Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

Ben6899

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

...

of course you did Walt of course you did

at your cadence/speed any pedestrian would have been able to outrun you

It'd be like the steam roller scene in Austin Powers.

niblue

jds_1981 wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/25/police-footage-proves-cyclist-charlie-alliston-would-have-stopped-before-killing-mother-of-two-6877249/

Thoughts on the video (only going to comment on the normal braking) - the speed tested is 15 mph & possibly it is just the video point of view moving, but I could swear it appears that the guy starts braking well before the cones? Looking at both his speed forward, and the speed of his feet pedalling.

On a grippy, dry road I couldn't stop in 3m from 15mph on my road bike with hydro discs (needed to be down to about 13mph for that to be possible) so I do find that bit of evidence highly questionable. I'm not convinced it's of any relevance to the case though.

kleinstroker

There is a very real & serious problem of distracted walking caused by the use of mobile phones. It is becoming increasingly annoying as anyone cycling through central London will attest.

milemuncher1

kleinstroker wrote:

There is a very real & serious problem of distracted walking caused by the use of mobile phones. It is becoming increasingly annoying as anyone cycling through central London will attest.

Get yourself a comedy 'honky horn' or one of those gas canister air horns. People wake up and get out of the way pretty quickly with one of those going off behind them.

milemuncher1

niblue wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/25/police-footage-proves-cyclist-charlie-alliston-would-have-stopped-before-killing-mother-of-two-6877249/

Thoughts on the video (only going to comment on the normal braking) - the speed tested is 15 mph & possibly it is just the video point of view moving, but I could swear it appears that the guy starts braking well before the cones? Looking at both his speed forward, and the speed of his feet pedalling.

On a grippy, dry road I couldn't stop in 3m from 15mph on my road bike with hydro discs (needed to be down to about 13mph for that to be possible) so I do find that bit of evidence highly questionable. I'm not convinced it's of any relevance to the case though.

The video 'evidence' is of little use to the case, because without the actual rider, on the actual road, on the actual bike, in the same conditions, it's completely irrelevant. You learn a whole different way of riding / anticipating risks / braking / collision avoidance, when you ride fixed, on a road, in the sort of environment involved in this case. It could get very painful / expensive if you don't adapt how you ride adequately.

kleinstroker

Milemuncher1 wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

There is a very real & serious problem of distracted walking caused by the use of mobile phones. It is becoming increasingly annoying as anyone cycling through central London will attest.

Get yourself a comedy 'honky horn' or one of those gas canister air horns. People wake up and get out of the way pretty quickly with one of those going off behind them.

I think I would end up causing more damage as people leapt in the air

thistle_

kleinstroker wrote:

I think I would end up causing more damage as people leapt in the air

I used to have an AirZound and some pedestrian threatened to knock me out when I blasted him with it when he walked out in front of me without looking :roll:

jds_1981

niblue wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/25/police-footage-proves-cyclist-charlie-alliston-would-have-stopped-before-killing-mother-of-two-6877249/

Thoughts on the video (only going to comment on the normal braking) - the speed tested is 15 mph & possibly it is just the video point of view moving, but I could swear it appears that the guy starts braking well before the cones? Looking at both his speed forward, and the speed of his feet pedalling.

On a grippy, dry road I couldn't stop in 3m from 15mph on my road bike with hydro discs (needed to be down to about 13mph for that to be possible) so I do find that bit of evidence highly questionable. I'm not convinced it's of any relevance to the case though.

But it was used in the case no?

cld531c

That video is a farce

kingstongraham

jds_1981 wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/25/police-footage-proves-cyclist-charlie-alliston-would-have-stopped-before-killing-mother-of-two-6877249/

Thoughts on the video (only going to comment on the normal braking) - the speed tested is 15 mph & possibly it is just the video point of view moving, but I could swear it appears that the guy starts braking well before the cones? Looking at both his speed forward, and the speed of his feet pedalling.

Only just watched it - it's two completely different bikes, which is weird to start with. On both, the rider is preparing to stop before the cones, and on the second one, it doesn't even look like the rider is trying to stop as quickly as possible if it's a fixed gear. The bike is under too much control.

cld531c

deleted - duplicate

cld531c

cld531c wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/25/police-footage-proves-cyclist-charlie-alliston-would-have-stopped-before-killing-mother-of-two-6877249/

Thoughts on the video (only going to comment on the normal braking) - the speed tested is 15 mph & possibly it is just the video point of view moving, but I could swear it appears that the guy starts braking well before the cones? Looking at both his speed forward, and the speed of his feet pedalling.

Only just watched it - it's two completely different bikes, which is weird to start with. On both, the rider is preparing to stop before the cones, and on the second one, it doesn't even look like the rider is trying to stop as quickly as possible if it's a fixed gear. The bike is under too much control.

That was my thoughts exactly. Either the rider has never ridden a fixed gear bike before or they are deliberately just easing off the pressure rather than actively trying to slow the bike down to prove the point they wanted to make. If I was Alliston and my barrister had accepted that evidence I would be furious.

niblue

jds_1981 wrote:

niblue wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/25/police-footage-proves-cyclist-charlie-alliston-would-have-stopped-before-killing-mother-of-two-6877249/

Thoughts on the video (only going to comment on the normal braking) - the speed tested is 15 mph & possibly it is just the video point of view moving, but I could swear it appears that the guy starts braking well before the cones? Looking at both his speed forward, and the speed of his feet pedalling.

