I had noticed that and thought about commenting – the BBC article and the Guardian article (my usual first two sources) are almost word for word, with other articles being very close. It is rather peculiar – are you suggesting there is some agenda in reporting this is a part of (more than the usual anti-cyclist narrative)?

I hope a lot of drivers who have walked free instead went to prison for a very long time. As above I’m not defending the cyclist at all if he is at fault, but at worst his actions are no worse than plenty of drivers who have been given a non-custodial sentence (or simply been found not guilty), and a brakeless bike is still far less dangerous on the road than any motor vehicle.

I suspect if you drove a track car which was never designed to be used on the road and killed someone with it you would get quite a long sentence

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).

if we, as cyclists want to be treated as humans, we need to obey all the laws, have fit for purpose bikes and be visible.

no point bleating on it’s not fair, because it isn’t.

fixie riders with no effective brakes riding beyond thier capabilities in central london do not help.

I wonder if there is an element of malice or deliberateness on the part of the cyclist for such charges to be libelled? (Emphasis on I wonder as like the rest of us I haven’t seen the evidence the CPS have).

Intent to do what?

Having time to shout 2 warnings yet not swerving means he knew he was going to hit her.

I still think some of you are making quite big assumptions from the reported information – the 2 warnings appears to be based on a report from a nearby witness who didn’t see the incident, and I can certainly think of circumstances in which a cyclist might shout 2 warnings to a pedestrian who steps out whilst still trying to avoid a collision. I doubt very much that he intended to have a collision with her!

I could be mistaken but when many car drivers/lorry drivers kill cyclists it’s because they didn’t see them. You don’t hear of many cases where a driver see’s a cyclist, hoots their horn and then continues to drive at the cyclist.

Apart from Bez’s examples, there are plenty of cases where a driver might not see the cyclist/pedestrian they collide with, but they still chose to do something reckless and dangerous which led to the incident. See my example a bit earlier of somebody choosing to park on the pavement and killing a little girl. I don’t see how that is any less reckless than taking no avoiding action when somebody steps into the road (which is still a big assumption of the cyclist’s actions).

FWIW just in case it needs pointing out (as I might be giving the opposite impression) I think it’s a bloody stupid thing to ride a track bike on the road, and I’d be quite happy for the police to spend a bit of time stopping them (even if it would be far from the most efficient use of their time from a road safety POV).

If he had time to shout then
a) she had time to get out the way and
b) he had time to stop and/or swerve, even on a fixie.

I’ve not seen any more about this case than is on the thread but, bugger it, here’s my guess:

It’s possible that he shouted late (I very much doubt “twice” in any meaningful sense), but was expecting to pass just behind her (maybe he was shouting as a “punishment” like drivers often use their horns).

And so she stopped.

I’ve seen it myself and now wouldn’t choose to shout (if I could avoid it in the sudden situation) if there’s very little time as IMO/E it’s easier and probably safer to let the pedestrian carry on their predictable route and attempt to miss them

Woo – is this the “cyclists have to earn respect” argument?

I’m not quite sure why cyclists can’t be treated as humans because they are humans. Personally I do try and avoid wearing my invisibility cloak whilst cycling – I have to admit you do have a point, those cyclists who make themselves invisible are part of the problem, and you can’t really fault drivers who are looking at the space they’re driving into for not seeing them.

It is rather peculiar – are you suggesting there is some agenda in reporting this is a part of (more than the usual anti-cyclist narrative)?

I’m saying that it’s interesting and it’s worth paying some attention to 😉 Stay woke and all that.

if we, as cyclists want to be treated as humans, we need to obey all the laws, have fit for purpose bikes and be visible.

Seriously, can we all just f*** off with that ridiculous crap unless you also start saying that if we, as drivers, want to be treated as humans then we need to obey all the road laws, etc etc etc. (Rant abridged given the timing.)

You’re simply playing into the hands of anyone using one individual as political capital, which is a cheap (but sadly effective) trick that trades on idle opinions rather than the objective use of evidence.

grow up, Bez.

