UKC

Surprised there doesn't appear to have been any discussion of this case on here, given the number of replies on Chris Harris' earlier thread: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=669042 which seems to be debating a similar subject (albeit not with such serious consequences).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40927791

In reply to Martin W:
Be aware that that case is ongoing. Any discussion here should really wait until after a verdict.

Edit for the disliker: Public discussion of live cases can constitute contempt of court, and can get the participants and publisher (UKC in this case) into very serious trouble. You might not like that, but its the law - and the thing about the law is it applies even if you don't want it to.

In reply to andyjohnson0:

What can be safely said is that this will not help the image of cyclists.
It's pretty sad for everyone involved really.

In reply to andyjohnson0:

Good point.

As a general question, is removing the brakes from bikes common? Is this seen as somehow cool?

In reply to MG:
A quick Google suggests that yes, it's far from unheard of but most hits seem to relate to having only a front brake. If one is set on having only one brake I'd prefer it to be the front one.

In reply to MG:

Fixies don't have a free wheel and shoes are clipped into the pedals so your legs are the brakes. You stop turning your legs and the bike stops. How strong your legs are will have some effect on how quickly the bike stops

In reply to Siward:

A fixed wheel by definition provides a good rear brake (with bit of practice). A front brake is also required in normal operation.

In reply to kevin stephens:
More like the friction (not much) between rear wheel and the road will. Moronic.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Years ago i completely folded up the front chain ring by "jumping backwards" to brake quickly.

In reply to MG:

yes of course that is also true

In reply to MG:



I don't think a brake has been removed.... it looks to be a standard track bike which don't have brakes fitted (as they are designed to run in a controlled environment)

In reply to balmybaldwin:


That is true, but it was reported that he had deliberately removed the front brake from a previous bike; the inference being that riding without brakes wasn't an accidental omission on his part (and I guess the basis of this question).

In reply to MG:

I tend to the view that no bikes are inherently moronic, but that you can ride any bike in a moronic way, ie fast enough that you can't stop safely if you need to for a reason that was reasonably likely under the circumstances. However good your brakes are, you'll want to go slower if you're forced close in to a busy pavement than you would on a quiet country road with good visibility and so on.

On the other hand, without having ridden one, my guess would be that the non-moronic speed to ride a no-brake fixie would be pretty low in a lot of situations, in which case I can't see much point in having one for use on roads...

In reply to Martin W:

20mph (32kmh) is my average training speed and I race as a 1st Cat.
20mph on a no-brake fixie in Shoreditch.....................

W

In reply to MarkJH:
I expect the courts will rightly frown upon a non road legal machine. It's almost akin to me draining my car brakes of brake fluid and relying on the hand brake to stop. Definitively not cool. I tried to get away with it once years ago as a kid on a short trip from velodrome to train station. Crashed into railings at the bottom of a steep hill when I found I couldn't control my speed. No harm done.

As the old saying goes, "It's all fun and games 'til you take someones eye out." Very sad it was even more serious in this case.

I do have a little empathy with the lad. He'll pay a high price for his youthful stupidly and bad luck that the accident caused such catastrophic damage.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

>"However good your brakes are, you'll want to go slower if you're forced close in to a busy pavement than you would on a quiet country road with good visibility and so on."

There's nowt wrong with riding a road legal bike at legal speeds. The onus is on pedestrians not to step into fast moving traffic. However, we recognise accidents do happen, and to minimise the harm, legislate that vehicles should have working brakes.

In reply to Martin W:
Having a bell on a bike is a legal requirement in some countries, if you warn people who walk out into a road you won't need to slow.

In reply to summo:


Not so. Normally the bell (or a shouted warning) causes them to do the “left-right-left-right-freeze” dance before they finally come to a standstill in precisely the wrong place.

In reply to Chris Harris:

what he said.

In reply to Martin W:

It's not clear from the report. Did this occur in the road or on the pavement?

In reply to summo:


It's the same in the car, a quick blast of the horn at people in the road and you can proceed at top speed.

In reply to Martin W:

Have a look at the terrifying videos of Lucas Brunelle if you want to know more about riding fixies in city traffic and why some cyclists probably think it's cool: https://www.lucasbrunelle.com/portfolio-item/video-gallery/

Having ridden fixies on the velodrome I would certainly not contemplate riding one on the road; stopping is a matter of gently resisting the pedals and too much resistance or locking a knee will throw you off.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

>"stopping is a matter of gently resisting the pedals and too much resistance or locking a knee will throw you off."

As pointed out above, there is a technique that can lock the back wheel and be a fairly effective emergency brake...but not as effective as a front brake and taking the hit of going over the bars,

In reply to Chris Harris:

I thought the idea was for them to get back on path, not do the hokey cokey?

If they freeze you can manoeuvre round? I'm not excusing some idiots behaviour but if a pedestrian walks into a road looking at their phone or wearing headphones, they have to accept some responsibilty?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


At what point did any person start talking about cars? Or top speed?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

>"Did this occur in the road or on the pavement?"

If it happened on the footpath, I think it would be an open and shut case. I do wonder if it'll be establish whether the front brake would actually have prevented the accident. Sometimes there just isn't reaction time. Often after engaging the brake the cyclist continues into the accident at the same speed - just without the bike.

In reply to JLS:

As a student, I shared a house with a chap who was a track sprint champ. He used to ride an old fixie pretty much everywhere and watching his skills on it were impressive, including locking up the back wheel and controlling the slide before getting straight back to pedalling.

I've had a go on a couple of fixies, including quiet roads, and they're ok, but - certainly with my level of experience - I found you do need to concentrate a bit more and plan a bit further ahead. I wouldn't want to ride one anywhere crowded, but that's not saying anyone else shouldn't with the right experience.

In reply to summo:


I don't care about responsibility, I want neither me nor anyone else to get seriously injured. And yes, many people are very bad at dealing with a situation where they've got a short space of time to react to the fact that there's a bike coming towards them. Sometimes as a cyclist you need to be able to brake to avoid hitting people.

My ride home from work takes me through a street in town where people generally just wander into the middle of the road without looking (or sometimes even with looking), and if I just dinged a bell and went for it I'd probably be in hospital more than I was out of it.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

>"that's not saying anyone else shouldn't with the right experience"

I'm afraid the law takes a different view.
By law you need a front brake.
My "road" fixie has two rim brakes.
Though I'd be legal and happy enough to ride with just the front.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

At what point did i say folk should ring a bell and go for it? A cyclist should attempt to stop manoeuvre even if the pedestrian is a Muppet.

My point was there is a means for all cyclist to increase pedestrian awareness and it is a legal requirement in some countries, much the same as lights and bike reflectors after dusk. Hence why new bikes are always supplied with them, it's a standard European pack, regardless of individual nations own legislation.

The problem these days are headphones and mobile starers, who wouldn't notice a truck.

In reply to summo:


"if you warn people who walk out into a road you won't need to slow."

In reply to JLS:


It was reported today that he shouted a warning twice and began taking evasive action when he was 6m away, which suggests that he had quite a lot of time. It was also reported that tests had shown that his bike had a stopping distance of about 12m at the speed he was travelling vs 3m for a bike with brakes.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/crash-cyclist-shouted-charl...

In reply to summo:


Well if cyclists can ring their bell and carry on without slowing down I don't see why you think drivers can't toot their horn and carry on regardless.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Where did I say they should ring and carry on regardless, or are you just making things up as you go along?

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Perhaps I should have said should need to!

In reply to summo:


"if you warn people who walk out into a road you won't need to slow."

In reply to tony:
As above, perhaps I should have said should not need to slow.

But if bikers take responsibility to warn pedestrians, then they should do the same and look before walking? It seems at present neither party does anything.

In reply to summo:

Where you said "if you warn people who walk out into a road you won't need to slow", you clown.

In reply to summo:


Yes, perhaps you should have. Even that's improbably optimistic.

In reply to MarkJH:

Thanks for the link.
Surprised they compared the stopping distance against a mountain bike and not a fixie with a front brake...

In reply to JLS:


Yes, I wondered about that. I doubt that it would make much difference but surely the most valid comparison would be to put brakes on the actual bike involved (or the most similar one for which this was possible).

In reply to MarkJH:

20mph, the cyclists's estimated speed is 8.9 metres per second.
When things go wrong they go wrong fast.

In reply to MarkJH:

It will make a massive difference. The amount of grip available from a MTB front tyre under braking is at least double that of a road or track bike for the same tyre tread due to the massively bigger contact patch.

In reply to MarkJH:

>"surely the most valid comparison would be to put brakes on the actual bike involved"

Indeed. The actual bike probably didn't have a hole in the fork for a brake and I'm sure there will be rules about messing about with what is now evidence. I expect it would be budget restrictions that caused them just to use (I'm guessing) a police mountain bike they had kicking around, The surprising thing is they've left a gap for the defense to challenge this evidence.

In reply to JLS:






Sorry - I was just refering to the fixed wheel aspect against a bike with a free hub. Of course it needs to be legal on the road.

