Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

bendertherobot

Even then you'll get limited reporting of the summing up and no insight into the deliberations of the jury. A transcript is the only real way to go aside from sitting there.

tangled_metal

My London Road bike from PX came with no paperwork other than invoice/advice note. Even if original owner there's no instruction not to use on the road. That bit must surely be common sense which is not very common i reckon. Should there be some legal labelling on the bikes like this that are not road legal? A kind of CE marking thing?

rich_e

Tangled Metal wrote:

My London Road bike from PX came with no paperwork other than invoice/advice note. Even if original owner there's no instruction not to use on the road. That bit must surely be common sense which is not very common i reckon. Should there be some legal labelling on the bikes like this that are not road legal? A kind of CE marking thing?

This is kind of where I was going with my previous post, I thought there were already regulations in place that new bikes have to be sold with brakes. Which is why when buying a fixie, it comes with one and then you can then remove it if you so desire.

If you look at most manufacturers, they will label brakeless fixed gear bikes as "Track" bikes, because that's what they are designed for. Where as Fixies with brakes will be either be described as "Fixies/Single-Speed" or "Road".

Even the Planet X website makes it clear that their Track bikes are just that:

Track Bikes
Super streamlined and stripped down for indoor racing use, Planet X track bikes are simple, ultra lightweight race machines with a proven race history. Competing and winning on the world's most competitive track racing circuits, our carbon track bikes have become legendary benchmarks for performance and value. Where else can you find a full carbon pro level race machine at anywhere near these prices? All our bikes are hand-built by our team of skilled mechanics.

They also go on about the velodrome on the very product page of the bike he was using.

wolfsbane2k

Ok, I hate myself for joining in on here. And I apologise for probably going over old ground.

1) Guys an idiot for not having a front brake. Tough. No knowledge is not the same as innocence in my eyes.
2). Mitigating circumstances should be "could he have avoided the incident if he had legal, working brakes"?
Apparently doing 18mph with 3.8 seconds notice/ and 6.65m to stop in.

Answering that one:
I'm going to ignore the time factor. I have to.
The police have tested with an MTB in the same spot, which will be different weight distribution, and the reaction time will be known/pre-conditioned. It needs to be challenged as circumstantial evidence only, not a legal fact and should be struck from the record.

The Pedal Construction and use legistlation specifically states references to a standard for new bikes in BS6102.
BS6102 has a specific table for stopping distances for bikes with brakes for a 75kg cyclist at 15mph and 10mph , I've got a copy of it but I can't cut and paste because it's copyrighted. That's the LEGAL minimum for a NEW bike with both front and rear brakes to be able to brake with, and takes into account coefficient of grip etc.
So lets, for arguments sake, base our values on the CTC Hire standard, which is "better than standard" and has had experts review it as a draft "MOT" for bikes.

That states from the START of braking, from 15mph (6.7m/s), requires 5.5meters. in the dry, or 10mph (4.4m/s) needs 2.5m, assuming a dry tarmac surface.
Using basic rules of motion ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/ph ... evision/2/ )

V^2=u^2 +2as . V= End Velocity. U = Start Velocity. A = Acceleration. S = Distance.
Rearranging.
(v^2-u^2)/2s = a .

15mph is 6.7m/s , Set that as U
End Velocity = 0, Stopped = that's' V.
5.5m =distance to stop in, s .

(0^2-6.7^2)/(2*5.5) = a = -44/11 = -4m/s2 braking deceleration
using the 10mph (4.4m/s)case
(0^2-4.4^2)/(2*2.5) = a = -19.36/5 = -3.87m/s2 braking deceleration.

So if an acceleration standard that is better than the LEGAL definition used is 4m/s.
Ok, now run that with 18mph (8m/s)
v^2=u^2 +2as
REarrange for S, not A
(v^2-u^2)/2a = s.
(0^2-8^2)/2(-4) = -64/8 = 8 Meters.

Given the statement that he had 6.65m , 8m < 6.65m, and therefore the crash was going to happen anyway - and that's still BETTER than the currently set legal standard that is set for a NEW ROAD LEGAL bike. And of course the lawyers would have access to the proper standard.

And that's not including thinking time/distance, which is 6m in itself at 20mph.

