Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

timothywtimothyw Posts: 2,482
edited October 2017 in Commuting chat
Blimey, just read about this one in the Guardian :|
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... court-told

There a thread for this somewhere?

Food for thought for anyone out there riding fixed without a front brake (if that notorious video of the guy going into the side of the bus wasn't enough).

Would be interesting to know just what the actions of the pedestrian in the case were - I'm sure we've all had them walk out without looking at one time or another, horrible outcome in this case obviously. :(
«13456717

Posts

  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    Fkn idiot. No front brake ? I've no sympathy for him. He shouldn't have been on the roads on that bike.
  • dodgydodgy Posts: 2,890
    Throw the book at him*

    *And at motorists who kill, but are seldom given the same treatment and attention as Charlie Alliston is now receiving.
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    Yes that too.
  • tangled_metaltangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Apparently the court threw out the defence view that the deceased pedestrian stepped out without looking because of mobile phone use. Victim blaming.

    I have no issue with throwing the book at the cretin with no brakes but why is it being told on drive time news on radio 4? Why is an incident in London worthy of national news? Do you get stories of idiot motorists killing pedestrians or cyclists? I bet more motorists have killed pedestrians and cyclists in preventable and idiotic ways. Why not report national stories of bus drivers or truck drivers that kill. Trucks that kill in towns or cities because there's not enough.visibility. They can design trucks with better visibility, buses with sensors for blind spots, etc. Why not report those bus operators who.kill.when.they could retrofit safety cameras/devices?

    No it's good copy to report on evil.cyclists!

    Am I being too sensitive about this? Or should I get my tin hat out because of the conspiracy against cyclists?
  • ryan_w-2ryan_w-2 Posts: 1,160
    If he had time to tell her to move (twice), then he had time to avoid her.

    If it was instantaneous, a front brake would have done sweet FA.
    '17 Focus Mares Force 1 --- '19 Cervélo S5 Disc Di2

    IG: RhinosWorkshop - Check it out for all my custom builds...
  • paulwoodpaulwood Posts: 215
    If you ride around without brakes, jump lights or ride on the footway you are putting yourself at risk of being blamed for anything bad that happens regardless of whose fault it is.

    Aside from that, no sympathy at all for the macho idiots who ride round in urban environments without a brake. Cool? No. Jerks? Yes.
  • Apparently the court threw out the defence view that the deceased pedestrian stepped out without looking because of mobile phone use. Victim blaming.

    I have no issue with throwing the book at the cretin with no brakes but why is it being told on drive time news on radio 4? Why is an incident in London worthy of national news? Do you get stories of idiot motorists killing pedestrians or cyclists? I bet more motorists have killed pedestrians and cyclists in preventable and idiotic ways. Why not report national stories of bus drivers or truck drivers that kill. Trucks that kill in towns or cities because there's not enough.visibility. They can design trucks with better visibility, buses with sensors for blind spots, etc. Why not report those bus operators who.kill.when.they could retrofit safety cameras/devices?

    No it's good copy to report on evil.cyclists!

    Am I being too sensitive about this? Or should I get my tin hat out because of the conspiracy against cyclists?

    Dog bites man is not news but man bites dog is.

    This just shows how rare an occurrence it is for cyclists to be involved in collisions that result in the death of pedestrians.

    Interesting how they are stacking up the blame by saying no front brake, going too fast for the circumstances and using his online uttering to portray him as being reckless and a bit of a cvnt.
  • tangled_metaltangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Which forums did he mouth off on?
  • jds_1981jds_1981 Posts: 1,858
    Apparently the court threw out the defence view that the deceased pedestrian stepped out without looking because of mobile phone use. Victim blaming.

    I have no issue with throwing the book at the cretin with no brakes but why is it being told on drive time news on radio 4? Why is an incident in London worthy of national news? Do you get stories of idiot motorists killing pedestrians or cyclists? I bet more motorists have killed pedestrians and cyclists in preventable and idiotic ways. Why not report national stories of bus drivers or truck drivers that kill. Trucks that kill in towns or cities because there's not enough.visibility. They can design trucks with better visibility, buses with sensors for blind spots, etc. Why not report those bus operators who.kill.when.they could retrofit safety cameras/devices?

    No it's good copy to report on evil.cyclists!

    Am I being too sensitive about this? Or should I get my tin hat out because of the conspiracy against cyclists?

    Dog bites man is not news but man bites dog is.

    This just shows how rare an occurrence it is for cyclists to be involved in collisions that result in the death of pedestrians.

    Interesting how they are stacking up the blame by saying no front brake, going too fast for the circumstances and using his online uttering to portray him as being reckless and a bit of a cvnt.
    They have to stack up that Blame for the wanton and furious charge.

    Obviously unrelated to the case above: -

    In my opinion, while I like to run a full set of brakes, under 20mph should be okay on a brakeless fixie by a competent cyclist.

