Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

tangled_metal

Aren't fixies effectively rear braked through the pedals? He had the means to stop just not very efficiently. He also was not compliant with the regulations requiring a fixed wheel to have a front brake. I'm guessing prove that a front brake would have prevented the death and the jury accepting that version of events and you'll get a conviction. Once.convicted the sentence will no doubt follow guidelines. Which I'm guessing factors in mitigation, his attitude, his not guilty plea, etc. A starting point reduced for this factor, increased for another.

Guess we can only wait to see what happens.

bendertherobot

Tangled Metal wrote:

Aren't fixies effectively rear braked through the pedals? He had the means to stop just not very efficiently. He also was not compliant with the regulations requiring a fixed wheel to have a front brake. I'm guessing prove that a front brake would have prevented the death and the jury accepting that version of events and you'll get a conviction. Once.convicted the sentence will no doubt follow guidelines. Which I'm guessing factors in mitigation, his attitude, his not guilty plea, etc. A starting point reduced for this factor, increased for another.

Guess we can only wait to see what happens.

I assume, and we'll learn this in the next day or so, his case will be that he's effectively braked and he will state that his deceleration with legs is as good as a braking surface would be. We will see. And we'll see whether he can offer any evidence of that. I do think that the subtlety will be lost on a jury who have zero experience of that. It remains the case that the jury must be sure that the accident would not have happened with a brake/more evasive action. Sure, not just convinced. But I suspect that, with such unusual behaviour, from their perspective, they will be. None of this is any substitute for being there and listening to the actual facts, of course.

meanredspider

Rear brakes are only ever going to be a fraction of the capability of front brakes on a rigid frame - that's just physics.

bigmonka

Isn't the most significant part of this case not whether he's negligent for hitting her (due to not having a front brake) but whether that constitutes manslaughter?

graeme_s-2

Just to reiterate, I think riding a fixie on the road without conventional brakes is stupid, and rightly illegal.

From what I recall the law states that a road legal bicycle must have a minimum of 2 independent braking systems. On a fixie the fixed gear counts as one, so you need one additional brake to make it road legal. Presumably this is so there's some redundancy and you don't have a single point of failure. If you're riding a brakeless fixie and the chain snaps you no have no brakes.

In this case the one brake he did have didn't fail, so although his bike wasn't technically road legal his defence might make the argument that it didn't contribute to the incident. Not unlike the incident mentioned previously where a car with illegally worn tyres collided with a group of cyclists and the driver successfully argued in court that the bald tyres didn't contribute towards the incident.

slowbike

If I've read it right The law states that bikes should have 2 independant braking systems and one must include the front wheel.
Whilst I appreciate the benefit of using a fixie to control speed without other forms of braking (quite jealous of my colleague going downhill in the ice & snow being able to moderate speed using his legs rather than me on my brakes) - it's not as quick or efficient as using a front brake - and as the law requires it he's on dodgy ground. His only mitigating factor would've been had his fixie had an undiagnosed malfunctioning front brake ...

Interestingly - before I'd heard about this case - a couple of young lads asked me to pump up the tyres on a bike they'd got - it was in a dreadful state, chain knackered and more importantly the brakes were disconnected and needed a lot of work - initially I refused - on the basis that I didn't want them riding around on a brakeless bike - but they convinced me that they'd take it home and repair it before riding - they just didn't have a pump ...

graeme_s-2

I'd always thought the regulations just referred to two independent brakes. I've looked them up now, and they're much more specific than that:

The Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983 wrote:

7.-(1) Save as provided in Regulations 8 and 9-
(a) every pedal cycle shall be equipped with at least one braking system;
(b) every bicycle or tricycle the height of the saddle of which is 635 millimetres or more and every cycle with four or more wheels shall-
(i) if it is so constructed that one or more of the wheels is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with a braking system operating on the front wheel or, if it has more than one front wheel, on at least two front wheels;
(ii) if it is not so constructed that one or more of the wheels is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with two independent braking systems one of which operates on the front wheel, or if it has more than one front wheel, on at least two front wheels, and the other of which operates on the rear wheel, or if it has more than one rear wheel, on at least two rear wheels.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983 ... 176_en.pdf

graeme_s-2

Slowbike wrote:

His only mitigating factor would've been had his fixie had an undiagnosed malfunctioning front brake ...

