Except the context (as given by the quote at the start of my post) is that he did slow down and swerve, and this could have been sufficient to avoid the collision were it not for the pedestrian’s subsequent actions.

Though as pointed out by Bez, an expectation of what another road user is going to do appears to be sufficient defence in motoring cases – as I pointed out, you simply have to introduce reasonable doubt in some aspect of the case, and it appears sufficient to show that the victim’s actions were in some way at fault (referencing Helen Measures). Though I’m not sure if there is a difference here between the proof required for DBCD/DBDD and manslaughter which actually makes it harder to use such defences in manslaughter cases.

she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash

So riding along at 18mph and a person steps out giving you 3.8 seconds to react and ultimately stop.

A lot of riders would not have stopped in time, brakes or no brakes

Don’t go too hard on the numbers at this stage. Something is missing from reports, because the distances that have been given are covered in around 1 second at 18mph, not 3.8. Currently available details do not make it entirely clear what most of the distances/times relate to.

The chances of the expert reports being accurate are reasonably high, but we’re not currently seeing an accurate and clear communication of them in the media.

I dunno if we’ll see the footage, but this is all assumption without at least a detailed description of its contents.

Purely hypothetically, it can sometimes feel safer to steer around an unexpected obstacle than to perform an emergency stop.

Barfoot, under cross-examination by Miss Ascherson, said: “I saw her cross the road on the right and she was comfortable in doing that as she had enough time on that side of the road. ?“I thought she was going to stop in the centre but when I realised she was going to carry on I shouted, blew my horn and braked as hard as I could.

It seems like he sounded his horn and braked upon realising the woman was moving in front of him. He should have seen this earlier but didn’t. The cyclist at the centre of this thread was riding a bike that didn’t give him the braking option (according to the court). Anyway the case is on going we’ll find out what the court decides soon enough.

3.8 seconds seems like plenty of time to stop to me. Can’t find good info on bike stopping times but from 20mph on a motorbike it’s supposed to be something like 1.8s to stop (including reaction time).

If the tests the police did prove something similar then the difference between say 2 seconds with brakes and 8 seconds (the quoted 4x from the tests they did) is going to be significant given that 3.8s falls almost midway.

There is no way to stop quickly without brakes! Period. Especially on a track bike with a short wheelbase and very hard, very narrow tyres. It may be possible to optimise the no brake retardation but it’ll still be shocking compared to even a single front caliper. All you’re ever going to do is slither down the road in a barely controlled tank slapper.

Please stop perpetuating the myth.

So how I have been riding AND stopping for 10+ years is now a myth.

Out of interest, have you actually ridden a track bike with a low gear with a good level of experience in skid stopping?

Slithering down the road would suggest not….

So how I have been riding AND stopping for 10+ years is now a myth.

Correct.

philjunior – Member

CCTV footage played in the courtroom showed Alliston beginning to swerve as he approached Mrs Briggs at an average speed of 18mph – with crash investigator Edward Small saying she had stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash.”

**** hell, that’s a long long time not to manage to stop – even accounting for the initial “must’ve seen me, they’ll move out of the way” reaction. It does genuinely sound like if he was riding with anything like an effective set of brakes he would’ve pulled up quite comfortably – I was a little suspicious of the fixed wheel no front brake causing the accident thing when I first heard about it.[/quote]
That was 3.8 from stepping out, no info on if they were visible to the cyclist or even on that side of the road. Or equally as in the other post about the driver, the rider might have assumed the person would stop in the middle of the road, so only shouted when they realised their paths were about to converge. We dont know.

Repeating the point about the lack of clarity in current reports: there has been no explicit mention of whether the cited times include reaction time, though given the numbers involved (and there are multiple reported values so this information, too, is unclear) I very much suspect they do not. If they do not then they need to be added. You may want to look up the sort of reaction times the police quote in prosecutions of drivers, but they’re generally at least 1.5 seconds.

That’s exactly the feeling I have with this case. Fundamentally you don’t need to come to a complete stop to avoid running into a pedestrian in the road – I’m sure I’ve steered around a few and I’d be surprised if most people here haven’t. I’m still assuming that the cyclist didn’t intend to hit the pedestrian and that he would have avoided her but for her subsequent actions in the 3.8s after she entered the road. If that is the case, the defence of the bus driver is extremely pertinent – if he was expecting to avoid her and at the point he realised he wasn’t he couldn’t have stopped even with a front brake (as was the case with the bus with fully functional brakes) that completely removes the legality of his bike from the case.