In reply to MarkJH:


The riders position, front suspension, tyres etc.. make a difference too. Maximum stopping force, versus going over the top.

In reply to summo:



Whether you're on a bike or in a car if someone steps, rides or drives out in front of you you really should be on the brakes before yout hit the bell/horn.

In reply to timjones:

Very true.
I'm guessing anybody daft enough to ride on the road without a front brake is probably too stupid to have a bell or horn.
Still, what could possibly go wrong?

In reply to baron:


Out of interest, how stupid do you have to be not to have a bell or a horn? Assuming for the moment that you have a functioning voicebox.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Contact patch should not make a difference to braking friction. Braking force depends only on the coefficient of friction and the normal force. In reality the maximum braking force is likely to be most dependent on the geometry (i.e. the mass and position of the rider).

In reply to MarkJH:

Which is to imply that a rear-only braking system is less effective than one that includes a front brake. One understands that the front brake does most of the work on a bike but how much so, I wonder?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I ride my bike without a bell or horn.
If I want to pass someone who has their back to me I slow right down and as you suggest use my functioning voice box to say 'excuse me'.
Hopefully, after turning around to see what I want, said person(s) steps to one side to allow me to pass.
I find a bell or horn to be arrogant, as in ' I've rung my bell , move over'. Especially when the cyclist makes no attempt to slow down. Many cyclists will disagree with this thought.
Any incident which requires emergency braking or swerving won't be prevented by a horn, bell or shout.
If you've got time to hit the bell you've got time to hit the brakes or manoeuvre.
You don't have to be stupid to ride without a bell, just considerate.
My previous post was aimed at a cyclist who allegedly wasn't.

In reply to MarkJH:


The article refers to him being 6m away when he steered to avoid her so that's AFTER HIS THINKING TIME.

That article quotes a stopping distance (not including thinking time) of 3 metres from a speed of 18mph which does not seem right given that the highway code says 6metres (not including thinking time) for 20mph and a cyclist has a higher centre of gravity than a car.

Plugging that into v**2 = u**2 + 2as where s=3 meters, v=0, u = 8 metres per second...

a = -(u**2)/2s = -(8*8)/(2*3) = -11 m/s**2

Hence deceleration is slightly more than 1 g, that seems unrealistic for two reasons.

1) the coefficient of friction for rubber and dry tarmac/concrete is less than 1, see http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html for example
2) you'd go over the handlebars at about half that acceleration or 5.45 m/s**2 according to a Physics forum at https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/maximum-deceleration-of-a-bicycle.723...

Assuming 5.45 m/s**2, s =v**2/(2*a) = (8*8)/(2*5.45) = 6m
Hence a stopping distance of 6m in good conditions is possible IF YOU HAVE A FRONT BRAKE. Hitting her at low speed whilst on bike or after going over handlebars seems more likely.

Assuming I've got the fact right if she's stepped out in front of a car that started braking 6m away at 20mph it would have just hit her according to the highway code. In reality I think car brakes are better than that.

I suppose we shouldn't comment on the case, so I'll just comment on the Guardian report to say: "3m stopping distance from 18mph does not appear to me to be consistent with the physics".

Have I read the article correctly and done the numbers correctly?

In reply to MarkJH:


about the same as a car stopping from 20mph then? (6m thinking+6m stopping)

In reply to MarkJH:



Seriously can you stop a mountain bike from 18mph to 0mph in 3m?

W

In reply to baron:



Of course driving a tonne of metal at that speed outside a primary school is thought considerate.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
The front brake is massively more effective. At maximum braking on front wheel when you are just about to go over the handlebars the rear wheel lifts and does no braking at all.

If you have very heavy panniers, a recumbent or on a tandem you don't go over the handlebars so the rear brake feels amazingly effective and almost as as good as the front brake.

In reply to baron:



Ah, okay, that's cool, sorry. Your original post read as if you thought it was stupid not to have a bell or a horn in general.

I have a bit of an ongoing peeve about that thing where people make up random irrelevant hoops that they insist that cyclists jump through in order to be considered "responsible" and hence not deserving of being crushed to death under an HGV, and you inadvertently set it off...

In reply to The New NickB:

I live right next to a junior school and I'd suggest that 5mph rather than 20mph is plenty fast enough.
That doesn't seem to be the opinion of many of the parents who drop off their children.

In reply to elsewhere:


You've convinced me! My (lazier version) was to look at wikipedia, which suggests a maximum deceleration of 0.5g, but adds that by lowering CoG and moving weight back, you can get much higher than that. Perhaps the police tests were using a skilled rider to make the point?

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Sorry, I looked at my post and it did read as though I was calling anyone without a bell stupid.
That wasn't my intention.
I'll try to be more concise next time.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


Certainly. Even less if I use a wall rather than a hedge.

In any case, just repeating what was (reportedly) said in court. Thinking about it (and reading others contributions) this does seem a little unlikely when you think about it...

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Approx 70% of braking

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Thanks.

In reply to MarkJH:

I think that it's fair to assume that the tester did indeed go over the bars, which does happen in these situations, I can assure you.

In reply to Martin W:

Older pedestrians sometimes don't hear a high-pitched bell. When I approach walkers, horse riders, or slower cyclists from behind I always call out Bike! or Bike behind! in a friendly voice to warn them. I don't want a horse rider to be thrown and I certainly don't want a walker to blunder into me. A friendly call from 30 yards back works fine and people are usually happy for the warning.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Even if you go over the handlebars you would have to be a supreme acrobat not to take up more than 3 meters of road.

You would have to land on your feet in front of the bike and then have the bike collide with your legs.

In reality you'd crash in a 2 metre outstretched mess ahead of where you applied the brakes with the 1.5 metre bike skidding off somewhere too.

In reply to elsewhere:

There's nothing in my posts that suggests that I might know all of that and more besides?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

" I think that it's fair to assume that the tester did indeed go over the bars, which does happen in these situations, I can assure you." - definitely sounded you spoke from painful experience.

In reply to JLS:

I think it is significant that he is being tried for manslaughter as opposed to murder which is probably down to the difference in burden of proof, but also it could be argued that the poor lady that died was also culpable in her own death as she was not paying due care and attention when crossing the road.

Very sad

In reply to taddersandbadger:

It's interesting though that if a car was involved instead of a bike that they wouldn't touch manslaughter with a barge pole - more likely death through careless driving (essentially a slap on the wrist) maybe community service if it turned out the brakes weren't in road worthy condition.

Murder would only ever be charged if there was an (provable) intent to harm

In reply to baron:

A bell is a shit solution compared to your voice.

In reply to summo:


Logically, yes, but in practice it's an easier life if you cycle at a pace which allows for people stepping out into the road while absorbed in their head/phones without looking properly first.

It still hurts if you hit somebody and fall off even if they are being a doofus.

Hopefully I'll take the same approach to driving when I pass (fingers crossed). A lot of people seem to rely on nothing going wrong to be safe.

In reply to taddersandbadger:


No, it's because murder requires the perpetrator to have the intent to kill. Which is clearly not the case here.


It is, yes.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Not actually true. Seen a few prosecutions for section 18 assault with a vehicle. (Assault causing serious injury with intent to cause that injury)


Intent to cause serious injury or kill.

In reply to elsewhere:


I've gone over the bars once in a road, but have no idea what happened. Blacked out, broken collar bone, many bruises, lost skin, I think I covered a few metres making various shapes as I went.

Un/fortunately it was my brother I hit on his bike and he filled in the blanks.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


With slick tyres on a dry road and decent disc brakes, and the back wheel skidding, I think you could stop in not far more than that.

Tempted to go and experiment now...

In reply to off-duty:



I wasn't aware there is any indication from reports that there was any intent involved in this by the rider though so this isn't equivalent? Or did you mean with regards to my comment "intent to harm" that they would/might be charged in this way?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Your voice as in politely asking a person to move over or as in screaming at them when they walk out in front of you?
One works because your being considerate the other probably doesn't because you aren't.

In reply to Martin W:

Not fully knowing the details but I cycle to work in London and pass Waterloo everyday, once had a pedestrian step out from between slow moving traffic looking at their phone and wearing headphones, rang my bell, shouted and pulled on my brakes (both front and back) but still collided with them and i was certainly doing less than 20mph on my old steel hard tail MTB with panniers.

In reply to baron:

Either. I give a cheery "Hello" when I come up behind horse riders for example, and a shouted warning at people pulling out in cars or pedestrians stepping into the road. Depends on the urgency of the situation. Yesterday I had a parked car pull out into me and I shouted "Stop" at the top of my voice, which worked. Politeness was not top of my list of priorities. Can't imagine being able to fumble around and ring a bell in that situation, and they probably wouldn't have heard it.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

You were, of course, as an experienced cyclist, expecting said parked car to pull out or a pedestrian to walk out because that's what they do, all of the time.
And why you have two brakes on your bike and ride around dressed like a lit up christmas tree.
But you can shout at me all you like but I won't hear you because whether I'm a horse rider, pedestrian or driver I've got my favourite Judas Priest album turned up full blast.
Stay safe out there.