That’s the grown up response, is it? 😉

no, the grown up response is modifying your own behaviour to manipulate other people.

the sixth form/child/presidential response is why should I change when they wont?

no, the grown up response is modifying your own behaviour to manipulate other people.

Go on then, tell me which aspects of my riding I need to modify.

the sixth form/child/presidential response is why should I change when they wont?

That wasn’t my response and you’re missing the point entirely.

How is your manipulation of incompetent and sociopath drivers going? I have to admit I’m not having much success with my tactics of being a human and taking off my invisibility cloak and could do with some hints.

so, I’m lit up like a reflective flouro christmas tree at at 90’s disco rave, I stop at lights, I clearly signal my intentions.

I get more room and more courtesy since I decided to stop being a reactive ****.

I ride 200 miles a week, in the city and countryside.

I didn’t ask about you. I asked what I should do. I use lights 24/7, I stop at traffic lights, I signal. I mean, hell, I use reflective tyres and I’ve even stuck little reflective stickers on my Time pedals in attempt to cover my ass should the worst happen and the family doesn’t want the phrase “contributory negligence” added to their woes. What should I do to combat (a) the fact that some drivers pass me dangerously closely and (b) the fact that some people vocally hate anyone who rides a bike? Because you say that I need to grow up by modifying my behaviour, to somehow influence something, and I’m buggered if I can see how. If I thought I could, I’ve done it, trust me.

The thing is, even though I’m doing all these things, people are still getting killed, the media is still full of anti-cycling editorial, below the line is full of sociopathic vitriol, I still get a pass close enough to make me instinctively say a bad word roughly every 20 miles, and so on.

I could literally kiss the arse of everyone who shows me a printout of their VED payment and it would not make the slightest difference. Equally I could send a hand written letter to everyone in the country asking them that if they ride a bicycle would they please not go through a red light because it’s naughty, and that too would not make the slightest difference. And I could write a thousand words on here carefully explaining to you why it would not make the slightest difference, and that too would not make the slightest difference.

Fortunately, Bradley Wiggins is of the same school of thought as you, so you can have the stuff that I wrote about him, although I’m sure it won’t make the slightest difference 😉

The Rise of The Idiots

Ah, so you’re suggesting something more than just not using an invisibility cloak? I don’t ride much at night, and I’m hoping somewhat naively that drivers will look where they’re going.

I have to admit I am occasionally still a reactive **** after somebody has endangered my life, I’m not quite sure how drivers know in advance whether or not I am one – how do you imagine they know that about you in order to give you more room and courtesy?

hadn’t been expecting much but even then was surprised just how poor the braking capability is with just a fixed wheel.

If you are riding around a velodrome with a 90 inch gear and don’t have the techniques required to stop then yes it will seem hard to believe you can actually stop quite quickly with just a fixed wheel.

Do you think you can skid stop a 90in gear? 😆

Nice work bez. Sailed just close enough to the line for it not quite to be a personal attack although the direct quote gives that impression.

It was a fair statement that cyclists are not immune to the law. The car cars cited are horrendous but, from the scant details, an important feature of this case that there was wilful mechanical negligence,suggestion of ability for avoiding action AND a fatal outcome.

It’s a highly unusual case and that’s what piques media interest. But why let that get in the way of turning it to an anti cycling agenda for fuelling your twitter feed.

Bez – I’m a big fan of your writing and articles but

there has also been a lot of leverage of the Putney jogger incident to drive a clear anti-cycling narrative

Sounds a bit paranoid to me. I’ve not seen anything reported to link the jogger incident with anti-cyclist rhetoric, but I’m happy to be proved wrong by your usually far more thorough research.

And I think I, and most others on here, have fallen into the usual internet trap of trying to judge the actual circumstances on brief reports, rather than the full evidence the jury will hear.

The BBC article and the Guardian article (my usual first two sources) are almost word for word, with other articles being very close. It is rather peculiar – are you suggesting there is some agenda in reporting this is a part of (more than the usual anti-cyclist narrative)?