That was 3.8 from stepping out, no info on if they were visible to the cyclist or even on that side of the road. Or equally as in the other post about the driver, the rider might have assumed the person would stop in the middle of the road, so only shouted when they realised their paths were about to converge. We dont know.

I see that from subsequent comments – and one would not reasonably expect every road user to stop every time a pedestrian steps onto the road on the other side of a traffic island.

So how I have been riding AND stopping for 10+ years is now a myth.

I don’t think there’s any debate about the fact that it’s possible to stop a fixie with no additional brakes. But equally there’s no debate about the fact that you can’t stop it as quickly as you can if you add a front brake. You can ride for as many years as you like, you don’t get to change physics.

Obviously reaction/thinking time is a factor before anyone could begin to apply brakes (providing they have them), but to state the obvious there is no substitute for good roadcraft and awareness. Flat bars are better for riding in traffic, but if you are going to ride a drop barred bike [edit – in a busy city centre type environment], then you should be able to brake without moving your hands on the bars, e.g. hands on the hoods rather than the tops of the bars.

Purely hypothetically, it can sometimes feel safer to steer around an unexpected obstacle than to perform an emergency stop.

This requires very good awareness of what is happening all around you, i.e. constantly checking, otherwise you risk swerving into the path of a car behind you.

‘m still assuming that the cyclist didn’t intend to hit the pedestrian and that he would have avoided her but for her subsequent actions in the 3.8s after she entered the road.

The problem for the guy in this case is that it can and will be argued that the reason he didn’t try to stop was because he couldn’t, and the reason he couldn’t stop was because he was knowingly riding an illegal bike without effective brakes. It’ll be argued that a forseable potential consequence of the latter was the former, hence the manslaughter charge.

3.8 seconds seems like plenty of time to stop to me.

I’ve done the maths and yes it does (I was wrong). It is around 25 metres away at 14mph which is a long way ahead to see someone.

if you are going to ride a drop barred bike, then you should be able to brake without moving your hands on the bars

Ironically, the braking system that offers a quicker response than any other is a fixed wheel.

Though if you’re making that argument, then an emergency stop is equally (or more) likely to cause issues with a car behind you – the only possible issue with a car behind when swerving is if that car is attempting to overtake you, and given the circumstances of a pedestrian having entered the road the bets are off regarding the behaviour of any driver still overtaking.

This requires very good awareness of what is happening all around you, i.e. constantly checking, otherwise you risk swerving into the path of a car behind you.

I know I have made an instinctive decision to steer round pedestrians who launch themselves into the road before.

I can usually tell if a vehicle is imminently overtaking me – and would certainly take the chance in a split-second decision.

Not necessarily a problem – again remembering the standard of proof required, it simply has to be shown that his actions weren’t unreasonable. I’m not sure speculation on the thought processes of the defendant is admissible evidence!

The defence rests its case!

i loved his social media post

how he will heal but his bike is broken , dunno if that would have entered manys heads having just nailed someone and tweeting about it later? (source daily fail) but did he really post “Hopefully it is a lesson to be learned on her behalf.’

you can understand maybe the anger whilst the girl was spark out on the floor being adreniline whilst your shouting at someone but really it seems the victim blaming has been stroing with this one

it was he who claimed she was on her mobile, did the police get info to confirm, this if no ??

I see that from subsequent comments – and one would not reasonably expect every road user to stop every time a pedestrian steps onto the road on the other side of a traffic island.

you don’t ride round london expecting pedestrians to not step out at you all the time – it’s probably more of a hazard than cars are.

I can think of a few sets of traffic lights near London Bridge, for example, that have absolutely no indication to pedestrians as to when to cross, although the road furniture is clearly designed for pedestrians to cross there.

To ride around on a bike that is not as fully equiped as it can be to stop as fast as possible is just massively negligent and selfish. A front brake is so much more effective than a rear brake, which in turn is a lot more effective than a skidding tyre.