In reply to taddersandbadger:

Murder would require mens rea - that he intended to kill her, whereas manslaughter is based upon the supposition that he was sufficiently reckless so as to have acted in a manner which did indeed kill her.

In reply to off-duty:

Correct. They would have to show that he intentionally ran the poor woman down, which is highly unlikely given that there are witnesses who heard him shout what sounded like a warning and try to take evasive action.
I wonder if he would still be being prosecuted if he was riding a normal road bike (with two sets of brakes) , regardless of wether or not he tried to stop in time or avoid a collision?
The wording is interesting in that he is being charged with manslaughter and causing grievous harm by wanton and furious driving under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
That's a pretty dated piece of legislation and I am curious to know how well or comprehensively the accusation that he was riding a non legal track bike (sadly with terrible consequences) is covered?
I predict at worst the cyclist will end up with "just" a criminal record that will stay with him for life and the family will have to live with the loss of a mother and a wife, for life

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Sorry misread your post.
I think you would definitely have a prosecution for death by dangerous if the brakes were "missing" but there isn't the equivalent offence for riding a bike that's unfit for the public road.

In reply to baron:



I can see it now. Busy road, lots of traffic noise. Idiot looking at phone steps into road a few yards in front of you.

"I say, excuse me, would you be so kind as to pay a little more attention when crossing. I believe I am likely to hit you, so if you could step aside, that would be jolly nice. Thank you so much."

Bound to work.

In reply to Timmd:


It's an even easier life if you look before wandering blindly out into the traffic.

In reply to off-duty:


You may have. But such charges are very rare, whereas the charges pressed for drivers who kill are far more likely to be extremely lenient, compared with the outcome. The fact that we have the special charges of 'causing death by careless driving' and 'causing death by dangerous driving' shows that driving is a special case of causing death, and is somehow not manslaughter like it might be for causing death by negligent use of other machinery or equipment (or riding a bike). And the fact that sentences for convictions of those special driving charges are often pathetically, and relatively lenient shows that causing death by driving is so commonplace, it is considered of little import.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Of course, but the world isn't perfect. I adjust my speed to the rate at which people seem to be wandering out, you might say. It's more agreeable for me than becoming annoyed at the inevitable.

As I see it, if it's inevitably going to happen, the source of my stress or anger is as much down to me, as it is to the people who aren't being aware.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I agree, yet he is being charged for "causing grievous harm by wanton and furious driving",

"Wanton" is defined as a cruel or violent action, deliberate and unprovoked, which implies a fair bit of intent.

In reply to taddersandbadger:

Found the original wording of the act:

Sectin 35 states:"Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.
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 guess riding a bike with impeded braking ability on a busy public road could be classed as wilful neglect??

Carries a maximum 2 year sentence....

In reply to Chris Harris:

Whereas shouting at them might just get them to look up in time for you to hit them.
Tool.

In reply to captain paranoia:

It's a quirk in the law that means you can't cause death by dangerous cycling.
The fact that offence doesn't exist isn't a reason to remove dangerous driving from statute.
I suspect, if he was to be convicted then the sentence would be at a similar magnitude - maybe 4-6 years.
Had his bike not had a "dangerous" lack of brakes, then I think it's impossible they would have charged manslaughter as this charge relies on an underlying unlawful act - which is the "not for road use" bike.

In reply to Martin W:

It's hardly wanton and furious is it? Considering drivers of motor vehicles universally exceed that speed and the energies involving a motor vehicle are far far higher. I'd also like to see a point in case law that defines a bike as a carriage and you don't drive a bike, you ride it.

Be interesting to see the legal arguments put forth. Because if driving a carriage at 20 mph is considered wanton and furious in the presence of pedestrians then they better get ready to drop all speed limits for motorised vehicles down to below 15mph in all built up areas,

In reply to Lion Bakes:



The argument regarding a bike being a carriage was fought in 1878. So good luck with that.

In reply to off-duty:

Got the case details, I'd like to read that.

In reply to Lion Bakes:

That's all I could see :
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact/

In reply to balmybaldwin:

This is not correct. As pointed out above, utilisation of the front brake to its maximum completely nullifies the back brake as the rear wheel will be close to lifting off and therefore cannot aid braking at all.


https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Sheldon has the answer:

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html

In reply to Martin W:

As I wrote further up this thread, you only have to look at the terrifying bike race videos of Lucas Brunelle to see why some young cyclists might think it's funny, clever or glamorous to ride through a congested city on a fixie with no brakes. It was only a matter of time before one of them came unstuck in a big way.

In reply to MarkJH:


WRT to physics, you are correct. WRT to engineering/real life, it's not that simple. If the contact patch/area made no difference, you would imagine two tyres made of the same compound, one totally slick and one with a water shedding tread pattern (and therefore smaller contact area) would perform the same. Spolier alert......... they don't. F1 tyre choice would be a lot easier if they did but they have a lot of data showing friction force increasing with contact area.

In reality the "braking force" is made up of multiple factors, the coefficient of friction being one of those, the rest being the interlocking and sticking between the tarmac and rubber, there's the elastoplastic contact between rough surfaces theory etc.

In reply to galpinos:


I guess these things usually are; thanks for the explanation.
In either case, it does seem to compromise the test if they use very different types of bike.

In reply to MarkJH:


Unfortunately, as an engineer it does make life challenging at times! I still want someone to explain to me exactly how/why a plane flies......


Agreed.

Off topic but the only bike on bike collision I have had was when I was cut up by a car (overtook me to immediately turn left across me (in a cycle lane). I slammed on my brakes (hardtail mountain bike with disk brakes) and got rear ended by a fully Lycra-d up roadie who, it appears, has been benefiting from my not inconsiderable wind shadow.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

when I was learning to ride a motorbike we were given a demo by one of the instructors - part of the course he really dreaded doing. He did a run-up at the same speed and started braking at the same place but used firstly only back brake, then only front brake and finally both brakes. Back brake only was terrifying, for him and us, front brake only was slightly less scary, both together stopped him in a fraction of the distance.

That was 30 years ago and I can remember it so vividly - a truly effective demonstration.

In reply to galpinos:


If you run a tap and let a spoon dangle into the running water, you'll see that it gets sucked into it. When viewed in profile, the shape of a spoon is very like that of a wing. The air which goes over the top of a wing has to travel further to reach the back of it than the air which travels underneath, which means that, since the wing is fixed in shaped, the air travelling over the top of the wing creates a vacuum, and the wing gets sucked upwards, lifting the aircraft up off the ground.

Aeronautics is a complex field about which I know very little, but that's how wings work. Hope to help.

In reply to Timmd:


There is not a vacuum, just lower pressure - the air flowing over the top of the wing has further to travel, so to avoid discontinuities, has to travel faster and, as can readily be seen from Bernoulli's equation (which can be derived from basic Newtonian physics), will be at a lower pressure. The lift is caused by the difference in pressure between the top and bottom of the wing.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Argh, I thought vacuum didn't seem quite right. I read about it enough times as a kid to know it's lower pressure, blame a lack of sleep.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That is the secondary school level explanation, and it's almost completely wrong.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm

Students of physics and aerodynamics are taught that airplanes fly as a result of Bernoulli’s principle, which says that if air speeds up the pressure is lowered. Thus a wing generates lift because the air goes faster over the top creating a region of low pressure, and thus lift. This explanation usually satisfies the curious and few challenge the conclusions. Some may wonder why the air goes faster over the top of the wing and this is where the popular explanation of lift falls apart.

In order to explain why the air goes faster over the top of the wing, many have resorted to the geometric argument that the distance the air must travel is directly related to its speed. The usual claim is that when the air separates at the leading edge, the part that goes over the top must converge at the trailing edge with the part that goes under the bottom. This is the so-called "principle of equal transit times".

As discussed by Gale Craig (Stop Abusing Bernoulli! How Airplanes Really Fly., Regenerative Press, Anderson, Indiana, 1997), let us assume that this argument were true. The average speeds of the air over and under the wing are easily determined because we can measure the distances and thus the speeds can be calculated. From Bernoulli’s principle, we can then determine the pressure forces and thus lift. If we do a simple calculation we would find that in order to generate the required lift for a typical small airplane, the distance over the top of the wing must be about 50% longer than under the bottom.

If we look at the wing of a typical small plane, which has a top surface that is 1.5 - 2.5% longer than the bottom, we discover that a Cessna 172 would have to fly at over 400 mph to generate enough lift. Clearly, something in this description of lift is flawed.

If that were all that there is to it, how could planes fly upside down?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15981/how-can-airplanes-fly-ups...

In reply to Martin W:

From the reporting I've seen on this case, I get the impression that the decision to prosecute has been taken as much due to his [alleged] behaviour at the scene and on online forums afterwards, as for the crash itself. Cockiness and victim-blaming seems to be his main traits.