The act specifically covers that too:

The Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983 wrote:

10.-(1) No person shall ride, or cause or permit to be ridden, on a road a pedal cycle to which Regulation 6 applies unless the braking system or systems with which it is required to be fitted in accordance with Regulation 7 or, as the case may be Regulation 8 are in efficient working order.

buckmulligan

BigMonka wrote:

Isn't the most significant part of this case not whether he's negligent for hitting her (due to not having a front brake) but whether that constitutes manslaughter?

This

bendertherobot

BigMonka wrote:

Isn't the most significant part of this case not whether he's negligent for hitting her (due to not having a front brake) but whether that constitutes manslaughter?

There are lots of hurdles. There will have been legal argument, one assumes, at the start of the case. I've seen no reports on that. There will be guidance in summing up on the 'test' that has to be passed.

The under reported act is that relating to the Offences against the Person Act charge. I can't really see much in the way of avoiding that one, unless there are some causative issues.

It's a pretty tricky case for all concerned. And could turn out to be highly technical.

tangled_metal

He's not road legal is an accepted fact on here in sure. Nobody would disagree surely?

The issue, as I understand it, relates to whether that has any bearing on the manslaughter allegation. Would he it have still happened of he'd been road legal? Did his actions, regarding no front brake and his actions leading to the collision, have sufficient fault that a reasonable assumption can be made that he could have prevented the collision and/or death but didn't take those actions through his choice? I guess that is the case. He could have and should have prevented the death but didn't. If that's the case then isn't that manslaughter?

bigmat

One defence might be that it was reasonable for him to take evasive action rather than braking to avoid hitting her. I obviously don't have all the details, but recall seeing that he had a minimum 6 metres to avoid impact when she stepped out in front of him. At 18mph, that doesn't give you long to slam on the brakes and come to a controlled stop (apparently you can brake from 18mph to a halt in 3m according to the prosecution expert - but that is on a mountain bike and presumably doesn't factor in reaction times etc, even then seems a bit optimistic to me). I would have thought he could reasonably argue that it was reasonable for him to shout out a warning and try to swerve round her, rather than slamming on his brakes (and its basic stuff that braking and turning at the same time isn't ideal) - he probably used his legs to slow the bike whilst trying to avoid her, all sounds pretty reasonable to me and I would take some convincing that the lack of a front brake caused the collision.

bendertherobot

3 metres! 12 metres in a car with mass at 20mph. Will be interesting to see what the defence expert (there simply must be one) has to say. 3 metres is half of (assuming it was nearer 20 as appears to be the case) the thinking distance of a car driver!

roger_merriman

bendertherobot wrote:

3 metres! 12 metres in a car with mass at 20mph. Will be interesting to see what the defence expert (there simply must be one) has to say. 3 metres is half of (assuming it was nearer 20 as appears to be the case) the thinking distance of a car driver!

worth noting that braking distance apposed to thinking distances is apparently based on a fairly old car, so are certainly you can improve the time/distance with better brakes.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

18mph to a complete halt in 3m and not go over the bars? No chance!

slowbike

Certainly going to be interesting to hear the jury's opinion.

Trying to recall times when I've been suprised whilst on a bike - braking hard isn't always the first thought as it's not always safe to do so - losing grip on the front wheel is in all probabiltiy, going to see you on the ground ..
I can see the argument that a front brake wouldn't have altered the fact that they collided - however, it's arguable that the use of the front brake would've scrubbed more speed and reduced the impact - which may have altered the outcome of the collision ...
On an interesting side point - do we know if he was wearing a lid? Head to Head or Head to Lid on Head - could that have made a difference?

No - can't think of a similar situation - but then I don't ride urban roads much - and when I do I'm very warey of everyone around me - mostly due to not being sure about what they're going to do ...

bendertherobot

roger merriman wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

3 metres! 12 metres in a car with mass at 20mph. Will be interesting to see what the defence expert (there simply must be one) has to say. 3 metres is half of (assuming it was nearer 20 as appears to be the case) the thinking distance of a car driver!

worth noting that braking distance apposed to thinking distances is apparently based on a fairly old car, so are certainly you can improve the time/distance with better brakes.

Quite true, of course. I'd be very surprised if he could think and stop in 3m though. That's, apparently, from the accident investigation report.