Not necessarily a problem – again remembering the standard of proof required, it simply has to be shown that his actions weren’t unreasonable. I’m not sure speculation on the thought processes of the defendant is admissible evidence!

Will be interesting to see how it goes as I expect the prosecution will counter each and every claim from the defendant on why he didn’t stop, given there was plenty of time (which appears to be a key claim of theirs), with their proposition being the only reason was because he couldn’t.

It’s almost the best reason to make sure you have a road legal bike because at least that argument can’t then be used. That plus the abject stupidity involved in riding a bike without effective brakes in London traffic of course.

It is, but that doesn’t mean it was the cause of the death, which is what is being argued about (not the only thing being argued about, though if I was defending him I’d be trying to show that his lack of brakes was irrelevant – IANAL).

It is, but that doesn’t mean it was the cause of the death,

Does it need to be the cause or does it just need to be a contributing factor? Even the argument about there not being enough time to stop even on a bike with brakes could be countered by the prosecution if there was at least time to slow down, potentially to the extent that the accident wouldn’t then be fatal.

Without the no brakes thing I doubt there would even be a prosecution as even if the cyclist made the “wrong” decision in how he attempted to avoid the pedestrian (who clearly contributes significantly given they’d stepped onto the road without ensuring it was safe to do so, especially as there was a crossing not all that far away) he wouldn’t have been denied a key option due to his illegal, brakeless bike.

Though if you’re making that argument, then an emergency stop is equally (or more) likely to cause issues with a car behind you – the only possible issue with a car behind when swerving is if that car is attempting to overtake you, and given the circumstances of a pedestrian having entered the road the bets are off regarding the behaviour of any driver still overtaking.

A driver is is unlikely to position his car directly behind a cyclist, since he/she will probably be looking to overtake at the first opportunity (unless the road is extremely narrow and/or the cyclist is in primary position). Swerving suddenly into the middle of the lane is going to be inherently dangerous: it is likely to put the cyclist directly in front of the middle of the car, and make it much more difficult/impossible for the driver to likewise take avoiding action and swerve to miss the cyclist.

A driver probably has a better chance of avoiding a cyclist who comes to a sudden stop in a straight line, and I would hope that if I took any kind of evasive manoeuvre in those circumstances, it would be instinctively to bail out/crash to the left (over the kerb and onto the pavement).

That isn’t really how it works – the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the only reason he didn’t stop, when swerving around a pedestrian in the road is clearly a course of action cyclists take even with working brakes. Plenty of reasonable doubt in that assertion.

Probably wouldn’t be fatal – if the prosecution was using that argument all the defence would have to show is a possibility of the death still occurring (pretty hard for the prosecution to counter). Reasonable doubt.

Honestly the more I think about this, the more I think if the cyclist has a decent barrister he’ll get off – though like all of us I’m still working on guesswork based on the reporting.

I’m surprised the CPS have pursued a manslaughter charge, do we know what particular flavour of ‘Manslaughter’ is he actually accused of?

The requirement for safety features on bicycles exist, and I doubt he could claim to be unaware that a bicycle is supposed to have two working brakes to be used on the road in the UK… so there is an area of contributing negligence that falls squarely on the accused.

A driver in similar circumstances would probably have a causing death by careless driving (the careless act being a lack of proper vehicle maintenance or using a non-road legal vehicle) but there is no direct equivalent charge for a cyclist… So they’ve opted for Manslaughter as quick cover all charge…

He may be able to challenge the charge on the basis of his intent though; he didn’t go out looking to collide with and injure/kill a pedestrian, he attempted to warn her and take some avoiding action, The deceased’s own actions may have been a contributing factor, so there is possibly a case for some “lesser” charge to be pleaded guilty to, but what charge would fit? ’Recklessness’ or ‘neglect’ leading to a death? in order for a manslaughter charge to be found I believe the prosecution need to essentially make a “Gross negligence” case stick.

which are subtly different but can still carry significant prison sentences. He undoubtedly deserves to be found guilty of something, but I don’t believe ‘manslaughter’ is quite right…

The charge is of course meant to be a headline grabber, the goal being to assuage some of the more negative public/media sentiment pitched towards cyclists, and rather visibly punish one under the guise of deterrence. Of course you have to question the appropriateness of prosecuting and potentially sentencing some vapid Shoreditch, hipster along the same lines as a drunken, fighty Saturday night meathead, would the public interest really be served by imprisoning him?

