness also did the same on my other road bike as it has rim brakes not discs – 105’s with standard pads, Dura-ace C24 wheels (carbon rims but with an alloy brake track) and 25mm GP4000’s. Wheels, brakes and tyres all pretty new although it’s the bike I do most mileage on so am most familiar with.

Results with it were pretty much exactly the same as for the mountain bike i.e. a good metre or so down on how I was doing on the disk braked road bike, and the rear wheel didn’t lift.

I’d like to see where that website gets its numbers from.

I’d have thought, for a bicycle with a front brake:

– if the rear wheel is lifting the limiting factor is the position of centre of mass, else
– if the front wheel starts locking the limiting factor is friction, else
– the limiting factor is the effectiveness of the front brake.

I may not have had enough coffee today though.

This is a very interesting case and having read all 12 pages over the last few days there has been some really insightful analysis and informed opinion.

Some years ago I did my Uni dissertation on a related subject: Trying to design Cycleways using highway design principles (DMRB), which are fundamentally governed by highway code vehicle stopping distances.

The basic principle is that when travelling at X mph, the highway code stopping distance is Y metres; therefore any horizontal or vertical radii in the carriageway should be allow the driver travelling at X mph (X = speed limit plus, form memory the 95th percentile of speeding drivers) sufficient distance to react should an obstruction be visible in the road at distance Y (plus of course a margin for error). Similar principles also apply to timings and visibility of traffic lights, crossings and other instances when a driver would need to react.

Using the basic GPS and technology of the time, plus more rudimentary measures, we set about measuring stopping distances of various bikes under various conditions, different speeds and rider ability. This would then be used to dictate minimum curve radii and other design standards for cycleway design.

Although we came up with some recommendations, the whole concept of this method was fundamentally weakened as there are too many variables which can dictate a minimum and maximum stopping distance, even on a well maintained, road legal cycle.

I fully agree that riding a brakeless fixie is a silly, irresponsible thing to do and stopping distances would be shorter with a front brake; but can not see how a court [assuming for simplicity that there were no other options available such swerving to avoid the pedestrian] can argue that the bike should have been able to stop in the available distance between the bike and pedestrian from any speed, given the number of entirely legal and plausible variables which may have been at play in this particular instance, whether it had a front brake or not.

Without legislative minimum standards of bike performance, maintenance and testing, rider training and testing and ultimately licencing a standardised braking ability can not be stated. This is neither feasible, practical or warranted.

That’s a load of rubbish – it reckons you can achieve 0.85g braking on a bike. No way – you might manage that amount of friction, but as you found in your test you’ll lift the back wheel way before that. If you were lifting the back wheel then you’ve found maximum braking and the road being wet made no difference.

With a decent brake and tyre on a grippy enough surface, the limit should be the geometry, which is where we get 0.5g from (the number I’ve been using). Steve’s numbers seem to be a bit less than that (0.5g braking from 18mph should be 6.5m), but there’s probably enough error in his measurements to account for that (17mph gives 5.8m stopping distance at 0.5g, and there’s significant error in instantaneous speed on most GPS).

I fully agree that riding a brakeless fixie is a silly, irresponsible thing to do and stopping distances would be shorter with a front brake; but can not see how a court [assuming for simplicity that there were no other options available such swerving to avoid the pedestrian] can argue that the bike should have been able to stop in the available distance between the bike and pedestrian from any speed, given the number of entirely legal and plausible variables which may have been at play in this particular instance, whether it had a front brake or not.

In this particular case they seem to be arguing that from the point the cyclist first shouted to where the impact took place it would have been possible to stop the bike if it had a front brake, but wouldn’t have been possible to stop that track bike. I think it’s been stated that the distance was 6.85m and, assuming we can ignore reaction times (on the basis of him having already reacted) then based on my own testing it does appear to be true that I could just about stop any of the 3 bikes I’ve tried in that distance using the front brake, but would have no chance with just a back brake (and that’s assuming that a fixed rear wheel on that track bike is as effective as the hydro disk on my bike which I very much doubt based on my own experience riding a track bike). So for me the stopping distance thing is proven. What’s still open to question though is whether it was the lack of a front brake that meant he didn’t slow in time, or whether a reasonable cyclist wouldn’t have braked even with brakes fitted. Without access to the CCTV footage I don’t think there is any way to tell. Personally (from what’s been described) if I thought she’d be out of the way by the time I got there I’d have slowed a bit to make sure, but not necessarily done an emergency stop, so if she did change direction and step back we may well have made contact but at a fairly slow speed. Speculation though.

I’m running a book for if he gets off

1 first words are it wasn’t my fault I told you in a smug **** face

2 carefully crafted apologetic tone statement from his counsel

That’s a load of rubbish – it reckons you can achieve 0.85g braking on a bike. No way – you might manage that amount of friction, but as you found in your test you’ll lift the back wheel way before that. If you were lifting the back wheel then you’ve found maximum braking and the road being wet made no difference.

Tend to agree. My road bike with the Ultegra discs seems to stop very, very well and I find it hard to believe I could get anywhere near 3m. On the damp road thing it didn’t seem to be the case that the road surface was a factor in the effectiveness of the braking but did wonder if I might find I brake harder sooner on a dry road (i.e. there was a psychological impact). Shame I’m not at my Edinburgh house as I could also have tried using my CBF1000 as it has ABS and would have been interesting to see how it compared.

Though the CofG on that is a lot lower, I’d expect stopping distances to be much shorter.

I’m still extremely dubious about the 3m figure and suspect the only reason it wasn’t challenged is that they’re avoiding that issue.

One potentially interesting issue here though is that whilst the law mandates a front brake, there’s no level of effectiveness specified in this country, which provides a fairly easy shoot down of any testing by the defence if they had wanted to go that way. Because a very ineffective brake with a 10m stopping distance would still have been legal, therefore removing the link between illegality and collision.

With a decent brake and tyre on a grippy enough surface, the limit should be the geometry, which is where we get 0.5g from (the number I’ve been using). Steve’s numbers seem to be a bit less than that (0.5g braking from 18mph should be 6.5m), but there’s probably enough error in his measurements to account for that.

Also the road outside my house seems to be very, very grippy – sort of like that shellgrip stuff you see on some dangerous corners. I was quite surprised to find I was doing rolling stoppies in the damp on my road bike! Felt very controlable as well without a sign of the front locking (not so for the rear) which might indicate I could have stopped a little quicker with practice. Doubt it’d have been much though.

It’s not the grippiness though, but that the geometry limits the ultimate stopping distance – no matter how good your brakes are and how much traction you have, at some point you’ll just go over the bars. It should in theory be possible to stop just as fast without using the back brake at all as the rear tyre will have no weight on it in a maximum braking stop.

One potentially interesting issue here though is that whilst the law mandates a front brake, there’s no level of effectiveness specified in this country, which provides a fairly easy shoot down of any testing by the prosecution if they had wanted to go that way.

All the bikes I have here have decent brakes (even the TT bikes have Ultegra’s although I am tempted to try the one that has wheels with carbon brake tracks) but I’ve got visitors staying at the moment who have brought a couple of cheapo mountain bikes (not quite bike shaped objects but not far off – they have V-brakes with non cartridge pads although they do seem to be set-up quite well) so am tempted to try on one of those. I’d love to try on a Boris bike as well, as their brakes aren’t great.