Anyhow, he's on the stand now and claims that he had no idea that a brake was a requirement. It seems to be the case that he's not removed it, just didn't have it fitted. He was 6.65m away. It's not been reported how any thinking distance was dealt with in cross exam as, of course, stopping at a white line when you know you have to is devoid of thinking. That's the thing with trials, you need to listen and be there. I do think, in cases such as these, juries are more likely to conclude 'that was stupid' and convict rather than being sure. But we will see.

straas

A quick google suggests an average reaction time of 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus which would equate to around 2 metres at 18mph.

If the prosecution are arguing a stopping distance of 3 metres, then this leaves an excess of over 1 metre and suggests the collision could have been avoided.

The 0.25 seconds is presumably to a visual stimulus on a screen where you press a mouse button or similar (and are waiting for the cue) I imagine the reaction time on a bike to an unexpected stimulus would be greater (say 1 second) which would result in 8 metres of travel.

ryan_w-2

How the f**k are you meant to stop from 30km/h in 2 metres?! Even on my CX bike with 160mm discs and 38c tyres, it'd take me around 5m!

thistle_

bendertherobot wrote:

Quite true, of course. I'd be very surprised if he could think and stop in 3m though. That's, apparently, from the accident investigation report.

I'd be interested to see how they got to that conclusion. Do the reports etc. get published in the public domain after the trial ends?

I don't think I could stop from 18 mph in 3 m on any of my bikes, all of which have pretty decent brakes. 3 seconds maybe.

jds_1981

bendertherobot wrote:

3 metres! 12 metres in a car with mass at 20mph. Will be interesting to see what the defence expert (there simply must be one) has to say. 3 metres is half of (assuming it was nearer 20 as appears to be the case) the thinking distance of a car driver!

I actually went through some similar sums quite a while back so I'll quote myself

Say I'm cycling along at a vigorous 22.4 mph (10m/s). Assuming there's good visibility down side roads (e.g. can see down from 5 metres away). I want to stop before it if there's a car arriving.
0.25s reaction time on seeing means I need to decelerate to 0 in 2.5 metres (else I end up on the road.) This requires an acceleration of approximately -4G. A car on ABS will apparently give you about -1G
If I can see down from 10 metres away, I've 7.5 metres to accelerate in, which requires -1.3G (Apparently this is the speed at which motorbikes that are good at braking will start 'endo-ing')
If I can see from 20 metres away, it requires an acceleration of -0.6G which is probably more achievable on good, dry brakes.
Obviously almost no routes will have such good visibility that one can see from 20 metres away, so you'll have to pre-emptively brake approaching every junction.

jds_1981

Also

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... -distances

In an emergency, the average driver takes about 1.5 seconds to react.

So the 3 metres must be a misquote?

straas

So in 1.5 seconds at ~8m/s you'd travel 12m (assuming you maintain consistent speed throughout) before you reacted in any way, therefore it could be argued that the lack of front brake wasn't a contributory factor.

DrLex

thistle (MBNW) wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Quite true, of course. I'd be very surprised if he could think and stop in 3m though. That's, apparently, from the accident investigation report.

I'd be interested to see how they got to that conclusion. Do the reports etc. get published in the public domain after the trial ends?

I don't think I could stop from 18 mph in 3 m on any of my bikes, all of which have pretty decent brakes. 3 seconds maybe.

Highway Code has 12m stopping distance from 20mph; 6m reaction, and 6m braking, so even if a bike can out-brake a car at low speeds, 3m is less than the reaction time distance.

Indy article on revising reaction time upwards.

bigmat

I should be a criminal defence lawyer! Seriously though, I think this kid is being stitched up. Its possible he could have avoided the collision, but its a pretty high threshold expecting cyclists to have the reactions and bike-handling skills of Peter Sagan every time someone steps out in front of them. I don't see drivers being held to anything even remotely approaching those standards. The fact that he was on an illegal fixie (track bike, not capable of taking a front brake - I have one myself), mouthed off on social media and wore a t-shirt saying "Anti-Social" (how the feck is that even relevant?!) doesn't change the fact that he didn't actually do a lot wrong. This is also based on the selected quotes that I have seen of course, there may be a whole lot more to it.

rich_e

This is certainly an interesting case to follow.
When I first began reading the story, it certainly echoed situations I've been in where I've had right of way on a crossing and pedestrians have just walked out without looking. As annoying as that is, whether driving a car, or on a bike, it's one of those things you have to try and anticipate and be ready for. The narrative presented so far suggests this guy went about everything wrong.

