Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

fatherted

apreading wrote:

There is one road on my commute home, For some reason on this road, people just walk into the road without looking.
.

In London , that's Greek Street

surrey_commuter

fatherted wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

anonymousblackfg 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

from the link
Diane Williams, prosecuting, told the court that a police investigation found that Mr Harris's defective tyres - the front pair and rear nearside - were not the cause of the crash.

surrey_commuter

fatherted wrote:

apreading wrote:

There is one road on my commute home, For some reason on this road, people just walk into the road without looking.
.

In London , that's Greek Street

That is Tooting

slowbike

fat daddy wrote:

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 ?

The A34 lorry driver was using his phone - and had signed a disclaimer to say he wouldn't use it - so he knew he wasn't supposed to be using it.
Death by dangerous driving has a maximum sentence of 14 years (reduced by up to 1/3rd if plead guilty)
Maximum for manslaughter is life ...

roger_merriman

Veronese68 wrote:

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?

My track bike came with flip/flop hub and brakes front and rear. Mind you it still hurt me! Though personally I think it was aliens!

Any how to the best of my knowledge that bike is common as a hire bike for the velodrome etc, but clearly they also expect people to use it on the road.

gabriel959

Surrey Commuter wrote:

fatherted wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

anonymousblackfg 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

from the link
Diane Williams, prosecuting, told the court that a police investigation found that Mr Harris's defective tyres - the front pair and rear nearside - were not the cause of the crash.

I think the point of anonymousblackfg is that may be the lack of a front brake was not the cause for the crash.

surrey_commuter

gabriel959 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

fatherted wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

anonymousblackfg 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

from the link
Diane Williams, prosecuting, told the court that a police investigation found that Mr Harris's defective tyres - the front pair and rear nearside - were not the cause of the crash.

I think the point of anonymousblackfg is that may be the lack of a front brake was not the cause for the crash.

pretty sure he is arguing one rule for cyclist and one for car drivers

timbo_tim

I wonder if planetX will take down some of their readers' testimonials about how their track bike is a "fast road shredding mobile" and "never seen the track"

http://www.planetx.co.uk/readers-rides/your-ride/q/1107152159_abdulmalek_planet-x-pro-carbon-tarck

thistle_

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 - 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.

Maybe because there isn't a "causing death by dangerous cycling" offence, so manslaughter was the only option.

Begs the question though why killing someone on a bike is manslaughter but in a motor vehicle it's not. Is it easier for the CPS to get a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving rather than manslaughter?

Edit: just spotted in the article "In a legal first, he also faces an additional charge of the manslaughter"

vinnymarsden

I think a couple of people have alluded to...you cant charge a guy with death by dangerous driving...of a pedal cycle as such...hence the manslaughter charge... the persona he has presented...or as portrayed by the media has not endeared him to the public at large, he comes across as a bit aloof, he's obviously upset she died, but he is entirely not to blame I think was one quote or something along those lines..well, correction..you are partly to blame..riding a fixed geared bike, in busy parts of any city has its own inherent issues, and to have no brakes at all is simply courting trouble.
No one on social media etc etc can know what he said in police interview, that will be the yardstick/measure used to decide on the charges.He may have shafted himself if his, what appears to be a selfish attitude came across in the interview.Let's not forget, whilst people are trying to defend him to a degree, a lady died, due to, in no small part his lack of a roadworthy machine and clearly lack of proper "real world" commuting skills.
In my opinion...and that's all it is folks..my opinion...fixed wheels have no place on the main arterial routes of our cities..they were designed primarily for track use, and in the ever cramped road networks that cyclists find themselves in..the use of a fixed wheel system cannot be deemed safe, I wouldn't dare do it,that doesn't mean people shouldn't but there is always that danger of being unable to stop/avoid issues, like this one.

slowbike

VinnyMarsden wrote:

In my opinion...and that's all it is folks..my opinion...fixed wheels have no place on the main arterial routes of our cities..they were designed primarily for track use, and in the ever cramped road networks that cyclists find themselves in..the use of a fixed wheel system cannot be deemed safe, I wouldn't dare do it,that doesn't mean people shouldn't but there is always that danger of being unable to stop/avoid issues, like this one.

I disagree - I think fixies are fine - they're not that different to single speed - but they need (working) brakes to be road legal.

anonymousblackfg

Surrey Commuter wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

fatherted wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

anonymousblackfg 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

from the link
Diane Williams, prosecuting, told the court that a police investigation found that Mr Harris's defective tyres - the front pair and rear nearside - were not the cause of the crash.