So, in summary - Even with better than a brand new road legal bike that could be taken out of the shop with 2 sets of brakes fitted, the accident was going to happen unless he could avoid the ped ( and knowing then that they were probably doing the left/right lemming dance), and having a rear brake only might result in a reduction in the manoeuvrability of the bike to avoid a collision, due to needing to control a skid... the level of injury is what was likely to change, not the fact that the collision occurred.

(that's been bugging me for a day or 2 now. I kept hearing 3.8s, and I couldn't compute for that given the variability of braking he might have achieved)

{Edits: sorry, multiple edits to clarify surrounding text, not the numbers]

jds_1981

BigMat wrote:

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.

Well, the standard nominally could be very high.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a28

The offence can only be committed if the driver has a degree of subjective recklessness so far as the foreseeabilty of causing injury is concerned. In other words, he or she must appreciate that harm was possible or probable as a result of the manner of driving: see R v Okosi [1996] CLR

You've hit pedestrians a few times so obviously repeatedly riding in a manner you appreciate could cause harm?

gabriel959

The kid could have been riding an aero bike and had been on the bars, and I am guessing it would have taken him a long time to brake too (and brakes on aero bikes aren't great either).

The use of a mountain bike for the test should be challenged too, I think in order to be fair they should test this scenario with a bike with the worst type of braking system legally available.

jds_1981

gabriel959 wrote:

The kid could have been riding an aero bike and had been on the bars, and I am guessing it would have taken him a long time to brake too (and brakes on aero bikes aren't great either).

The use of a mountain bike for the test should be challenged too, I think in order to be fair they should test this scenario with a bike with the worst type of braking system legally available.

Boris bike?

tangled_metal

Well that's very interesting. Planet X have changed the wording for this bike. I looked as late as yesterday evening and it still had comments about riding it at speed on the road. I will try to find the phrases used tonight as in think another forum someone copy and pasted the wording. Do you think they're a bit concerned and changed it to prevent issues?

roger_merriman

bendertherobot wrote:

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.

According to https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/crash-cyclist-shouted-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded it was 6.65 meters that he noticed and started to swerve so that's all braking distance assuming the distance and speed are correct.

timbo_tim

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well that's very interesting. Planet X have changed the wording for this bike. I looked as late as yesterday evening and it still had comments about riding it at speed on the road. I will try to find the phrases used tonight as in think another forum someone copy and pasted the wording. Do you think they're a bit concerned and changed it to prevent issues?

In PX's defence I think the road based comments were from readers testimonials-I wondered whether they would take them down in light of the case, but I don't think PX have mentioned road use for their track bike

wolfsbane2k

roger merriman wrote:

According to https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/crash-cyclist-shouted-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded it was 6.65 meters that he noticed and started to swerve so that's all braking distance assuming the distance and speed are correct.

Ah, ok - so even then it's still greater than the 8m he would have needed for a road legal bike that's passed the CTC "MOT" which is more stringent than the legal definition of required breaking distance for a bike...

bendertherobot

jds_1981 wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

The kid could have been riding an aero bike and had been on the bars, and I am guessing it would have taken him a long time to brake too (and brakes on aero bikes aren't great either).

The use of a mountain bike for the test should be challenged too, I think in order to be fair they should test this scenario with a bike with the worst type of braking system legally available.

Boris bike?

Avid BB5......

tangled_metal

There we all go again with calculations. What is your basis for those calculations? You're quoting standards and using physics which is all well and good for your interpretation. What I want to know is what is exactly being put before the jury? Are the snippets you've read.about really as they have been represented?

Put simply that 6.65m is that the skid marks from his locked rear wheel? Is it the estimated distance between the ped and the cyclist when she first stepped off the pavement. Was there a longer distance that it looked like she was about to step off?

What is the prosecution case and.What.is the defence case? Without this we're just using physics, standards and regulations to prove our own opinions with all the bias they entail.

I will tell you straight I have no idea what the truth is. If you're honest you don't.neither. If not guess away! Calculate anything you like. It's all opinion and everyone but me has one on this case I reckon.

roger_merriman

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

According to https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/crash-cyclist-shouted-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded it was 6.65 meters that he noticed and started to swerve so that's all braking distance assuming the distance and speed are correct.

