Some quotes from the trial:

The cyclist also said: “F*** me and my health, I can heal and recover. The bike cannot. Thankfully I was going quite a slowish/moderate speed. Plus I skidded too, which slowed me down a bit.

He later wrote on an internet forum for fixed bike enthusiasts, how he twice warned Mrs Briggs to “get the f*** outta my way,” jurors were told earlier in the trial.

“But unfortunately the momentum kept me going. If I were going any faster the frame would have cracked or been shattered.”

The cyclist told cops after he was arrested: “I have slowed down enough for her to get past me”, jurors were told.

The court was told he had shouted twice after spotting Kim to “make her aware of his presence”.

I think we’re expecting a verdict today. I’m 50:50 on whether he’ll be convicted, however if by his own admission he locked up the back wheel then that suggest to me that braking was a factor and might also do so to the jury.

Ah, I’d missed that bit – however “I have slowed down enough for her to get past me” seems quite useful for the defence case.

however “I have slowed down enough for her to get past me” seems quite useful for the defence case.

Yes, I guess it could be used to say “I deliberately didn’t come to a stop because there was a ‘safe’ route for me behind her, so the brakes on the bike are irrelevant because I wouldn’t have been using them whether I had 0,1 or 2 brakes”. Which puts the collision into ‘momentary lapse’ territory rather than a pre-meditated decision to take a ‘dangerous’ ‘racing/track bike’ onto the road.

Does anyone know if the 6.65m gap when he started swerving is when he swerved to go behind her or a second movement when he realised she was moving backwards, into his path, and he was trying to avoid a collision?

I think he’ll be found guilty of manslaughter and W&F btw, which will grate because of the comparison to drivers who kill are behind the wheel when pedestrians are fatally ‘in collision’ with their cars.

He took a vehicle on the road that was not road legal. That is the sole reason he is being charged with manslaughter. If a driver took a track car on the road and killed someone they’d also be charged with manslaughter.

Taking a vehicle on the road which is not road legal is not the same in the eyes of the law as taking an unroadworthy vehicle on the road.

Both are a failure to comply with construction and use regulations, so no, legally there is no difference (there’s nothing particularly special legally about not having a front brake, as mentioned earlier it’s not fundamentally legally different to having a bald tyre).

He took a vehicle on the road that was not road legal. That is the sole reason he is being charged with manslaughter. If a driver took a track car on the road and killed someone they’d also be charged with manslaughter.

I was talking about the (as yet, unknown) verdict not the charge. And that’s what all of the debate is about, nobody seems to disagree with the charge. It’s about the link between the brakes and the death.

And that’s what all of the debate is about, nobody seems to disagree with the charge.

There were definitely grounds for charging him IMHO. Still not sure one way or the other on the verdict (or even on what the verdict should be) given I haven’t seen the most crucial evidence which is the CCTV footage.

not fundamentally legally different to having a bald tyre).

But if you had deliberately made said tyre bald, told people about it and THEN gone out for a drive…..

But if you had deliberately made said tyre bald, told people about it and THEN gone out for a drive…..

It’s more like someone fitting racing slicks to a road car ’cause they thought they looked cooler then killing a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them in the wet, in conditions that were proved as being possible to stop from in a car with road tyres but not one with slicks. Suspect that’d get a manslaughter charge (and probably a conviction).

But if you had deliberately made said tyre bald, told people about it and THEN gone out for a drive…..

Then any charges (beyond the simple one for driving with bald tyres) would depend on whether the collision was caused/affected by the tyres.

E.g. if you get out of the car and forget to put the handbrake on, it rolls down a hill and squashes someone. The condition of the tyres is irrelevant to the squashing.

Or like the driver who hit the black ice and wiped out a group of cyclists.

But if you had deliberately made said tyre bald, told people about it and THEN gone out for a drive…..
[/quote]

It would still make no legal difference.

I note that in this case the cyclist claims to have been unaware of the law, which effectively puts him on the same footing as those who were unaware their car wasn’t road legal, but it’s completely irrelevant to the case, as the only question is whether there was an illegal act, not the cyclist’s awareness of the illegal act.