In reply to Martin W:

What is going to be difficult to get across to non-cyclists is that doing 20mph on a road bike is not at all unusual and also that even on a bike equipped with good brakes, it would be difficult to avoid a collision if someone were to suddenly step out, even at much lower speeds.

The chap in question has not exactly helped his cause by riding a bike without a front brake and by making some pretty arrogant sounding comments.

In reply to Martin W:


Fair enough! I stand corrected. Though I seem to remember it being a second year university explanation too.........


I actually once did the back of an envelope calculation to pass the time on a KLM 747 by using the data at the back of the airline magazine and some rough estimates by looking out the windows at the shape of the wings. I indeed discovered that there was absolutely no way the plane could possibly be airborn - to explain the actual observation that we were zooming along at a constant 40000ft I concluded at the time that they must be sneakily pointing the jet engines slightly downwards! Someone once told me that a lot of the lift actually comes from the shape of the fuselage, though I find this hard to believe.

The correct explanation is, of course, that aeroplanes fly by magic: youtube.com/watch?v=JYAq-7sOzXQ&

In reply to hms:

Personal experience and the laws of physics disagree but fair enough if that was what you found.
I was once told by a motorcycle racer that it was the norm to not use the rear brake at all.
Wet conditions or loose surfaces excepted.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:



Although engine braking has the same effect.... I don't know about racing, but on my motorbike it is certainly quite easy to lock up the front wheel under heavy braking on dry clean roads and you need to shift weight quite far forward to do a stoppie. The other consideration is steering. Most racers (and competent road motorcyclists) will brake prior to entering a turn, but if you mess it up, or need to manoeuvre whilst braking (collision avoidance etc) you need to rely a lot more on the rear brake than you normally would. Peak braking with no weight over the rear wheel is fine, but you do not have much control of the bike.

In reply to MarkJH:

Engine braking on a motorbike depends a lot on the type of engine - mine is a V-twin and will practically stop on it's nose if you shut the throttle, whereas an inline-4 is more forgiving.

Using the back brake in turns is common, but, for out and out power, the single small disk at the rear is always going to outclassed by the 2 much bigger ones at the front (yes, I know smaller bikes ~125cc may only have one at the front).

Most of the advice on emergency braking on a motor bike is that your stressed brain will have much better fine control of your gloved hand than your booted foot and you'll have more control and not lock up the rear by using the front brake.

In reply to Martin W:
It isn't almost completely wrong, it just isn't the whole explanation. For something to be wrong, it needs to be incorrect, rather than not the whole story. It's not the whole story because surface area and angle of the wing play a part, too. How they interrelate depends on the aircraft.

In reply to MarkJH:

Racers tend only to use the rear for stabilising the bike in corners and to prevent wheelspin when winding on the throttle when at reasonable lean angles.
Casey Stoner used the rear brake to defeat the Ducati traction control system on the GP bike a few years back by finding out that if you applied the rear brake, the traction control switched off and so he could spin up the back, slide the bike and get straighter quicker and so accelerate harder on the straights. At stupid speeds.....

But yes, we bikers use the rear brake sparingly. I've got 2 x 315mm discs with 4 pot calipers, so its not like I need more braking force than the front can provide. I only use it to settle the bike and lose a bit of speed whilst going for it on country roads (less weight transfer, so better traction available). Cant remember the last time I used it around town.

Anyway, back to youth on a fixie around town. Manslaughter is a bit harsh, car theiving scrotes dont get charged with that wwhen they are tear arsing around at huge speed in built up areas , and even the basest moron can see that sort of behaviour ending badly for any unlucky pedestrians who get involved.....

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'll ask a relative who helped to design the Hawk trainer jet.

In reply to Martin W:

This young chap is what is more commonly known as a "knob"

In reply to Martin W:

Will the fact the woman was head down, on her phone, crossing a busy road at a place other than a crossing (with one 10m away) affect the outcome? (I couldn't see the answer in the quick scan I had?). It seems like he was being silly, but will these mitigating factors reduce the likelihood of a manslaughter charge?

Negligent to ride a bike that fast without a brake in a busy area, but also negligent to 'jay walk' while otherwise occupied on a phone (I know jay walking isn't an offence in the UK).

I'm not sure how i feel about it all. I'm not sure id be comfortable with the guy getting all the blame, but ultimately, the poor lady has died.

In reply to La benya:

The guy seems to be a bit of a spanner.

But that aside, when I was commuting in London back when (before cycling became crazy popular) for a good few years I would have a collision every couple of months. Riding a road bike with both brakes.

Pedestrians would simply step into the road, their 'radar' looking for cars not cyclists. Only once did one get angry with me and claim it was my fault and people nearby came to help and pointed out it was entirely her fault.

In reply to La benya:




That's how he sees it, certainly. But victim-blaming is an unpopular view when one notes that he saw her and then he couldn't do anything about it, geddit?

In reply to ClimberEd:
Even as a cyclist myself I have to constantly remind myself to stop and look when starting to cross an apparently very quiet suburban road.
Depending on the noise of a car engine to warn me that a vehicle is coming doesn't work for an approaching bicycle.
And I'm not distracted by a mobile phone or headphones.
When I cycle I treat all people and vehicles as threats.
This makes for slow progress sometimes and is still no guarantee of safety.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


It does seem like he is being unfairly shouldered with all the blame thus far; he might br a complete tool, but her behaviour certainly seems to have contributed to the collision happening.
Where do you draw the line? He was riding a bike unsuitable (and apparently contrary to laws concerning use) for what he was doing at the time, but she has certainly been negligent in not using a crossing. Is one really worse than the other? Its a tragic situation whatever the legal outcome and apportionment of blame.

In reply to Ian W:


Oh, totally. Head down on the phone, like every other person in the street. Just as car drivers now look for cyclists running up the inside, which is a relatively recent this, it is incumbent on us to look out for prize fools on two feet.


I draw the line at cyclists acting like morons.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I don't think "victim-blaming" is an appropriate term to use during a trial until the verdict is reached.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

No, I'll take the risk and say that the victim in this instance is the one that's dead.

In reply to Ian W:

I wonder what the legal process would be if he'd died as a result of the lady stepping out on front of him in similar circumstances?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Good for you.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I imagine he'd be regarded as an idiot (albeit a dead idiot) for riding a non-legal bike without a front brake. Same as now.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Interesting point. I often feel that my close calls on the bike where people step out in zombie mode could be lethal to me and relatively minor to them. The narrative would certainly be different in this instance if the deaths were reversed.

In reply to off-duty:


You're missing my point: cycling is not the 'quirk'; driving is. Driving is considered a 'special case' in law, with specific legislation. Cycling falls within the same legislation as all other negligent activity.

That 'special case' is treated more leniently than other manslaughter cases.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Indeed. He could quite easily, especially if hed been diverted by the collision into a vehicle.

And who disliked that comment - seems a very fair question to me! Is it that whoever survives carries the legal can?

In reply to Ian W:



On here it is. If it had been somebody opening a car door on him and killed him, and I'd commented on how he might have ridden too close to the car or had no effective brakes, I would have been accused of victim blaming. It's a buzz phrase that trumps any reasoned argument. Fortunately the courts hear all sides of an argument.

In reply to Ian W:

As someone mentioned above, victim shaming is not in fashion at the moment. probably someone that can't stand to talk ill of the dead

In reply to captain paranoia:



If he hadn't had an alleged unlawful lack of a front brake, manslaughter wouldn't be on the table and he'd be looking at a 2 year (maximum) sentence, if convicted, for killing someone on a bike.

In reply to off-duty:


Is there a specific charge for that? I didn't think there was (largely because it's so rare).

In reply to captain paranoia:


No, I believe the charge is manslaughter by unlawful act - the unlawful act being the illegal condition of the bike.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Ah-ha! sorted the dislike - it nothing to do with the thread or your comments, its you as a person. You have a troll that dislikes anything sensible you say! - Evidence - you have another dislike here for answering my previous comment in what i consider a perfectly reasonable way (expecting a dislike as I write this......).
FWIW, I agree with what you wrote..

In reply to Ian W:



There is no "apparently" about it, if you ride a bike on the road you have to have front and rear brakes. http://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/construction-use

As for whether riding an illegal and unsafe bike at speed in a crowded area is worse than stepping into the road without full attention, I think most people would answer with an unequivocal yes.

In reply to Dogwatch:

My yes wouldn't be unequivocal. You've got to be pretty dumb to step out into a road when not looking (unfortunately most of the population seem to do this now). You've only got to be naive to ride a fixie without brakes.

In reply to Dogwatch:



However a fixed wheel counts as a rear brake, so in practice you only have to have a caliper/disc on the front.

In reply to andy:

Great link but their use of "efficient" distressed me.

Almost all friction brakes are 100% efficient in that 100% of the energy they remove from the bike stays out of the bike. I'm not even really sure what the correct physical interpretation of efficiency is for braking.

They are not all equally "effective". I note a several previous posters on here carefully chose effective over efficient.