I’m surprised the CPS have pursued a manslaughter charge, do we know what particular flavour of ‘Manslaughter’ is he actually accused of?

Involuntary probably – doesn’t need intent I think.

“Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation.”

3.8 seconds seems like plenty of time to stop to me. Can’t find good info on bike stopping times but from 20mph on a motorbike it’s supposed to be something like 1.8s to stop (including reaction time).

More GCSE Physics;

v=u+at, so t = u/a and bikes can stop at about 1g but this is very hard to do, if you assume 0.5 g then

14 mph = 6.26 m/s, so t = 6.26/(0.5*9.8) = 1.3 seconds
18 mph = 1.6 seconds.

Add on some reaction time to that. The fixie will be stopping at no more than 0.5g based on the testing by MIT.

Theory is fine, but the practical is much harder. I ran a coaching session with riders testing their brakes for emergency stops. The pre-session bike checking was the most careful I’ve ever done!

I thought the Guardian report contained a couple of interesting points

Firstly the bike which was used to determine the stopping distance with brakes was not the same or a similar fixed gear bike fitted with a front brake, but a mountain bike, presumably fitted with front and rear (disc?) brakes.

Secondly, the hypothetical argument posed by the defence lawyer to the expert Police witness:

“I’m an experienced courier. I’ve got two years’ experience as a courier running around central London. I’ve been riding fixed-wheel bikes since 2014 and, whilst the bike is new to me, I’m very familiar with road bikes without front brakes. Would that put me in a better position to navigate hazards than a serving police officer?”

That line of argument overlooks the fact that his client failed to navigate the hazard posed by the woman who died, and seems to suggest that if you’ve got skillz, then the rules don’t apply to you.

Only if you don’t know how to stop. Resisting the pedals to come to a stop is really not how you stop a fixed wheel bike and that is what would almost equate to engine braking but even then not really.
The only way to stop quickly on a fixed gear is skid stopping (lots of little skids not one long skid) and as far as I know you can’t do that in your brakeless car…
[/quote]That can’t be right? I’d have thought that the tyre skidding is a sign that you’ve exceeded the amount of retardation that your legs can supply (even momentarily). That’s why it’s a number of little skids – you’re attempting to pass through that sweet stop of maximum braking but no skidding. If you were good enough, you’d know exactly just how much pressure that required and be able to control so as not to skid at all.

Just like engine braking then.

Sounds like he fits the definition of involuntary manslaughter to a tee!

Sounds like he fits the definition of involuntary manslaughter to a tee!

100% sounds like it was written for this exact situation

It also sounds as though involuntary manslaughter fits almost every case of death by inadequate driving, so why isn’t it used there?

he didn’t go out looking to collide with and injure/kill a pedestrian

if you go out in London traffic with all those pedestrians about with an ill equiped bike that can’t stop in time then effectively you are going out with a reasonable expectation that you are going to hit some pedestrians and probably injure them. Killing he might not have expected but his reaction indicates that the collision was not that unexpected.

if he did it intentionally then it would be murder so no he did not intend to kill anyone hence the manslaughter charge

That line of argument overlooks the fact that his client failed to navigate the hazard posed by the woman who died, and seems to suggest that if you’ve got skillz, then the rules don’t apply to you

It seems to say n experienced cyclist how rides fixie will be better at stopping than a copper who does not ride bikes never mind fixies

I cannot speak for others but the volume of cycling i have done and experience does lead me to consider myself better than a non cyclist at riding a bike

YMMV

NB Not true if we are discussing fixies as i have ridden one twice [ which is still probably more often than most people including the hypothetical person on the bus but not hipsters .

Just like engine braking then.

Absolutely nothing like engine braking. Engine braking does not apply many small skids to the driven wheels, in fact it doesn’t even try to stop the wheel at all and just slows them down (fairly gently)
I can very safely ride around and stop effectively on my brakeless bike but I would not even attempt to drive a car without brakes. It is really not comparable in any way.

Have the people here arguing against stopping on a fixed brakeless bike ever ridden one for a number of months and have any experience in stopping one?
No need to answer, the comments make it very obvious that you haven’t…