I note that in this case the cyclist claims to have been unaware of the law, which effectively puts him on the same footing as those who were unaware their car wasn’t road legal, but it’s completely irrelevant to the case, as the only question is whether there was an illegal act, not the cyclist’s awareness of the illegal act.

I suspect the only point of saying that (which I don’t believe anyway – I’m 100% sure he knew that law) was so he could say he wasn’t deliberately being illegal/risk taking but was just ignorant.

Might not make a legal difference but could make a difference to the juries view of the defendant.

From the Road Danger Reduction Forum

The Charlie Alliston case: the real story

Interesting read and more or less summarises my thoughts on it – namely that if he’d have been in a car, we’d never even have herad of this case. Might get a column inch on page 19 somewhere.
This has been front page in several tabloids, all scremaing emotive headlines such as “Boy, 18, KILLED mother of two due to ILLEGAL bike!”

Interesting read and more or less summarises my thoughts on it – namely that if he’d have been in a car, we’d never even have herad of this case. Might get a column inch on page 19 somewhere.

And even more worryingly, that he almost certainly wouldn’t be facing a manslaughter charge.

An interesting take on it from the defence barrister in the most recent report I can find

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/15486375.Jurors_begin_deliberations_in_case_involving_cyclist_accused_of_killing_Lewisham_mum_in_bike_crash/

And even more worryingly, that he almost certainly wouldn’t be facing a manslaughter charge.

Causing depth by dangerous driving as an alternative to manslaughter I think.

In most of the cases where a car kills a pedestrian or a cyclist it’s not down to someone deliberately driving an illegal vehicle on the road, with that illegality being to a key safety system like brakes. Where it has happened though there are cases (the tipper lorry case for example) where a manslaughter charge has succeeded and resulted in a prison sentence.

No – but it’s a question of moral equivalence. Driving a motor vehicle with non functional brakes is far, far more dangerous than riding a fixie without a front brake. Meanwhile the vast majority of deliberate decisions drivers take which lead to people being killed are also more dangerous than this. Yet such things are normalised.

Driving a motor vehicle with non functional brakes is far, far more dangerous than riding a fixie without a front brake.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Do I think driving a car with only rear brakes is stupid and dangerous and could contribute to someone getting killed? Yes.
Do I think riding a bike on the road without a front brake is stupid and dangerous and could contribute to someone getting killed? Yes.

At that location, at lunchtime on a weekday, I think it’s pretty irresponsible riding a bike without effective brakes at a speed like that as the chances of a pedestrian stepping out in front of you is quite high. Even if it’s primarily the pedestrians mistake that puts them in danger it’s still something you need to be aware of – especially in somewhere like London where there are loads of tourists about as well.

Driving a motor vehicle with non functional brakes is far, far more dangerous than riding a fixie without a front brake

More dangerous than killing someone you mean?

This was an interesting quote I thought…

In his closing speech before the jury was sent out, Mark Wyeth QC, defending, questioned the manslaughter charge.

He said: “The counsel of perfection that the prosecution put forward is so complete, if you reversed the outcome, if Mr Alliston went over the handlebars, had fractured his skull and died and Mrs Briggs got up and dusted herself off, what’s to stop her from being prosecuted for manslaughter on the approach the prosecution take, because she should not have been there?”

He said Mrs Briggs had not used the pedestrian crossing 30 feet away from where the pair collided and Alliston had right of way.

“This is not a case of somebody jumping the lights,” he said.

“This is not a case of an approach speed on this bike that was illegal, it’s a 30mph area and the hazards that were in that road were not of Mr Alliston’s making.”

Mr Wyeth also accused prosecutors of failing to pay attention to his client’s claim that Mrs Briggs stepped back slightly and put herself in the way of his bike.

He said: “The crown have run with this no brake point without, you may think, a proper analysis of the stepping back point.