    Also, being able to shout move twice doesn't take that long especially if at the first shout you think the situation is manageable, then you realise the pedestrian isn't acting predictably.

    Edit: I'll actually double down, when something unexpected happens ahead of me, my first instinct is definitely not to brake hard, but to try and mitigate it. Braking hard is very risky unless you are certain you know what is happening behind you.
    FCN 9 || FCN 5
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    Hmm. You know there's definitely a danger ahead of you.
    You don't know there any danger behind you.

    Unless you're cycling where you always have someone on your tail surely you'd focus on the danger in front ? I would. And even if you thought some one may be behind you - I'd rather someone hit me at a slower speed than me hitting a stationary pedestrian.
  • jds_1981jds_1981 Posts: 1,858
    cougie wrote:
    Hmm. You know there's definitely a danger ahead of you.
    You don't know there any danger behind you.

    Unless you're cycling where you always have someone on your tail surely you'd focus on the danger in front ? I would. And even if you thought some one may be behind you - I'd rather someone hit me at a slower speed than me hitting a stationary pedestrian.

    This is about how I think I react instinctively.
    A pedestrian in front should be mitigable, cycling in London means there's probably a car on your censored , to the extent that when a light goes amber you need to shoulder check for cars behind and try to work out whether you can stop, or they're going to floor it for a burnt amber..
    FCN 9 || FCN 5
  • mouthmouth Posts: 1,196
    Brakes or not, when did "nearly 20mph" become a slow speed?
    The only disability in life is a poor attitude.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 13,063
    paulwood wrote:
    If you ride around without brakes, jump lights or ride on the footway you are putting yourself at risk of being blamed for anything bad that happens regardless of whose fault it is.

    Aside from that, no sympathy at all for the macho idiots who ride round in urban environments without a brake. Cool? No. Jerks? Yes.
    Undoubtably. But manslaughter? Cars have been deliberately driven at people and there has been debate as to whether it is even dangerous driving or not.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    I rode fixed on my winter bike for a good few years. There's no way I'd ride it without brakes. I can't see how riding under 20mph would be "okay" and especially not in a city like London.
  • Which forums did he mouth off on?

    I think twitter about the new bike and newspaper comments section blaming the victim
  • jds_1981jds_1981 Posts: 1,858
    mouth wrote:
    Brakes or not, when did "nearly 20mph" become a slow speed?
    Nearly 20 isn't slow, it also isn't fast. Remember all those 20s plenty adverts?
    FCN 9 || FCN 5
  • He has rather failed the attitude test if the quotes are to be believed, i.e. Riding a Illegal (to use on the roads) bike and then to victim blame the woman who died.
  • Should the UK introduce "jay walking" laws including jay walking while using a tech gadget?
    ================
    2020 Voodoo Marasa
    2017 Cube Attain GTC Pro Disc 2016
    2016 Voodoo Wazoo
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    How about rules about idiot cyclists using illegal bikes first ? Oh they have and that didn't work here.

    I thought it was established that he lied about her being on the phone anyway ?
  • tangled_metaltangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Well it was thrown out as a mitigation so either not true, not proven or not a significant factor.

    Personally as cyclists we have to be responsible for our own actions. If I have fault then that's down to me as the individual. Even if the pedestrian was in their own mobile phone induced world we have to accept the role our actions took in the accident. I read somewhere that the cyclist had two opportunities to shout a warning. If true then he should have had time to react. But of course no brakes might be the reason when combined with insufficient bike skills for that type of bike. Perhaps.

    Well it's being tested in court, that is as it should be. All we can do is court of public opinion. I'm pretty sure you would need a large dose of bias not to say this guy has made a bad decision to reach this point. The level of bad decision is opinion. I think one is fixie, another is fixie with no brake and a third is putting yourself in the position of hitting a pedestrian.

    The last one possibly assumes this is a commuting route or one he knows. If that's the case then I'd bet he knows it well enough to know where care it's needed because of dodgy pedestrians or dodgy drivers at a dodgy junction. On my route those spots result in a low speed and the ability to stop within safe line of sight. Helped by disc brakes of course.
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    The crash was in central London so pretty much the most likely place for pedestrians to be ?
  • apreadingapreading Posts: 4,533
    There is one road on my commute home, where there is a traffic light crossing and then a stretch with shops/bars on both sides. For some reason on this road, people just walk into the road without looking. At the crossing, they just start crossing whether there is a bike coming or not. A few years back when I bought by Boardman Hybrid, I was cycling along there and someone walking along the pavement suddenly changed direction and stepped into the road - literally centimetres in front of me. No time to react, I collided with her. We both said our sorrys and were on our way, but my front wheel didnt feel right. The QR had maybe not been done up right enough and the force had moved the wheel. It stayed on but cracked the lip that is there to stop wheels falling off. Bike was 2 days old. fortunately Halfords replaced the fork free of charge.