In reply to andy:

Everyone and their dog knows this, which is one reason why I find the whole debate so frustrating. And friend CA was by no means alone in riding a fixed around London with only a braking system acting on the rear wheel.

In reply to Dogwatch:



However, if she hadnt stepped out into the road, the collision wouldn't have happened at all, Fixie Boy would have continued on his merry way until he came across another situation he wasnt skilled or observant enough to avoid......she therefore created the incident; he just got caught up in it due to his unsuitable equipment or lack of skill in operating it safely.
Discuss.

In reply to Ian W:
He was too brainless to realise or care that pedestrians and other objects are always going to appear in front of you in a busy urban environment.
If he had been riding at a speed that he had some chance of slowing down from e.g. 5mph then hitting the woman wouldn't have had such serious consequences.
However, such a low speed wouldn't fit in with his macho image.
Allegedly.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Indeed he wasn't, and not only London - there's a lad who regularly skids his way down Park Rd into Bingley on a fixie with no brakes. Scares me to death but he seems happy enough...

In reply to baron:



And she was too brainless to realise or care that cars, lorries, vans, buses, bikes & other wheeled forms of transport are going to appear in front of you on a busy urban road.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Interesting how the cyclist-advocates always seem to be in favour of car-driver always at fault laws that (they think) operate in the Netherlands, on the basis that cars are bigger and therefore carry the responsibility. But when it's a cyclist-pedestrian situation somehow that line of reasoning doesn't apply.

In reply to MG:


The difference is that the car & the bike are both meant to be on the road, so the onus is on the car.

A person on the road is straying into territory where they would not normally be found (but yes, they are allowed to go there), so you're not comparing like with like.

On a shared pavement/cycle path, I'd happily stick the onus on the bike.

In reply to Timmd:

It's not wrong in that Bernoulli was right re fluid speed and pressure, it just isn't applicable to a plane wing. As mentioned, a stunt plane with a symmetrical wing and fly both right way up and upside down.

The spoon demonstration is nice on paper, it's just not relevant.

In reply to galpinos:

There's a lot of talk about how no one knows how a plane flies but to me it seems far from mysterious. If something is moving fast enough through a medium (air or water) it can support itself. Paper plane flies quite well until it runs out of momentum.

In reply to Chris Harris:

...and if any of those methods of transport were found to be unsafe, (faulty brakes, suspension etc etc) or driven in a reckless way (excessive speed for the situation etc) then there would be a case to answer.
For safe transport all users need to have respect for other users and use equipment that is safe and legal.
Did this young man respect other users and use safe/legal equipment?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:



this is one of those, "it must be true I read it on the internet" posts.

In a ideal world it might just be true, but in the real world with real world variances it simply doesn't hold up. Since breaking relies on friction, the more you can put into the system the better, for stopping distance and stability.

In reply to Ian W:



It wouldn't matter if he died instead of her, in fact you could say it was what he deserved.

He was riding on the roads with an illegal vehicle, it's really very simple, he was already breaking the law, before the crash!!

Laws are there to protect people, he chose to disregard the law, it's no different than if he was doing 70 in a 30 zone, would you still be defending him then?

In reply to Chris Harris:
Indeed.
She's paid for her stupidity and hopefully he'll pay for his.
She won't get to make the same mistake again, he might.

In reply to krikoman:

But the woman was reckless/ breaking the law when she stepped into moving traffic without due care. If she had killed him it would have been her negligence that had contributed.

In reply to La benya:


Maybe. But it wouldn't change the fact that his lack of a front brake was illegal.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Agreed. but the person i replied to said he deserved it as if it was punishment for his violation of law. so did the woman die because of hers? hers contributed to his death, so shes punishing him?

this is why the 'its all his fault' mindset is redundant.

In reply to La benya:


Actually do we know she stepped into moving traffic without due care? I only read his posts after the event that her "phone was beeping so she must have been texting"?

In reply to andy:

If I was on the jury, Charlie boy should be a seriously worried <insert descriptor of choice>.
He's said that he shouted at her to get of the way, but also says he wouldn't have time to use front brakes. Eh?!?!
Now he claims that he can hear 'her' phone beeping from 6 metres away in London traffic.

In reply to MG:


Without the heavier/faster road user the hazard is largely eliminated.

The balance of responsibility should be on the heavier/faster of the HGV, car, cyclist, jogger, walker, toddler who introduces the hazard into an environment where they know there is the inevitability* of human error such as a pedestrian stepping out.

*you don't know when where or how, but you know there will be human error

In reply to galpinos:


Yes, I was thinking about stunt planes with symmetrical , and angle of attack with the wings being tilted up, which is what one sees on stunt planes. I'm wondering if it would be accurate to say that, on some aeroplanes, the cross section of the wing is what provides the lift, while on other planes, it's the angle of attack, the cross section, or a mixture of the two. I ought to know this with a relative who trained in aeronautics. This weekend I think I'm going to ring and ask.

Aircraft do seem to exist with aerofoil wings which are less sharply angled up than the symmetrical cross sectioned wings on stunt planes...

In reply to La benya:

But he shouldn't have been there FFS! He was breaking the law by simply being on the road. If it wasn't her it could have been anyone else, you possibly.

If he'd had a front break, she might well not be dead, they might not of even collided. the fact he had no front break was HIS fault not hers.

Supposing it wasn't a woman on her phone, but a small child, who didn't know the rules, would that have been any "better"?

It's like getting drunk, driving home, then blaming someone else when there's an accident, it doesn't really matter who's fault it was YOU were drunk.

In reply to krikoman:

But (avoiding the specifics of this case as suggested above is wise), if a pedestrian wonders into the road without looking while wearing headphones, that it is breaking the law (I assume). If there is a collision with a cyclist also breaking the law, don't both bear some responsibility? I find the "heavier one is at fault" argument bizarre.

In reply to MG:


Don't think it is, actually - we don't have 'jaywalking" laws here.

In reply to andy:

Hmm, seems so. Fair enough.

In reply to krikoman:



I think you're missing the point.
If it is established that he was riding an illegal vehicle then by all means charge him with riding an illegal vehicle.

I guess what they need to determine if whether that was a major or significant factor in the outcome of the events, tragic as they were. I have been in situations on the bike where I have been able to shout a warning before being able to get the brakes, there is certainly nothing inconsistent about that scenario. I have also been in situations where I have bumped into something because I didn't get on the brakes soon enough, where I would have likely avoided the collision had I been on a fixie with instant braking through my legs.

If the mere act of driving an illegal vehicle makes you guilty would that mean that a driver who was determined to be completely blameless in a collision, should be imprisoned for manslaughter if it was subsequently found that they were running red diesel in their car for example?

In reply to Martin W:

Horrid incident really. Someone lost their life and the poor bugger on the bike is being charged with something a lot more serious than motorists seem to get charged with for similar things.

I used to work as a courier, then commuted in London (including the streets involved.) I always rode fixed with a front brake, for legal reasons. I didn't use if very often as I found skip stopping the rear or a slide/skid(with downward pressure to maximise friction) a damned effective way of scrubbing off speed or stopping. However most times when drunkards/cars/tourists and fools got in my way, my main escape was to move or swerve (normally to the right- into busier traffic). I don't know if he couldn't because he was on a section of segregated bike lane (terrible invention that allows for no escape routes) or main carriageway. I know a fair few people and ex colleagues who rode brakeless without issue but it always a risk. I imagine the kid didn't want to ruin his bike by taking a drill to it... Anyway, really hope they don't throw the book at him.

In reply to Martin W:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=537784

In reply to MG: (not just you)

OK let's try this, it's a lorry with defective brakes and the driver knows they are defective.

Does this change your thoughts on responsibility?

In reply to Aly:


Running red diesel does not affect the road worthiness, or the legality, of the vehicle does it? Where as having brakes obviously does! The vehicle isn't illegal, it's the fuel it's running on, if it's on the road. Not a road traffic offence but a tax evasion offence.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that there's a major difference in operation time between hand operated breaks and fixie breaks, when comparing this to the time to come to a stop?

In reply to Dafydd Llywelyn:

You can't stop a bicycle quicker with one brake rather than two

In reply to krikoman:


And what?

If it crashes into a car driving on the wrong side of the road, I would say both sides are responsible.

If it crashes into a car stopped at traffic lights, then just the lorry.

In reply to krikoman:

>"OK let's try this, it's a lorry with defective brakes and the driver knows they are defective."

I do basically agree with you but I think there is a difference due to the level of risk. A lorry with defective brakes, I would suggest, is many many times more likely to cause serious harm than a bike. I'm guessing a lot of bike/pedestrian collisions go unreported as there were no significant injury to either party.

In reply to Aly:


Was Charlie boy on speed as well?

In reply to MG:



and if it crashes into a car on the wrong side of the road, because the drive has had a heart attack, but the lorry driver didn't stop in time?

Are you happy to have illegal vehicles on the road, as long as they don't have accidents then?

How about insurance, should we all be required to have insurance?

In reply to JLS:


I agree with you too, but isn't this the reason we have laws for motor vehicles, based on the probability of what "might" happen and what the consequences "might" be if everything doesn't go as planed.