“Their preoccupation with brakes and speed is in contrast with what the defendant was saying, which was really about the position of Mrs Briggs and she was, in due respect, the hazard.”

stepped back slightly

I don’t think that helps his defence as it makes it sound like he planned to pass her close at speed but it all went wrong.

I don’t think that helps his defence as it makes it sound like he planned to pass her close at speed but it all went wrong.

Well yeah, basically I think you can surmise that he did intend to make a close pass, and his main intent was to avoid a collision, and yes it obviously went wrong…

So instead they’re contending that her own actions contributed at least as much as fixie boys, and that either party could have died, as much as a result of her having stepped into the road as his lacking a front brake… had he died would she now be facing a combo “Manslaughter/reckless and wanton walking” charge?

Yes they’re “victim blaming” (I said they would earlier in this thread) but to some extent they have to fight fire with fire, and they’re only trying to win this one case, not the whole “cycling debate”…

It’s not pretty, but it’s about all they’ve got I suppose…

Well yes, like killing 4 people.

But I’d bet 100s if not 1000s of miles are done every week on brakeless fixies without killing anybody.

But I’d bet 100s if not 1000s of miles are done every week on brakeless fixies without killing anybody.

And your point is?

That in absolute terms it’s not actually that dangerous a thing to do – possibly safer than driving around in a fully road legal car.

That in absolute terms it’s not actually that dangerous a thing to d

So riding a bike without effective brakes isn’t dangerous, just illegal? Is that your point?

u ok hun?

I think that was what I just wrote, yes.

My basis for comparison here is ~5 people a day killed on the roads by vehicles other than brakeless fixies.

As it happens I spent some time this morning crunching traffic statistics.

For UK there are 508 billion vehicle km travelled annually during which there are 1770 fatalities and 144,480 injury crashes. That equates to one death per 286 million km of vehicle travel, one injury crash per 3.5 million km of vehicle travel. (Based on 2013 OECD road safety data UK)

Applying standard statistics in order demonstrate with 95% confidence and 80% power that the failure rate for brakeless fixies failiure rate is 20% better than general vehicles you’d need to record 35.5 billion km if considering fatalities or 435 million km if considering injury crashes.

I don’t think there are that many brakeless fixie riders out there in order to draw such conclusions 😉 But yes if I were to take a stab in the dark I’d guess they would be safer than general vehicle in terms of causing deaths, less certain in terms of causing injuries.

Applying standard statistics in order demonstrate with 95% confidence and 80% power that the failure rate for brakeless fixies failiure rate is 20% better than general vehicles you’d need to record 35.5 billion km if considering fatalities or 435 million km if considering injury crashes.

I’m confused by this. Would you need to record so many fixed gear bike (without brakes) miles as that to make a statistically meaningful analysis? Presumably there will also be an overlap with car vehicle miles, since many fatalities and injuries associated with fixed gear bikes without brakes will involve a car as well (and it may be that the car driver is wholly at fault and the lack of front brake is irrelevant).

I suspect that the great majority of fixed gear bikes without brakes are ridden in London and major cities, which might distort the picture (much higher general traffic levels and greater risk).

Lastly, to state the obvious, I would expect the overwhelming majority of the people killed and injured, to be the riders (usually the most vulnerable road user in any accident). The fact that this court case is unusual in that a pedestrian was killed, and a manslaughter charge brought, is what has made it so newsworthy.

But that assumes that the risk to other road users is similar. 100Kg of bloke and bike travelling at 30kmh has somewhat different kinetic energy compared to 1500Kg of car and driver travelling at 30kmh or (more likely given our 30mph targets limits) 50kmh.

Something that happens every day, like five deaths on the roads, isn’t newsworthy at least not in a national sense. If the rate rose or dropped by a significant amount then that tends to be newsworthy but otherwise it seems that society regards it as a price worth paying for the convenience and tax revenue of motor vehicles.

Not sure how this will conclude TBH, I suspect the point (if proven) that the woman was on her phone when she stepped into the road will have a bearing. Pedestrians seem to think that bikes are pootling along at 5 – 10mph rather than moving at similar speeds to the rest of traffic so even when (if) they see a bike they assume that there’s plenty of time to continue their manoeuvre. Then when they realise that the bike is moving much quicker than they thought they panic. None of the above excuses the defendant from riding a track bike on the road though.