Bez gave the answer. The papers are all using Press Association copy filed from court. They didn’t have a reporter there, so have to use it with minimal tweaks. There’s no agenda, they just have no option but to use PA copy if they want to carry the story.

However, it’s quite likely that now they’ve been alerted to an ‘interesting’ case in progress, some of them will send their own reporter for subsequent days, so they have more scope for their own ‘take’ on it. I’d expect the Mail to do exactly this, whereas the Guardian etc will probably stick with PA.

Are there any cases where a car/lorry has killed a pedestrian/cyclist due to the fact that they had purposefully removed all the brakes from their vehicle because it was fashionable. ?

If there are, then it would be a valid comparison.

Do you think you can skid stop a 90in gear?

No, that was my point. The poster who couldn’t comprehend stopping with no brakes only had experience of a bike on a velodrome which would have a high gear.

I ride around on a 60in gear and can stop quite nicely thank you…

riding round london without a front brake on a fixie is just stupidly irresponsible – he’d had a previous fixie where he had removed the front brake and tweeted about being like those guys in that courier movie.

Derestricting an e-bike to power-assist over 15.5mph is going to open up the rider to similar charges if they have an accident and it gets noticed.

I’ve hit a cyclist who walked across in front from the opposite side of the road behind a bus. Was able to shout and swerve but glanced her and went into the kerb. She went down hard, but we were both OK. Stopping in time was out of the question.

This cyclist has been charged with manslaughter and also furious driving/pedalling as a fall-back. I suspect the cctv and expert evidence will show that even with proper brakes, the ability to stop in time to avoid the collision will not be proven beyond reasonable doubt and he will be acquitted.

I ride fixed wheel a lot, and always countenance two proper brakes. My suspicion is that this young man thought 1) its a cool bike – planet X track bike as used in our club 2) didn’t need a brake because it’s fixed.

Ignorance, as he has found out, is no defence in law, but I doubt he was doing anything dangerous or reckless. Pedestrians do step out without warning or thinking and he just seems to have collided – and the bike was found to be defective. Brakes are the first thing to be checked by the police in an accident.

I don’t think there are any winners in this case. But it would be good to see the Police clamp down on “fixies”. I hate that term btw.

A woman’s life tragically cut short and a lads ruined for the foreseeable future. Terribly sad for all involved.

Sounds a bit paranoid to me. I’ve not seen anything reported to link the jogger incident with anti-cyclist rhetoric, but I’m happy to be proved wrong by your usually far more thorough research.

The Daily Mail managed it in an opinion column.
There was also a Sky journalist (Adam Boulton) who tweeted that joggers and cyclists “didn’t fit” on congested innner city streets and should be restricted to purpose built tracks.

Sounds a bit paranoid to me. I’ve not seen anything reported to link the jogger incident with anti-cyclist rhetoric, but I’m happy to be proved wrong by your usually far more thorough research.

Right you are 😉

The most prominent example is Jan Moir’s piece in the Mail, “There’s no selfish oaf like a hogger jogger or lycra lout”, which is laughably transparent but a pretty sturdy example of weaponising the jogger incident to a wider context. I’m not even going to quote it because it’s so full of threadbare tropes and blatant aiming of vitriol that I’d struggle to choose which bit to paste in.

In the Mirror, Fiona Phillips’ response to the jogger incident kicked off with, “the traffic light-ignoring cyclists, the pedestrian crossing-ignoring cyclists, the pavement-hogging cyclists, the cyclists-cum-detectives with Go-Pros on their helmets, the Lycra-clad Tour de Pavement cyclists and the by-law offending cyclists”.

The Times published an article about “Jogger rage” with its single large pull quote saying “They remind me of those obnoxious ‘lycra lout’ bikers who cause havoc by whizzing through the byways” and a photo caption “The jogger – potentially the greatest threat to human life since cyclists took to the pavements”.

The Express went with “new breed of Lycra-clad fanatics”, “two-wheeled marauders” etc.