    I am VERY careful all along that road, every time.

    One day recently, I had three 'suicide attempts' on the same day - within 50 yards of each other. Including one where a woman pushing a pushchair was walking along the pavement and then suddenly swerved the buggy and pushed it into the road, without looking, at all. She pushed her baby into the road with no check for traffic !

    When people start crossing, they are also unpredictable. Its hard sometimes, even when you see them in good time, because if you choose your line to pass in front or behind them based on their walking speed, because when they see you they generally either freeze or jump backwards - so your prediction is messed up by random behaviour. So as well as trying to predict, you have to slow down and be ready to react by changing line or stopping. Shouting at someone, even twice, may elicit a random response, making it harder to know the correct course of action - but slowing down is generally part of it.

    In terms of the offender here, I have no idea what the woman did. There was apparently CCTV that the court has seen but I dont know if it is online yet. But there is no excuse for riding a bike without the brakes required to make it legal. Anything else is hard for us to judge as we dont have the facts but there is no defence for that part.
  • Should the UK introduce "jay walking" laws including jay walking while using a tech gadget?
    Maybe. I'm not sure what was wrong with just teaching people to look before crossing the road, or look where they are going tbh.

    Not an excuse for running someone over though, you've still got a responsibility towards everyone else while riding.
  • I watched the thread on LFGSS unfold at the time where the guy tried to explain it and to be fair a lot of people told him his excuses were BS, as mentioned above, if you've time to shout twice you'd (normally) have had time to stop.

    No concerns what happens to him but I can well see him getting punished while if he'd done it in a car he'd have been bought a cake by the CPS and given a firm hand shake and a glass of sherry by a Jury. No sure why it's front page news when your 8 times more likely to be killed by your bedding than a cyclist.
    If I know you, and I like you, you can borrow my bike box for £30 a week. PM for details.
  • fat daddyfat daddy Posts: 2,632
    if he'd done it in a car he'd have been bought a cake by the CPS


    you think if someone died and it was discovered his car didn't have any brakes he would be fine ??? .. really ?
  • jamescojamesco Posts: 687
    jds_1981 wrote:
    In my opinion, while I like to run a full set of brakes, under 20mph should be okay on a brakeless fixie by a competent cyclist.
    "Competent cyclist" excludes anyone riding a brakeless fixie off the track. There's nothing "okay" about choosing deliberately crippled braking and restricted manoeuvrability in an uncontrolled environment. Weather, traffic, pedestrians, the road surface - there are too many uncontrollable factors for a brakeless fixie to ever be suitable on public roads.

    The best cyclist in the world can't make up for inadequate equipment. Put Chris Froome on a Boris bike and he'd be passed by people going to work on their hybrid. No matter how good the fixie rider is, he'll never slow down as quickly or with as much control as anyone average does with the power of a front brake and no concentration wasted on the controlling the rear wheel.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,494
    I think this has got to court because the rider was on a bike that wasn't road legal and there was a death ... that's it in a nutshell ...

    Accidents happen - and this one is really unfortunate - although avoidable by both the victim and the rider - the victim by being more aware of surroundings - the rider by riding a bike with brakes - fixie or not - thus being able to scrub speed before the collision.

    I do think there's a bit of bias in the charges though - I've not heard of drivers being charged with manslaughter when their actions result in the death - the A34 lorry crash driver was charged with causing death by dangerous driving ... and got 10 years for killing 4 people - he was on his phone.
  • veronese68veronese68 Posts: 22,917 Lives Here
    This has made me think, if buying a track bike does the shop have to specify it's not for road use? Just had a quick look at the PX website and whilst it says they are for indoor racing it does not categorically specify they are not road legal. I'd think it's a good idea to make it abundantly clear.
    I don't believe for a minute the rider in this case was unaware of these facts. But as a seller I would want to be sure I had covered my aris. I've seen race exhausts fitted to motorbikes with "not for road use" stamped on them, is there anything similar?
  • fathertedfatherted Posts: 199
    fat daddy wrote:
    if he'd done it in a car he'd have been bought a cake by the CPS


    you think if someone died and it was discovered his car didn't have any brakes he would be fine ??? .. really ?


    FOUR cyclists dead - defective tyres - £180 fine
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525561 ... lists.html
  • fat daddyfat daddy Posts: 2,632
    slowbike wrote:
    I do think there's a bit of bias in the charges though - I've not heard of drivers being charged with manslaughter when their actions result in the death -.


    it all comes to whats unlawful doesn't it ..... ie taking a bike out on the road you know has front brake is 100% illegal, you know it doesn't have any brakes ... its unlawful manslaughter.

    Dangerous driving though is just that ... its not unlawful to dive with a warning light on ... so yest its illegal to drive a vehicle with a fault its arguable if the driver knew about it

    mind you the sentances are the same arnt they ?
Sign In or Register to comment.