We've gone so far as removing emblems and wing mirrors from the bonnets of cars, because of what they "might" do in the event of an accident. Not having a brake is illegal because of what been highlighted in this very case.

Imagine trying to convince a jury, that the five pints you had before getting behind the wheel and driving home, had no effect on the outcome of the accident, whoever's fault it was, you had on the way. Then after that, imagine it was you daughter who died in that accident, and see if it makes any difference.

In reply to krikoman:


I don't think that anyone's saying that. What people are saying is that being in an illegal vehicle doesn't make you automatically responsible for anything that happens involving that vehicle.

To give another example, if you're in your car with defective brakes and someone hammers into the back of you while you're stopped at lights and dies as a result, you could expect to be hung out to dry for driving a dangerous vehicle, but not, in that instance, for causing death by dangerous driving.

And as has been pointed out elsewhere, a car with defective brakes is far more likely to kill someone than a bike with inadequate brakes, given that it weighs more and goes faster.

In reply to krikoman:


Why do you want to know that? Sounds like the both at fault but since one is already dead, rather academic.

All I am saying is, if an accident involves two parties who were both acting illegally (in a contributory way), it seems reasonable that both bear some responsibility.


Err no, why do you think that?


For driving? Yes.

In reply to MG:
when I was taught to drive it was entirely clear that anyone in control of a moving a vehicle is responsible for the safety of pedestrians, to the point of being required to be constantly vigilant for their safety.

For example, "Where do you particularly look out for children" "ummmm schools?" "Wrong!!! Youlll fail if you say that - At all times, everywhere!!!"

You have to expect the unexpected and are required to be able to stop. In a town with pedestrians on the side that obviously and clearly puts the onus on the conveyance operator. My father failed his first test on the grounds that 5 miles per hour was too fast in a town with crowded pavements, Saddler St in Durham


Anyone who travels in an area where it can be anticipated that someone may step into the road suddenly carries the responsibility to travel in such anticipation and to keep their means of transport safe. Consider the forces generated against a pedestrian by a cyclist at 20mph compared with a smoothe surfaced car. The force could well be concentrated into a very small surface area which might also be fragile.

In reply to wercat:

It does seem that legally pedestrians can do what they want, yes. And in any case, driving so you can stop if something unexpected happens is just sensible. Not sure about 5mph - I think you would normally failure for not making suitable progress, or something, typically if you did that.

In reply to MG:


No one said they were dead, he's just incapacitated, lost control and come to a gentle stop across the other side of the road. But here comes the lorry and since the lorry can't stop he might well be dead when it crashes into him.

You'd then say exactly what you've said, it's "academic" because they're dead. But did they die because of the lorry or because of the heart attack. If the lorry had decent brakes it would be obvious.

In reply to MG:
yes, I think he failed on the second attempt for something like that, including misuse of the gears!
But remembering how Durham was before pedestrianisation and when buses went both ways in the streets in and and out of the Market place past the police CCTV booth in the early 60s I can believe the 5Mph advice

In reply to baron:

I'm wondering what the difference in effectiveness is between a rear break and 'skip stopping' as described by him.

In reply to wercat:



Bang on!
When I drive around these days, I spend most of my time looking at the left side of the road a 100 yards ahead waiting for the various obliviously unware lunatics entering the road, and speed cameras!

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Again though, this is why we have laws, what about those little motor bikes, that people used to ride on the pavement with. They're only little and don't weight much, probably about the same as a bike. Would it be OK if one of these killed someone, whether on the pavement or not?

Where do you draw the line on what's acceptable? When we already have laws which have done that for us.

In reply to krikoman:

So in your view only one person/vehicle can ever be responsible for an accident? Why? If both parties are acting illegally, why can't both be at fault?

What happens if two lorries both with defective brakes hit each other?

In reply to Dafydd Llywelyn:


Can you find an example of a motorist killing someone whilst knowingly driving without brakes?

In reply to MG:


But she wasn't acting illegally, or do you know something we don't?

It wasn't a motorway therefore, she's not breaking the law by being on the road.

The phone thing is only supposition and hearsay anyway, it's just what he said, which doesn't really make sense.

He had time to shout, "get the f*** outta my way" twice but you've got people on here suggesting that he wouldn't have had time to pull the brake if he "had" one.

I never said only one person can be responsible for an accident, you're putting words in my mouth.

It no different to someone speeding, in fact it's pretty much identical, in that it takes longer to stop with one brake or going to fast.

She may not have seen him, but her certainly saw her and he saw her long enough to shout twice. If he'd had a front brake, it could have been in use before he got the first word, of his first shout out of his mouth. They may still have crashed, but more likely she wouldn't be dead.

In reply to timjones:


here's a lorry, not the driver but the owner and mechanic.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/27/bath-tipper-truck-crash-hau...

In reply to krikoman:

We aren't (or shouldn't be) talking about the specific court case but generally. And I agreed above that it seems pedestrians can wander about at will, legally.


That was the strong implication of all you've written. If you don't think that good, we agree.

In reply to krikoman:


Lots of people break traffic laws every day - driving at 80 on the motorway, not stopping on an amber light, parking on a double yellow while they nip into the newsagent, whatever. I'm not condoning this, but I don't think it means that they're all terrible people or witless imbeciles. it's obviously not all on the same order of magnitude as getting behind the wheel after eight pints or in a car with brakes that you know are defective. I would say that riding a brakeless fixie isn't in itself in the same league as the latter either, unless you compound it by riding like an idiot, because the speed and weight of the thing mean that you're still very unlikely to kill anyone. Although it obviously is possible, particularly if you do ride like an idiot.

In reply to krikoman:
If a person wanders into the road at a random point while not paying attention on their phone, they were acting contrary to the Highway Code so yes, they are acting illegally.

Contributory negligence is a thing and will be used to determine this chaps sentence.

In reply to La benya:


Would you like to sate which code? Or which law?

And what if the person was a child?

In reply to La benya:


Not necessarily.

In reply to krikoman:

Rules 1-35 are for pedestrians. 7-17 specifically for crossing the road. Pick any that suit the purpose, several cover it, including kids.

In reply to krikoman:

Try and remember, I'm not disagreeing with you that the guy was clearly at fault and needs to be punished accordingly, especially considering the outcome. However, to simply state that it was his fault is wrong. Just because she died doesn't absolve her of her errors

In reply to La benya:

Contributory negligence is a factor in civil, not criminal law.

In reply to krikoman:



And surprise, surprise, they were convicted for manslaughter.

In reply to La benya:


You do know that the Highway Code isn't "The Law", right? If it says you MUST or MUST NOT then it's the law - otherwise it's a recommendation. There aren't any laws about crossing the road other than motorways.

In reply to La benya:

The Highway code is NOT the law. It certainly contains information on driving law, but a large proportion is advisory. Were the word "MUST" is used it is describing a law. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction

These are the only laws in the section for pedestrians:
Rule 16
Moving vehicles. You MUST NOT get onto or hold onto a moving vehicle.
Law RTA 1988 sect 26
Rule 18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should
- always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
- always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.
Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)
Rule 34
Railway level crossings. You MUST NOT cross or pass a stop line when the red lights show, (including a red pedestrian figure). Also do not cross if an alarm is sounding or the barriers are being lowered. The tone of the alarm may change if another train is approaching. If there are no lights, alarms or barriers, stop, look both ways and listen before crossing. A tactile surface comprising rounded bars running across the direction of pedestrian travel may be installed on the footpath approaching a level crossing to warn visually impaired people of its presence. The tactile surface should extend across the full width of the footway and should be located at an appropriate distance from the barrier or projected line of the barrier.
Law TSRGD reg 52

So nothing there about paying attention when crossing the road (although obviously the advice is laboured throughout)

In reply to La benya:


I don't think anyone disagrees; it's your assertion that she was doing something illegal that people disagree with.

Quite clearly if you walk out into traffic you take your life in your hands ad should take the appropriate care. It could just as easily been a moped, car or truck that hit her.

There is a difference between fault (blame) and legality.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Fair enough there. I assumed that it was illegal. Apparently not, just stupid.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


I'm always astonished at how many people don't do this, which vexes me no end. All the more so when they don't even indicate acknowledgement of my having compromised my KOM effort for them

In reply to timjones:

Not directly... however heres someone who wasnt paying attentoin, breaking the law and was jailed for dangerous driving and not manslaughter. That was my point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408

In reply to Timmd:

Skip stop involves hopping the rear wheel whilst stooping the rotation. The momentry lack of friction makes it easier to stop the wheel, also means less likely to completely shred the rear tyres. Couldnt say how it compares to a rear brake driectly as I havent done a side by side test.

To the other comment, a full rear skid is quite a whole body thing involving quite a bit of force through the bars with both hands, so grabbing the front brake at that point isnt really on.

I know all this is niche as heck and I now ride a normal ride bike, Mr Allinston is a berk for factoring other road users when he went out without a front brake option. I just hope he doesnt get convicted of manslaughter.