Ah, ok - so even then it's still greater than the 8m he would have needed for a road legal bike that's passed the CTC "MOT" which is more stringent than the legal definition of required breaking distance for a bike...

Or about the same as a car from the 60's could do, and lastly the reasurcher found that a bike could stop in half that which I assume unless it can be disproved it's going to be a sticking point.

wolfsbane2k

roger merriman wrote:

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

According to https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/crash-cyclist-shouted-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded it was 6.65 meters that he noticed and started to swerve so that's all braking distance assuming the distance and speed are correct.

Ah, ok - so even then it's still greater than the 8m he would have needed for a road legal bike that's passed the CTC "MOT" which is more stringent than the legal definition of required breaking distance for a bike...

Or about the same as a car from the 60's could do, and lastly the reasurcher found that a bike could stop in half that which I assume unless it can be disproved it's going to be a sticking point.

Yep..
So the argument should be change the law, not arbitrarily decide on a stopping distance based on a probably hydraulic disc brake.
This is about a legal case after all...

When testing for stopping distances in court cases involving cars and stopping distances, if the car involved in the crash has legally passed an mot, but another car can stop quicker on the same piece of road, what do they base the evidence on?

jds_1981

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

According to https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/crash-cyclist-shouted-charlie-alliston-pedestrian-lay-wounded it was 6.65 meters that he noticed and started to swerve so that's all braking distance assuming the distance and speed are correct.

Ah, ok - so even then it's still greater than the 8m he would have needed for a road legal bike that's passed the CTC "MOT" which is more stringent than the legal definition of required breaking distance for a bike...

Or about the same as a car from the 60's could do, and lastly the reasurcher found that a bike could stop in half that which I assume unless it can be disproved it's going to be a sticking point.

Yep..
So the argument should be change the law, not arbitrarily decide on a stopping distance based on a probably hydraulic disc brake.
This is about a legal case after all...

When testing for stopping distances in court cases involving cars and stopping distances, if the car involved in the crash has legally passed an mot, but another car can stop quicker on the same piece of road, what do they base the evidence on?

Our whether attempts at avoidance are as reasonable as braking.

wolfsbane2k

Tangled Metal wrote:

What is the prosecution case and.What.is the defence case? Without this we're just using physics, standards and regulations to prove our own opinions with all the bias they entail.

I will tell you straight I have no idea what the truth is. If you're honest you don't.neither. If not guess away! Calculate anything you like. It's all opinion and everyone but me has one on this case I reckon.

I agree. I don't know the exact details, but something kept tripping me up with the numbers i keep seeing reported and I wanted to put pen to paper to try determine why it felt so wrong to me and a number of others I was speaking to.

I'm honestly gobsmacked if 'another bike could stop in time' is used to prosecute and the defence don't try and get it struck from the record ... An f1 car can stop quicker than an average car that has passed it's MOT, Can that be used as a reason to say that all Cars should stop in the same distance as an f1 car in a court case?

That's the bit that really intrigues me.

bendertherobot

That's the prosecution case, of course. He's given evidence today, being the main witness for the defence. I'd expect he has an expert and we will hear from them tomorrow.

wolfsbane2k

bendertherobot wrote:

That's the prosecution case, of course. He's given evidence today, being the main witness for the defence. I'd expect he has an expert and we will hear from them tomorrow.

Yep.
Intrigued to see how that's written up.

vegas76

I hope the little cretin goes down for a long time.

vinnymarsden

No fence sitting there Vegas !!!

vegas76

VinnyMarsden wrote:

No fence sitting there Vegas !!!

Hurts your bollocks and flosses your crack

Seriously though, he was riding an illegal bike and has shown no remorse. As a result 2 small children will grown up without knowing their mother. That's really really sad and he needs to be made an example of.

pblakeney

I'd suggest that most on here ride at least one bike that is not fully road legal. I think the lack of remorse is most damaging.

tangled_metal

There's bikes that are not road legal but safe for the rider and others. Missing yellow pedal reflectors when you're lit up like an Xmas tree isn't going to be a problem. Inadequate braking could very well be a problem. That goes for badly adjusted/maintained brakes on more normal bikes too. For example my tourer started the holiday with decent brakes by the end the pads had worn enough to be noticeably unsafe. I realised and adjusted the pads. Can't do that with half the braking missing.