I’m not really sure what relevance the stats have to this case – it’s not really acceptable grounds to not prosecute a case just because it’s unusual or other things are of higher risk. The case is definitely unusual (as are any cycing/pedestrian fatalities in the UK) however there appears to be very little dispute on this and other cycling forums that was a case to be made for manslaughter as it definitely fits the description. It’s also definitely the case that, using the 18mph speed and 6.65m braking distance mentioned, a bike with legal brakes had the potential to stop (or slow very close to a stop) whereas the biked in question, with just a fixed wheel, could not.

There is definitely room for dispute on whether the braking capability and the death are actually linked and, given no-one here has seen the CCTV footage, none of us are sure of that.

I suspect that the great majority of fixed gear bikes without brakes are ridden in London and major cities, which might distort the picture (much higher general traffic levels and greater risk).

While the standard of cycling in London can be marginal at best it’s my experience that it’s the fixed bike riders that are the worst – especially when it comes to things like jumping lights and riding through pedestrian crossings between pedestrians that are crossing. No idea whether that’s to do with the bikes themselves (e.g. harder to stop/harder to start) or whether it’s to do with the type of rider who’s attracted to the style of them though.

I’m sure you’re right if you were wanting to do the statistical comparison to road legal cars – though I note that brakeless fixies probably don’t do many miles on motorways, and that the miles per death for cars on the sort of roads people do ride fixies on is undoubtedly much lower than your raw figure.

Though to come back to the original point I was making, how many miles per death for motor vehicles with non functional brakes?

None – this case is an anecdote and tells you nothing about the statistical risk. It’s just a sidetrack we’ve gone off on because I raised the issue of the deliberate decision to ride without a front brake being less dangerous than lots of deliberate decisions drivers take leading to deaths (for which they’d likely face lesser charges).

None – this case is an anecdote and tells you nothing about the statistical risk. It’s just a sidetrack we’ve gone off on because I raised the issue of the deliberate decision to ride without a front brake being less dangerous than lots of deliberate decisions drivers take leading to deaths (for which they’d likely face lesser charges).

If the guy in this case does get found guilty then I’m expecting him to get a suspended sentence, primarily due to the pedestrian also having contributed significantly to the accident.

Apparently 94% of drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving get a custodial sentence, with the most common sentence being in the 3 to 5 year range. Where drugs/drink was an aggravating factor then the custodial rate was slightly higher (95%) and sentences were quite a bit higher (average sentence was 53.5 months).

Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (which could be seen as the closest to this case) then 27% got a custodial sentence (average of 14 months) with the vast majority of the rest getting either community service or a suspended sentence.

Apparently 94% of drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving get a custodial sentence, with the most common sentence being in the 3 to 5 year range. Where drugs/drink was an aggravating factor then the custodial rate was slightly higher (95%) and sentences were quite a bit higher (average sentence was 53.5 months).

Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (which could be seen as the closest to this case) then 27% got a custodial sentence (average of 14 months) with the vast majority of the rest getting either community service or a suspended sentence.

Slightly confused by your splits here – I think you might be wrongly making a distinction between “custodial” and “suspended” sentences – my understanding (happy to be corrected, IANAL) is that a 14 month jail term, suspended for two years (for example) is still a custodial sentence.

I guess what I’m asking is, is your 94% figure above people who actually served time, or does it include a proportion who were given custodial sentences, but ones which were suspended?

I guess what I’m asking is, is your 94% figure above people who actually served time, or does it include a proportion who were given custodial sentences, but ones which were suspended?

Actually served time. The other 6% all got suspended sentences.

Ta

The conviction rate for causing death by dangerous is only 65% – apparently it’s low due to the number that get downgraded to death by careless during the case. The conviction rate for death by dangerous aggravated by drugs/drink is 91% and for death by careless it’s 88%.