I think the point of anonymousblackfg is that may be the lack of a front brake was not the cause for the crash.

pretty sure he is arguing one rule for cyclist and one for car drivers

This. I'd also put relying on fixed braking in the same camp as not bothering to use your eyes in Gail Purcell's case.

bigmat

Awful situation for all concerned. Was the lack of brakes / fact he was on a fixie a contributing factor? I have never thought commuting on a fixie would be a good idea. I'm sure there are people with sufficient skill to do it, but because its "trendy", it seems to appeal to a lot of people who probably have less than average bike handling skills, rather than the increased skills you need. Saying that, I have no idea how competent a cyclist the accused is, or whether it was his fault or not. I have had a similar collision where, with the benefit of hindsight, I could have avoided the pedestrian, but sometimes you reasonably assume that with a shout out they will get out of the road, or at least get out of your way. 20mph isn't necessarily that fast, although it depends on the conditions. I fear this young lad is going to get the book thrown at him - god help him with a jury - and whilst he may well deserve some punishment, I suspect it is going to be way beyond what he would get for an equivalent accident behind the wheel of a car.

cougie

Fixed with brakes is better than a normal bike.

Ben6899

Except he didn't have brakes.

veronese68

I would think the lack of brakes is more the issue here rather than being fixed. I couldn't ride fixed in traffic, but I'm not used to it. I would think to someone used to riding fixed it wouldn't be an issue, unlike the lack of brakes. You cannot stop a bike as quickly without a decent front brake.

graeme_s-2

I commuted in city (although not London) traffic for a good few years, and after getting the first 20-odd miles under my belt it was fine. I had a working front and back brake of course. Riding fixed on the road without a front brake is out and out stupid. Riding fixed on the road with brakes is fine, once you've got used to it it's not really any different to riding a single speed (as far as the difficulty and your ability to stop goes anyway).

vinnymarsden

My main thrust about the accused was really not about his decision to ride fixed or not..for me personally...I simply wouldn't ..I hate them..but that's my opinion..back to him...He has, by use of social media, probable behaviour in police interview backed himself right up behind the 8 ball, and I think BigMat is right...he's going to get a dollop, be that right or wrong.The judge, if he is found guilty won't go easy/hard simply to balance the scales of perceived injustices.He will get about 2-3yrs if guilty..maybe a touch more for taking it to trial.I sympathise totally with the deceased's family..maybe she ought to have been paying a little more attention, but Ben summed it up in one short sentence "He didn't have brakes" hence he wasn't roadworthy.The Cycling lobby would be rightly grinding their teeth at a similar scenario where a cyclist was killed by an unroadworthy car..No?? So the boot has to fit both feet.Harsh on an 18yr old young man..but they are the rules, and if he didn't know them, there is small print that says...ignorance of the law is no defence.

slowbike

VinnyMarsden wrote:

Harsh on an 18yr old young man..but they are the rules, and if he didn't know them, there is small print that says...ignorance of the law is no defence.

Indeed - but this is where - with the innocence of youth - you listen to the solicitor - and if (s)he tells you you need to be remosreful and accept you're reponsible for the death of someone then you heed that advice - own up - take the hit - which will be far less - and get on with life.

vinnymarsden

Very true Slow...but what line of advice can be doing that lad any good other than to take the early plea, as you indicate...deal with what comes, and then move on when the sentence is over etc. The bottom line is, whatever "mitigating factors" he may feel there are to offer to the court..the OVERALL issue is the one of him riding an unroadworthy, actually, I believe non legal by its design cycle..bad legal advice to make any kind of "not guilty" stance in my opinion...speaking from experience..a judge & most importantly a jury like remorse, early plea's/acceptance of wrongdoing...not some half cocked victim blaming that serves no one any good at all.His parents, the deceased's family etc must all be going through hell, and, it's only what you can read from the media I know that..but he appears to be trying to weasel out of it by trying to spread blame anywhere but where deep down he knows it should sit. The extra time on his sentence, if found guilty, for going to trial should see him reflect on his decisions, and as Slow says MAN up and deal with it.
I love my kids but if it was one of them, hard as it would be, I think my advice would be the same...face up to your mistake..no one to blame here but yourself, but it's indicative of the nanny state that someone (read legal team here) has sold him the idea he wasn't to blame.

mick_cornick

As others have said this is being reported because it's a man bites dog story. I did a little google search and in 2015 there were 380 odd drivers in front of the courts for killing by either careless or dangerous driving. 408 pedestrians killed that year by drivers.
I think this young man was in the wrong and should be punished but I think he will receive harsher treatment than a driver found guilty of a similar crime. I also think the press will use this as a big stick to run anti-cycling stories for the next month, still it was the joggers last week.

surrey_commuter

VinnyMarsden wrote:

Very true Slow...but what line of advice can be doing that lad any good other than to take the early plea, as you indicate...deal with what comes, and then move on when the sentence is over etc. The bottom line is, whatever "mitigating factors" he may feel there are to offer to the court..the OVERALL issue is the one of him riding an unroadworthy, actually, I believe non legal by its design cycle..bad legal advice to make any kind of "not guilty" stance in my opinion...speaking from experience..a judge & most importantly a jury like remorse, early plea's/acceptance of wrongdoing...not some half cocked victim blaming that serves no one any good at all.His parents, the deceased's family etc must all be going through hell, and, it's only what you can read from the media I know that..but he appears to be trying to weasel out of it by trying to spread blame anywhere but where deep down he knows it should sit. The extra time on his sentence, if found guilty, for going to trial should see him reflect on his decisions, and as Slow says MAN up and deal with it.
I love my kids but if it was one of them, hard as it would be, I think my advice would be the same...face up to your mistake..no one to blame here but yourself, but it's indicative of the nanny state that someone (read legal team here) has sold him the idea he wasn't to blame.

You are assuming that he is not ignoring legal advice.

I am sure they would have advised removing the nose ring.

tangled_metal

I think I.read something that a particular charge results a a typical sentence that's adjusted for factors laid out in sentencing guidelines. Not too much room for manoeuvre but the guidelines allow for reductions in s sentence. For example early plea knocks a lot of time off. The suspect admits it on police interview and into the court process there's a lot knocked off.

This guy didn't so a guilty verdict will result in a longer sentence. I'm sure any legal advice would only have suggested not guilty plea if they thought there was a good chance of fighting the case.

It'll be interesting if this gets the final act reported. News today, gone tomorrow!

dhope

VinnyMarsden wrote:

lots of bollocks

ah, the internet at its finest. No particular knowledge of what's gone on apart from a bit of hearsay and a vague feeling of injustice backed up by 'common sense innit'. Thought I'd wandered into a Daily Mail comment section.

pblakeney

3.8 seconds allegedly.
Plenty time to mitigate the circumstances.

Ben6899

dhope wrote:

VinnyMarsden wrote:

lots of ****

ah, the internet at its finest. No particular knowledge of what's gone on apart from a bit of hearsay and a vague feeling of injustice backed up by 'common sense innit'. Thought I'd wandered into a Daily Mail comment section.

To be fair to Vinny, I saw the original lfgss posts - including photo of his bike - right in the aftermath of the event... and aside from the speculation as to how this lad's parents must feel, Vinny is pretty much spot on.

bigmonka

Tangled Metal wrote:

I think I.read something that a particular charge results a a typical sentence that's adjusted for factors laid out in sentencing guidelines. Not too much room for manoeuvre but the guidelines allow for reductions in s sentence. For example early plea knocks a lot of time off. The suspect admits it on police interview and into the court process there's a lot knocked off.

This guy didn't so a guilty verdict will result in a longer sentence. I'm sure any legal advice would only have suggested not guilty plea if they thought there was a good chance of fighting the case.

It'll be interesting if this gets the final act reported. News today, gone tomorrow!

I doubt that his 'not guilty' plea related to hitting the woman, I'd imagine that his legal team thought that it would be a bad idea to plea guilty to manslaughter though when this is the first case where that charge has been brought on a cyclist.

imatfaal

Turns out the fixie rider who drafts obsessively on Embankment is riding with no front brake. Had a look this morning as I passed him. He has drafted me at 40km/h along the CS - there is absolutely no chance of him stopping if someone steps out. He obviously has some real strength as he spins up to good speeds very rapidly - but I wish he would get a good brain to go along with the good legs

rick_chasey

imatfaal wrote:

Turns out the fixie rider who drafts obsessively on Embankment is riding with no front brake. Had a look this morning as I passed him. He has drafted me at 40km/h along the CS - there is absolutely no chance of him stopping if someone steps out. He obviously has some real strength as he spins up to good speeds very rapidly - but I wish he would get a good brain to go along with the good legs

If you look harder you'll find the guy who rests his arms on his aerobars whilst drafting.

When you point that out to him, he'll call you a c*nt.

bendertherobot

The outcome will be interesting. Juries can become fixated with personal experience and normality. This is not normal behaviour and the chances of a conviction may therefore be higher. Driving is normalised. I suspect he'll be convicted and convicted quickly.

In terms of the outcome I don't believe he will be punished more harshly than an equivalent death by dangerous. Of course, that, in itself, is problematic. This is dangerous because it's hard to make a case that not having something to stop you is careless. So he has a potential double whammy. Being convicted more likely, getting a sentence equivalent to one of the more dangerous cases. Remembering that many dangerous cases are lightly sentenced on the basis of momentary inattention and starting points. I'll do a piece when the case is finished.

To add, there is a consultation on sentencing guidelines for manslaughter at the moment. I've been away so haven't kept up with the entire case but, from reading, his case has not yet been presented. Wonder what his expert will say about braking....