However this might not be the cause in this case. The reports say the prosecution would have gone ahead without the missing front brake issue. Although it's still a black mark against the cyclist.

PS can anyone remember or find a quote of the original PX description of the bike? I'm sure a day ago it read about being a weapon on the road. I am sure someone on a forum quoted it in their post because it sent me off to read it. They've changed the wording now and skim reading a few forum threads on this matter I'm missing it. I think it would be interesting to re-quote it on this thread as an example of stupid brand marketing spiel. Plus it's got some relevance.

timbo_tim

Tangled Metal wrote:

PS can anyone remember or find a quote of the original PX description of the bike? I'm sure a day ago it read about being a weapon on the road. I am sure someone on a forum quoted it in their post because it sent me off to read it. They've changed the wording now and skim reading a few forum threads on this matter I'm missing it. I think it would be interesting to re-quote it on this thread as an example of stupid brand marketing spiel. Plus it's got some relevance.

Not their description but other readers:

http://www.planetx.co.uk/readers-rides/your-ride/q/2147111041_ilikegraphicdesign_the-shredder
its a fast road shredding mobile!!!!!!

http://www.planetx.co.uk/readers-rides/your-ride/q/1107152159_abdulmalek_planet-x-pro-carbon-tarck
it has never seen the track it still provides a lot of excitement when tearing up the roads in the city.

fat daddy

Tangled Metal wrote:

PS can anyone remember or find a quote of the original PX description of the bike? I'm sure a day ago it read about being a weapon on the road. I am sure someone on a forum quoted it in their post because it sent me off to read it. They've changed the wording now and skim reading a few forum threads on this matter I'm missing .

what was the bike ? ...... web archive has snapshots of the site from back in June .. but there are several track bikes ?

timothyw

It's all somewhat irrelevant as the rider didn't buy it direct from planet X anyway (second hand) and the seller has been reported as having told him it was for track use only.

Also all this discussion of stopping distance (IE noone could have stopped within that timeframe/distance) is also rather irrelevant - if there was time for him to slow down at all then the fact that he had inadequate brakes is obviously still important.

After all, which would you rather be hit by, someone with good brakes travelling at 8mph or someone on a fixie with no brakes travelling at 15mph?

With all that said, we all have a responsibility for our own safety, and if the pedestrian has stepped into the road without looking then it doesn't seem fair to throw the book at the rider - especially as the likelihood of getting killed in such an incident must be tiny - you only need to see how rare it is that people are killed in actual bike races (including on the track!) despite the number of crashes.

thistle_

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

So if an acceleration standard that is better than the LEGAL definition used is 4m/s.
Ok, now run that with 18mph (8m/s)
v^2=u^2 +2as
REarrange for S, not A
(v^2-u^2)/2a = s.
(0^2-8^2)/2(-4) = -64/8 = 8 Meters.

That's reassured me about my Tiagra caliper brakes with Clarks pads. I stopped as fast as I dared from 20 mph this morning on a flat, empty road and it took about 8 m.

slowbike

Turn on the wayback machine ...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160501120 ... k-frameset

No mention of road there ...

I've been thinking about reaction times, braking and wotnot - we quite often ride with hands away from the brakes - on the tops - even at 18+mph - so any reaction time could easily be delayed by the need to change hand position first.

It's all very unfortunate and unlucky for the lad - but I still think he should shoulder some responsibility for the accident - even if he genuninely didn't know front brakes were a legal requirement and he doesn't believe it would've made any difference - then he could say that in a nicer way than has been reported.

I suppose the problem with focusing on the brake (or lack of) is that there are so many variables that it's easy to play the "what-if" game - what if he had sped up instead of slowed down - they may have still collided - but the impact would've been different - heads may not have hit ... what if he was wearing a lid - could that have lessened the impact.

Thing is - the only illegal thing (I've read) he was doing was riding a bike that wasn't legally allowed to be on the road - anything else is subjective - eg was it too fast for the conditions & should he have anticipated her stepping into the road.

wolfsbane2k

TimothyW wrote:

After all, which would you rather be hit by, someone travelling at 8mph or someone on travelling at 15mph?

removed the generally irrelevant bits
Obviously the slower rider.

So yes, the rider hold responsibility for the level of injury, but not the accident per se in my opinion.