In reply to Dafydd Llywelyn:

Isn't this being looked at the wrong way round?
The reason drivers tend not to get prosecuted for manslaughter is because driving offences (dangerous, careless etc) cover the events better and the sentences are supposed to reflect the offence. I think death by dangerous is a max 14 years.

On the other hand if you ride dangerously, on a bike in a dangerous condition and cause serious injury or death then you are looking at "furious cycling" max sentence 2 years. Hence, presumably the decision to charge manslaughter.
Rather than complain "it wouldn't happen to a car driver" maybe we should be changing things so that cyclists were held to similar standards.

I would imagine, if convicted, the sentence is likely to match death by dangerous.

In reply to Dafydd Llywelyn:



Without the concious decision to drive without brakes then it is hardly a fair comparison.

In reply to timjones:

You'll be hard pressed to find exact comparisons. Hence this being an unprecedented case, however the boy did have a brake (fixed rear wheel is a funtioning brake). I simply thought that not paying attention to where your going becaue your knowingly breaking the law (texting on a mobile device) is as bad if not worse the riding a fixed wheel without a brake without knowing it. I'm just going off what's being reported and am aware that ignorance of the law does not allow for exemption.

In reply to off-duty:
Fair point on all counts. Very often cycling media (road.cc etc) report on leanient terms for drives who have commited offences resulting in the loss of life. It's just a little jarring to see such a heavy reaction when the perpetrator is a cyclist.

In reply to Dafydd Llywelyn:


It's a bike in a dangerous condition. No front brake = not for road use.
It's like saying a car wasn't really dangerous because the tyres weren't "that" worn.
I'm not sure even he is trying the "I didn't know it was illegal" line. I believe he blogged or tweeted about removing the front brake.

In reply to Dafydd Llywelyn:

I'm not sure what you mean by the "heavy reaction". I'm fairly sure the prosecution is based on the death of the pedestrian, not the fact the person that hit her happens to be a cyclist.

(Edit to add) It seems a bit circular to complain about drivers who kill getting "let off" and then complain about cyclists who kill getting prosecuted.

In reply to off-duty:

Presumably they will need to prove causation?

In reply to off-duty:



Compare and contrast:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/taxi-driver-fined-inadequate-955-car-door...

In reply to off-duty:


IIRC a statement along those lines was made the other day in court.

<pauses to check> Yup, third paragraph in this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/17/charlie-alliston-london-cyc...

(Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference, since we all know - don't we? - that ignorance of the law is no defence.)

In reply to Martin W:

I'm feeling really sorry for the jury.
Just send the little prick down for two or three years, then they can get on with their lives.

In reply to Martin W:





I notice his comments regarding his speed -

“I was cycling at a safe and reasonable speed personal to myself,” Alliston told the court. “I was capable at the time of controlling it.”

Not the most robust defence.

In reply to Lusk:

It hasn't been that long a trial, has it?
Probably, what'll make it hard for the jury is that they don't have a say in sentencing.
He's certainly guilty of something but, in my mind, I can't get it up to manslaughter and a long sentence.
Needs more than a slap on the wrist but hardly deserves the key to be thrown away.

I wonder how many track bikes have had front brakes fitted this week...

In reply to off-duty:

He's been coached, certainly, but the defence hasn't had a great deal of raw material to work with.

In reply to off-duty:

I doubt whether that is the sum total of his defence.

The police FCI stating that a mountain bike would have been able to stop doesn't seem like the most robust prosecution case, given that it wasn't a mountain bike he was riding, and it ignores the other aspect of avoiding a collision - steering (which also influences braking).

In reply to off-duty:

surely no defence but an admission he was taking account only of his own safety when choosing his speed

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



It doesn't really matter, he didn't have time to brake apparently, despite shouting twice and swerving.

If he had been riding a mountain bike with brakes it appears his speed might have been appropriate to stop, as per the highway code.
I wonder what that makes his speed on a fixie with no brakes.

If he would not have been able to stop if he had a working front brake, then he was riding too fast. Either way, he is struggling to make a defence.

A-level notes on unlawful act involuntary manslaughter http://www.bitsoflaw.org/criminal/offences-against-the-person/revision-note...

The charge seems to fit the facts pretty well to me He performed an unlawful act that was dangerous and was the substantial cause of death. The unlawful act could be either the lack of front brake or the "furious riding". The defendant does not have to have known the act was dangerous, he only needs to have intended to perform it.

There is no mandatory sentence for manslaughter. He could get a couple of years, he could even get a suspended sentence. http://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-the-sentence-for-manslaughter...

In reply to Dogwatch:

From your link...
"an novus actus interveniens may break chain of causation"

Could stepping from the pavement into a cyclists path not be seen as an intervening act.

In reply to Dogwatch:


If someone stepped off the pavement in front of a car, which was unable to stop in time, would you say the car was being driven too fast (even if within the speed limit)?

Just trying to explore the difference in attitude to cars and cycles. Again, why does your manslaughter charge not apply to drivers?

In reply to captain paranoia:


Because offences exist that are specific to drivers. That's already been discussed at length in this thread.

In reply to JLS:


Interesting question. Possibly yes. http://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-kennedy-hl-17-oct-2007/ deals with an intervening act by the victim. In that case the conviction for manslaughter was quashed.

But more probably, I think, the question would be whether the "substantial cause" of death was excess speed and inadequate brakes or the act of stepping into the road.

In reply to Dogwatch:

I don't think excessive speed is a factor at 18-20mph when the limit is 30mph.
I apportion blame thus... stepping onto the road 60%, not having brakes 40%.

In reply to Dogwatch:


That is the point the equivelant offences for drivers have much less harsh penalties. Maximum of 14 years for Death by Dangerous Driving vs. Life for Manslaughter. In reality, very few people get the maximum sentence for either, but in the case of Death by Dangerous Driving, a third of those convicted avoid prison completely.

In reply to Dogwatch:



Sorry that's bollocks.
Bikes have a far longer stopping distance than cars, and pedestrians will step into the road far 'closer' to a moving bike than a car. Sometimes the inevitable happens.

In reply to JLS:

And it would be interesting to compare the stopping distances and relative energies of a car being driven on the same stretch of road. I'm willing to bet that if what CA did equated to somebody driving at say 10 mph, and a pedestrian stepped out in front, was struck and killed (particularly with a crossing only 10m away, and on a mobile, as alleged) the investigation wouldn't get beyond a couple of statements and a NFA report.

In reply to JLS:


It is extremely common for it to be unsafe to drive or cycle at the speed limit. 18-20mph is fast on an inner city street when there is a mix of traffic and pedestrians. Some places I cycle, it is normal to have to slow down for safety of others.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Your probably right.
However, your car scenario is nothing like the cyclist/pedestrian collision that is being discussed on this thread.
If a cyclist hits a pedestrian they probably wouldn't be charged with manslaughter.
When said cyclist is riding an illegal and unsafe bike at a speed that is far in excess of what he should be riding it at, knowing, as the experienced cyclist that he is, what his stopping distances are, then he deserves to be on trial for his actions.
He could have fitted a front brake.
He could have ridden at a slower speed.
He chose not to.

In reply to baron:

They probably wouldn't be charged with manslaughter because the chances of it causing death are very slim. People being able to do something a bit safer in a given situation doesn't mean they have committed an offence.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I take your point.
Obviously there's a limit to safety and we don't need a return to having a man with a red flag walking in front of every car.
My point was that as an experienced cyclist one should be very aware of all potential hazards and adopt a riding style that suits the situation.
So should I venture onto a busy, urban road with no front brake I would ride much slower than if I had two brakes.
Should I run over and kill a pedestrian I wouldn't try to blame everyone/everything but myself.
There will, of course, be times when an accident is inevitable and not the fault of the cyclist.
This isn't one of them.
Allegedly.

In reply to baron:






She could have stayed on the pavement.
She chose not to.

In reply to ClimberEd:

She's paid a fairly high price for her alleged mistake.
What price should he pay for his?

In reply to baron:

Depends whether he's guilty of an offence that caused her death, and the severity of any acts or omissions on his part.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Indeed.
And when the verdict is returned and if any punishment is handed out I'm sure we'll see at least one new thread on this topic.

In reply to The New NickB:


That death by dangerous driving exists as an offence does not stop drivers being charged with murder.

I can remember one instance but am sure there are others.

Isaac Purcell was charged with murder with death by dangerous driving as an alternative after killing a child on a pedestrian crossing in Glasgow in 2007.
He was eventually found guilty of culpable homicide and I think got 12 years.

Whether this option is used enough is open to question but it does exist.

Apologies if someone has already pointed this out.

In reply to Dogwatch:


That's my point... driving has special offences that are treated more leniently.

ps. I note that you didn't answer my question of other a car would be considered to be going too fast if a pedestrian stepped out in font of it.

In reply to JLS:


I'd say tha 18-20mph near pedestrians that aren't aware of your presence without at least covering the brakes is excessive.