On a grippy, dry road I couldn't stop in 3m from 15mph on my road bike with hydro discs (needed to be down to about 13mph for that to be possible) so I do find that bit of evidence highly questionable. I'm not convinced it's of any relevance to the case though.

But it was used in the case no?

No-one seems to be sure.

The main claim though seems to be that (after thinking time) it's possible to stop or significantly slow a bike with legal brakes from 18mph in 6.53m and that I could confirm via my own testing (and also that it wasn't remotely possible just using the back brake).

niblue

cld531c wrote:

That was my thoughts exactly. Either the rider has never ridden a fixed gear bike before or they are deliberately just easing off the pressure rather than actively trying to slow the bike down to prove the point they wanted to make. If I was Alliston and my barrister had accepted that evidence I would be furious.

I suspect the reason the defence didn't try to dispute the brake distance evidence is because, even though the police tests appear very unscientific, the overall results can't be disputed i.e. an illegal bike with just a fixed wheel takes at least twice as long (and possibly as much as 4x as long) as the same bike with an effective front brake fitted.

The defence presented related to braking distance not being a factor, because getting into an argument about braking distances would have meant the case was already lost.

roger_merriman

niblue wrote:

cld531c wrote:

That was my thoughts exactly. Either the rider has never ridden a fixed gear bike before or they are deliberately just easing off the pressure rather than actively trying to slow the bike down to prove the point they wanted to make. If I was Alliston and my barrister had accepted that evidence I would be furious.

I suspect the reason the defence didn't try to dispute the brake distance evidence is because, even though the police tests appear very unscientific, the overall results can't be disputed i.e. an illegal bike with just a fixed wheel takes at least twice as long (and possibly as much as 4x as long) as the same bike with an effective front brake fitted.

The defence presented related to braking distance not being a factor, because getting into an argument about braking distances would have meant the case was already lost.

Indeed, you really should to be able to make a good attempt at stopping in that distance, I personally suspect that the idea that was attempting to swerve past rather than brake, that was made way back up thread is probably true.

milemuncher1

thistle (MBNW) wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

I think I would end up causing more damage as people leapt in the air

I used to have an AirZound and some pedestrian threatened to knock me out when I blasted him with it when he walked out in front of me without looking :roll:

Yep, they can get a bit shirty, but at least they have looked away from their phone, and stopped to do so.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Just seen this on BBC about a different pedestrian incident from RideLondon, the victim died on Thursday...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212147

I wonder what will come of this, if they identify a specific rider who hit the victim, given this thread's court case which is still waiting for a sentence to be passed as far as I know.

apreading

Funny - far less reporting of this:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... e-13583669

And no talk of prosecution either...

bendertherobot

apreading wrote:

Funny - far less reporting of this:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... e-13583669

And no talk of prosecution either...

No obvious laws. Manslaughter wouldn't get off the ground as far as unlawful act is concerned because crossing the road isn't unlawful. Gross negligence almost never gets off the ground, not even for Alliston.

So, there should be outrage here that one group can almost wholesale get away with anything. But in terms of keeping score it's 1 v 1 in Ped/Cyclists killing people this year and it should be given equal treatment on the front pages.

Indeed, given that there are a number of offences cyclists can be charged with and none really for peds, it's time to bring that up to date.

niblue

It sounds like there isn't enough evidence in that latter case to consider prosecuting anyone. For example if there was a prosecution against the pedestrian he'd maybe make claims about the status of the traffic lights which couldn't be proved or disproved, giving reasonable doubt.

DrLex

bendertherobot wrote:

So, there should be outrage here that one group can almost wholesale get away with anything. But in terms of keeping score it's 1 v 1 in Ped/Cyclists killing people this year and it should be given equal treatment on the front pages.

Indeed, given that there are a number of offences cyclists can be charged with and none really for peds, it's time to bring that up to date.

Now 2:1, after a ride London incident became a fatality - Evening Standard report (don't read the comments, as per usual).

thistle_

DrLex wrote:

Now 2:1, after a ride London incident became a fatality - Evening Standard report (don't read the comments, as per usual).

3:1 :?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41263926

bendertherobot

Meanwhile the Times are running with this.



There's a slight error in the graph though. Anyone know what it is?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Never mind the graph error, what the heck caused cyclists to cause more serious injuries and deaths during the early 1980s? Those pesky BMX and mountain bike pioneers?

And why did reported incidents fall to ~2300 in the mid noughties, before then steadily rising again?

Am I a statistic on the above graph if I make a jump in the woods and then break multiple limbs, rather than the statistics showing serious injuries and deaths caused by cyclists on the roads?

mattsaw

bendertherobot wrote:

[/img]

There's a slight error in the graph though. Anyone know what it is?

That the data isn't for cyclists :?
If that's true they should ban us

Seems very high if so.

veronese68

bendertherobot wrote:

There's a slight error in the graph though. Anyone know what it is?

For cyclists read drivers I reckon. Is that the point they are trying to make?

bigmonka

Veronese68 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There's a slight error in the graph though. Anyone know what it is?

For cyclists read drivers I reckon. Is that the point they are trying to make?

I reckon it's death and serious accidents OF cyclists rather than caused by.

rick_chasey

KSIs suffered by bike I believe.

kleinstroker

Rick Chasey wrote:

KSIs suffered by bike I believe.

That's the one. The numbers are for KSI's involving not caused by cyclists

bendertherobot

Yep. Still on the web version, I believe. Will be interesting to see if it's retracted before hitting the print version.