At the lower end: Adam Boulton of Sky tweeted that “Joggers and cyclists don’t fit” in cities; the Guardian bundled cyclists in with a piece on “the hell of urban pavements”.

Here’s something that’s actually worth reading on the matter:
Fighting over scraps

Parrallels with this case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496

non-road legal vehicle contributing to the death of another road user.

I ride around on a 60in gear and can stop quite nicely thank you..

i ride 68in gear and can stop quite nicely too. having a dura ace front brake with swiss-stop pads helps.
(plus a cross-top lever on the top of drops for riding in london traffic, you know, for when people randomly step out in front of you.)

If they’re seeking manslaughter then maybe they think he hit her on purpose?

in the run-up to this trial there has also been a lot of leverage of the Putney jogger incident to drive a clear anti-cycling narrative across various media outlets.

You’re not implying this is some kind of conspiracy are you? It’s just awful columnists having space to fill.

f they’re seeking manslaughter then maybe they think he hit her on purpose?

Manslaughter doesn’t mean that.

if we, as cyclists want to be treated as humans, we need to obey all the laws, have fit for purpose bikes and be visible.

If this guy represents cyclist then does Jimmy Saville represent men?

I don’t behave like either of them, and i’m not sure i should be punished for either of their law breaking.

There’s a widespread view that certain uses of street space are “legitimate” (i.e. driving) and others are “illegitimate”. And the Putney jogger fallout really fits in with that.

Down in Bristol there’s a project where residents can apply to have their street closed so kids can play in it. From the outset the local paper started targeting them with negative articles, overstated the funding they received, accused them of nepotism (the founder was the mayor’s daughter, although as far as I can tell this hindered them more than helping them).

There are plenty more examples. It’s not necessarily the media’s narrative but they are happy to go along with it.

I suspect the cctv and expert evidence will show that even with proper brakes, the ability to stop in time to avoid the collision will not be proven beyond reasonable doubt and he will be acquitted.

I ride with the Redbridge club which uses the cycling circuit at Hogg Hill and some of the folks from the club recall being at the track last year when the police were testing the bike used in this incident. So it does look like some research has been done on the implications on braking distance and how it relates to this case.

I spend a day riding track bikes at the velodrome for a corporate thing and based on that experience I’d say the difference between stopping distances between my road bike, with brakes front and back, and a track bike with just the fixed geat is definitely not trivial.

I’d say the difference between stopping distances between my road bike, with brakes front and back, and a track bike with just the fixed geat is definitely not trivial.

I’ve always thought the greater part of braking was done at the front, what with weight transfer and all so I’d be surprised if a fixie could come close unless it’s got a front brake.

I’ve always thought the greater part of braking was done at the front, what with weight transfer and all so I’d be surprised if a fixie could come close unless it’s got a front brake.

I’ve tried to find studies online and there doesn’t seem to be anything really definitive however various studies seem to indicate that a fixie without a front brake takes somewhere over twice as long (2.2-2.3 has been mentioned) to stop as a bike with proper brakes (and that’s with excellent fixie technique).

I spend a day riding track bikes at the velodrome for a corporate thing and based on that experience I’d say the difference between stopping distances between my road bike, with brakes front and back, and a track bike with just the fixed geat is definitely not trivial.

Depends on the gear ratio and how good you are on it. Skid stops are perfectly possible if you’re good enough and have a low enough gear. Higher gears found on actual track racing bikes are much much more difficult to control in that manner becasue they’re not intended for skid stops.

The sensationalist reporting about his speed is annoying. “nearly 20mph” on a fixed gear weighing 100kg all up is “dangeorus” whereas 20mph in a car is too slow, difficult to adhere to…

20 pic.twitter.com/cxn0o54GCt

— Bez (@beztweets) August 15, 2017

Just on a tangent, I briefly had a Kona Jake with canti brakes which were alarmingly shit in the wet – taking maybe five times as much distance to stop as in the dry.

Would I have been regarded the same as this guy if I’d killed a pedestrian?