In this case there were no brakes to cover.

In reply to The New NickB:


I suspect that if you were found driving without brakes and relying on engine braking then the charge for a driver would very likely be manslaughter.

In reply to timjones:


I suppose the test of that is can you find an example.

In reply to timjones:


It's not even remotely the same thing.

In reply to baron:



Not my place to say.

You seem to want to be judge jury and executioner.

As I have said, I have hit multiple pedestrians in the past whilst commuting by bike in London. Particularly 20years ago when cycling wasn't so popular. They step straight out in front of you as if you aren't even there. The only way to avoid this is to cycle at walking pace, which is absurd. (before any says it's not, can you imagine if the speed limit for cars was 5mph in any pedestrian area).

I don't really care to judge whether this guy was a knob, behaving in a illegal manner, or otherwise, that is for the court to decide. I do think that is important not to overlook that the pedestrian stepped into the road.

In reply to The New NickB:


A quick search suggests that it could take some finding even if it exists

The legal profession seem to delight in making things complicated with multiple different offences covering ostensibly the same actions.
It seems to me that there is a big difference between fleeting moments of inattention or mistakes whilst driving and the conscious decision to drive a vehicle that is in a dangerous condition, especially if that dangerous condition is due to a deliberate modification.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


TBH I think that is very similar. However I suspect that the range of charges available for drivers who cause serious injury or death mean one of those would be used instead.

In this case I'm not entirely sure what your issue is. He hasn't done anything wrong? He should only be charged with a minimal offence because he's on a bike?

The reality is that, if convicted, and it's a big if, the sentencing range is likely to mean that any sentence is similar to death by dangerous.

I think the point was made well previously, she's suffered serious consequences for her possible inattention, what should the consequences of his actions be?

In reply to JLS:
that is absolute nonsense. I am not sure if you are familiar with Old Street but even though the speed limit is 30 it is a busy urban area and the driver/rider should account for this and moderate their speed to allow for the fact that pedestrians and other road users will do unpredictable things

If you cannot stop to avoid a collision with someone doing something unpredictable but not totally unexpected you're going too fast. If your bike or vehicle is unable to stop you're an irresponsible fool

In reply to off-duty:


I think physics suggests differently.


The disproportionate offence he's been charged with, and the disparity between how a cyclist killing a pedestrian is dealt with versus a motorist killing a cyclist (a much, much bigger problem societally). I referenced something above which you chose to ignore.


That's fair enough.


Depends on his level of guilt, as I said above.

In reply to wbo:



That's not an absolute though is it? Otherwise there would (or need to) be a 5mph speed limit in built-up areas. If somebody runs out in front of a car, it's by no means a given that the driver would be prosecuted.

I was run over by a driver doing 40 in a 30. No action taken by the police, who said that speed wasn't a factor in the case.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Why not, they both rely on your ability to use the power source to slow and stop a vehicle and they would both require extreme caution when around other people?

In reply to timjones:

Because one weighs, what, 1200kg and the other weighs maybe 80 or 90.

In reply to Yanis Nayu: No it's not an absolute - you moderate your speed to the conditions. 30 may be the max, but particular conditions may mean that is not possible safely.

No it's not a given that a driver will be prosecuted for someone running out in front, but it is also not an impossibility . A pedestrian stepping off the pavement in Central London is hardly surprising however.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



There is a fundamental problem when people drive heavy blocks of metal around. A second of inattention or a judgement or mistake can cause a fatal accident.
The consequences are often vastly worse than the act that caused them.
The law has attempted to provide some means of unpacking that with a variety of offences, and sentencing powers for drivers.
Does it always get it right ? Arguably no, when someone has died and the person who has caused it walks away with a fine. But without wanting to get in to a whole discussion about sentencing, the bottom line is you aren't happy that motorists don't get punished harder for killing people.

I'm not sure how you can then argue that, because of that we shouldn't at least try and consider a charge with appropriate sentencing for a cyclist who may be at fault and kills someone, on a par with the charge we would use against a a motorist.

The fact is this is the first time this charge has been used, due to particular exacerbating circumstances. The normal charge would be furious cycling with a max sentence of 2 years.
And, as with driving offences, the elements to prove would involve behaviour that was some degree worse than competent and safe cycling.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


And if driven well the heavier one will be able to generate a greater braking force with more tyre on the road.

I don't understand why people want to defend this lad, removing the brakke was reckless and negligent and that surely has to add up to manslaughter?

In reply to timjones:

I don't think he did remove the brake, it didn't have one. I could be wrong though.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


From this report it appears he bought it without one, fitted one, and then removed it on at least one occasion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/17/cyclist-accused-womans-death-cla...

In reply to ClimberEd:

Of course I Want to be judge,mjury and executioner - this is ukclimbing, it's what we do.
Luckily, in the real world, more sensible people will decide the accused's fate.
What really, really annoys me about the cyclist concerned is that he was so full of himself that he rode a bicycle with possibly it's most important safety feature removed.
Then when he has an accident he not only blames the dead pedestrian, who may or may not be partly to blame and then changes his story several times.
As you say, accidents are often inevitable.
This isn't your usual incident.

"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." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/17/cyclist-accused-womans-death-cla...

So he had time to shout twice. She didn't just appear from nowhere in front of him.

In reply to baron:


I'd argue this wasn't an accident, but an incident, waiting to happen.

In reply to off-duty:




I think if you read it again, that was an earlier and different bike.

In reply to Dogwatch:


Yep, you're quite right.
Does still leave the question - what was his thinking behind fitting and removing brakes?
(Which appears to have been explored a bit in the cross exam)

In reply to timjones:


Engine braking with a car is more involving, however - it's not just a case of the car braking as soon as your foot's taken off the accelerator. That's not to say it's a good idea to ride a fixie without brakes, but momentum aside if you're not pedaling on a fixie you're braking. Obviously the momentum in this particular case may have been too much to overcome in the available time

In reply to nufkin:


That is exactly why engine braking in a car is very similar if you are travelling at a low speed in the right gear. If you foot comes off the accelerator you will be braking.

In reply to off-duty:


I don't think he ever fitted a brake. The Cinelli bike that he took the brake off is designed for road use and had a brake, which he at some point removed. He then likened the experience of riding without a front brake to being in a movie featuring risky cycling stunts. That might or might not have been his motivation for removing the brake. He then acquired a Planet X track bike which has no front brake fitted, and which is sold as not for road use, and rode it on the public road.

In reply to Martin W:

What's that old saying? 'There's no such thing as bad publicity'.
I wonder if that's what Planet X are thinking now.
(Even though they are totally blameless).

In reply to Martin W:

His previous bike, in his words -

"He said he did put a front brake on the cycle "at times", but was never made aware of the legal requirement for it, adding he never had an accident in the course of his work."

In reply to off-duty:
Good point, didn't read that far, sorry. The narrative stills seems a bit garbled. He bought the Cinelli without a front brake, at some point fitted one - so one wonders why, if he didn't know that it was a legal requirement - and then took it off again and tweeted that it was like riding in a stunt video?

Regarding the point that people have raised about his shouted warnings: if I've read the article correctly he said that he shouted at her while she was still on the footway? "To make the pedestrian aware of my presence so they were aware if they were to then cross the road." "get the f--- outta my way,” as he allegedly tweeted, doesn't sound like the sort of thing you'd shout at someone who was still on the footway?

In reply to Martin W:

So everyone can cut through the crap, can I point you to an opinion that actually has weight, knowledge, and legal understanding.

(only snippets so far until the result of the trial is announced.)

https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6

In reply to ClimberEd:




Though not necessarily a lack of bias?

In reply to off-duty:

I presume he will understand the legal arguments far better than any of us will.

If you look at his other blogs/tweets etc he seems pretty even handed about interpreting the law.

That's good enough for me.

In reply to krikoman:



Thanks for that assessment of my 40 years as a cyclist. The article I linked to just happened to put my opinion into words. My opinion of you has just plummetted. Did you actually read the linked article (it covers what you said fully)

In reply to krikoman:


Quite. I have locked my front wheel up before without the back coming off the ground. Clearly using the back brake would have helped me slow more rapidly and controllably. Admittedly one time I was trying to lock the front wheel up on purpose to see what it's like, and the other times I was cycling in winter conditions.

I say this with only 31 years experience as a cyclist...

In reply to MG:


In the example Wercat states I am surprised his father even made it to 5 mph...

In reply to wintertree:

And of course steering while using the front brake too much is a recipe for coming off.

I think what might be a factor in this case is that the narrow width and manoeuvrability of bikes means when a pedestrian steps out in front of you steering around them is an option not often available in a car.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Are you saying that the glove doesn't fit?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


The problem with that is that people may react in unexpected ways when taken by surprise. A startled pedestrian may very possibly move into the cyclist's path as they try to go around them, and this seems to have happened in the case under discussion. Whilst in most cases avoidance may be sufficient, the obligation on the cyclist or driver is to be able to stop.

In reply to ClimberEd:



He is a trustee of Bikeability.