I actually saw a pedestrian get hit by a cyclist square on during a London based criterium race recently; the woman smacked her head on the ground, was knocked out and had to be carted off to hospital with a fractured skull. It was actually pretty horrific to witness, so I'm quite shocked that Alliston was just shouting at her when the poor woman was on the ground, no doubt looking quite seriously injured.

I think his claiming he didn't know that a front brake was required is going to come back to bite him, especially when they have evidence of him discussing bikes and brakes on an Internet forum.

I've got a fixed gear bike, but it came with brakes and nearly every other one I saw for sale did as well, albeit many are just a small front trigger brake. I remember looking at some Cinelli's track bikes that don't have front brake mounting holes drilled and it did specifically say that they aren't for use on the road.

I would imagine Planet X probably say something similar in their literature, as most bikes usually come with a basic "instruction booklet" with basic information about how to ride and I'm sure this covers the requirements of brakes.

vinnymarsden

Mat,
I don't think he's being "stitched up" as you put it.
I think he might be overcharged with manslaughter, definitely…but as I said early doors..there isn't a death by dangerous cycling on the statutes as far as I'm aware, so they have obviously gone in big with the MS charge.
My entire thrust re the case was not aimed at hime per se, I don't know him at all.I just find it preposterous that he has claimed he has no blame/fault in any of it..of course he has, cycling on a unroadworthy machine on a busy London road is in itself inherently dangerous.Whether he knew it was illegal is a matter that will impact on the juries decision I guess.
Pedestrians don't always look where they are going..if he is experienced as he says he is, he ought to be aware of that.
However it plays out I foresee cyclists taking a media beating from the Express/Daily Mail etc.
We appear to have got bogged down re braking distances etc etc…lets remember…HE DIDN"T HAVE ANY BRAKES!!!

graeme_s-2

VinnyMarsden wrote:

We appear to have got bogged down re braking distances etc etc…lets remember…HE DIDN"T HAVE ANY BRAKES!!!

But whether or not having a road legal bike with correctly functioning brakes would have resulted in a different outcome is the difference between him being guilty of whatever crime you commit by breaching The Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983 and him being guilty of manslaughter. Nobody (including him) is suggesting that it wasn't him that collided with that pedestrian resulting in their death.

bigmat

VinnyMarsden wrote:

Mat,
I don't think he's being "stitched up" as you put it.
I think he might be overcharged with manslaughter, definitely…but as I said early doors..there isn't a death by dangerous cycling on the statutes as far as I'm aware, so they have obviously gone in big with the MS charge.
My entire thrust re the case was not aimed at hime per se, I don't know him at all.I just find it preposterous that he has claimed he has no blame/fault in any of it..of course he has, cycling on a unroadworthy machine on a busy London road is in itself inherently dangerous.Whether he knew it was illegal is a matter that will impact on the juries decision I guess.
Pedestrians don't always look where they are going..if he is experienced as he says he is, he ought to be aware of that.
However it plays out I foresee cyclists taking a media beating from the Express/Daily Mail etc.
We appear to have got bogged down re braking distances etc etc…lets remember…HE DIDN"T HAVE ANY BRAKES!!!

Apart from his back brake.

Its a very interesting case anyway. As someone who regularly cycles in traffic, frequently has pedestrians step out in front of me and has on a couple of occasions been unable to avoid colliding with said pedestrians, I am very interested to know what kind of standard I am being held to.

tangled_metal

BigMat wrote:

This is also based on the selected quotes that I have seen of course, there may be a whole lot more to it.

You have it bang on the nail with the last thing you typed.

I think a lot of forums argue and debate stuff then go online to find links and quotes to back them up. Their views might be right but they're arguing on an inadequate footing. I would bet money on the fact nobody posting on here has been in the courtroom for the whole process from the start, listening to proceedings and taking in the evidence. For me to put money on anything is a big deal because I hate wasting money!

I'm not having a go at you big mat BTW I just quoted your last bit because I think it's just about the only thing that's certain to be right out of pretty much everything typed on here. By right I mean supported by evidence and testimony in the courtroom.

It's why I'm starting to think this is one of those threads that really should have been started at the end of court proceedings. Does anyone else think it's preferable for forums like this to withhold starting threads on court proceedings whilst they're going ahead? At least for ones involving serious matters such as death of a human being.