Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

wolfsbane2k

thistle (MBNW) wrote:

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.

Yeah, I've had a few goes at different speeds recently.
my MTB with shimano slx hydraulics discs is about 20% faster to stop than my roadie with tektro brakes and koolstop salmon pads on the flat, which is interesting given the increase in weight of the MTB.

jgsi

Sorry folks but I reckon this thread ought to be closed now .... a person actually passed away you know.

straas

JGSI wrote:

Sorry folks but I reckon this thread ought to be closed now .... a person actually passed away you know.

Closed why? It's a discussion about why it may have happened, not containing any information that's not in the public domain and doesn't exactly apportion blame to either party.

This is a forum where people ride bikes, I'd hazard a guess that some people on this forum run fixed gear bikes without front brakes - maybe they'll reconsider that now.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Slowbike wrote:

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.

You might change your approach to this after ploughing into a large stationary object, unless climbing up a categorised hill, I know I certainly have in the last ~3.5 years.;)

I can remember riding down suburban Southampton streets ~20 years or so ago with clamp-on tri-bars on my bikes, with brake levers just in the standard bars position, what the heck was I thinking?! :shock:

ryan_w-2

I had someone open a car door on to me at 20mph and thought my life was over! Certainly isn't fun.

If he hit her at 18mph, it would have been a hell of an impact. Surprised he stayed on his bike?!

meanredspider

straas wrote:

JGSI wrote:

Sorry folks but I reckon this thread ought to be closed now .... a person actually passed away you know.

Closed why? It's a discussion about why it may have happened, not containing any information that's not in the public domain and doesn't exactly apportion blame to either party.

This is a forum where people ride bikes, I'd hazard a guess that some people on this forum run fixed gear bikes without front brakes - maybe they'll reconsider that now.

Yes - I think that this thread is incredibly relevant to the commuting community in particular. When I used to ride through the centre of Cambridge every morning, I used to have to have my wits about me to stop hitting peds who just stepped into the road because they didn't hear a car (and the centre in semi-pedestrianised).

slowbike

NitrousOxide wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

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.

You might change your approach to this after ploughing into a large stationary object, unless climbing up a categorised hill, I know I certainly have in the last ~3.5 years.;)

I can remember riding down suburban Southampton streets ~20 years or so ago with clamp-on tri-bars on my bikes, with brake levers just in the standard bars position, what the heck was I thinking?! :shock:

Most of my riding is in the country - even my commute is away from towns (until the last 1/2 mile) - I'm actually quite cautious when it comes to riding in town with people walking around - so it probably won't make any change - other than ensuring my front brakes are working as well as possible.

weezyswiss

Where I am , when I ride through the town centre I am truly amazed at the lemmings just stepping out into the road. Many a time it is women with pushchairs putting their child on the road without even looking. The number of times I've had to anchor on and swerve is amazing and as such whenever close to pedestrians I am extra cautious, more so if there is a mobile in their mitts.

I'd never ride 18mph though town, and never with my hands away from the brakes, but then in London I can see having to keep the pace a bit otherwise the cars will slice you to bits. I feel this incident is a tragedy which the daily heil will use to pillory cyclists whereas the facts might actually be different. But when does that stop the tabloids.

cougie

People do step out without looking.. an experienced cyclist will know this and adjust for it. None of us want a crash. Most times you and your bike will hit the deck.

jds_1981

cougie wrote:

People do step out without looking.. an experienced cyclist will know this and adjust for it. None of us want a crash. Most times you and your bike will hit the deck.

Yet we have enough posts on here from experienced cyclists who have hit pedestrians who have stepped out?

fat daddy

jds_1981 wrote:

cougie wrote:

Yet we have enough posts on here from experienced cyclists who have hit pedestrians who have stepped out?

I have hit a couple .. I have even had one step into the side of me

I now ride a lot slower in areas with people .... that way when the inevitable happens I dont end up on the floor ! .. or at least, I'll end up on the floor, but not slide along it !

Ben6899

Well, he confessed today that the victim wasn't actually using her phone, when the collision occurred.

That won't help him.

vinnymarsden

He maintained for quite a while she must have been on her phone... to backtrack under cross examination makes him look rather dumb.
Regardless of speed etc etc it unfortunately shows his character, if he had played it straight from the outset instead of blaming the victim, and shouldered his share of it I'm sure the trial may not even have had to take place. The bottom line re court cases is that a court appearance is the very last thing anyone wants, but if someone is adamant they are not guilty/blameless, whatever the crime, the only way to get to the bottom of it is to be tried by a jury of your peers.
Me personally, I would have to be VERY VERY convinced of my complete innocence, and without straying into the bones of this case, I really don't think the accused is totally innocent, and he's put himself before a jury to try and convince them that he is. Risky business, personally I don't see it ending well for him, but ultimately he has chosen to take the path he is on.

rich_e

Ben6899 wrote:

Well, he confessed today that the victim wasn't actually using her phone, when the collision occurred.

That won't help him.

Hmm, you would think this would have been a pretty key part of his defence, to the point that his legal team would have sought her phone records and usage to determine whether she was even a bit distracted while crossing the road, along with whatever CCTV they have available.

He can't have a particularly good lawyer if part of his defence was that she was using her phone, but has now changed his story.

zebra67

(on my bike) I hit a pedestrian once. I can't remember so clearly (30 yrs ago!?), but she kept dithering over whether to cross the road. I kept slowing down & down while watching her. I thought she had definitely decided not to cross when she suddenly stepped in my path. Now I would slow right down & make eye contact before crossing her path. This was in California where she was acting illegally in trying to jaywalk, too, btw.

I had good brakes but still hit her.
Actually come to think of it, I just rode away after a few minutes (may have been illegal, oops, other people were helping her & she was standing & conscious). I wouldn't do that in a car now, but no one seemed to care what I did, back then. In my defense, I was only 15 or 16 at the time.

vinnymarsden

And your point is zebra ?

cornerblock

VinnyMarsden wrote:

And your point is zebra ?

Crossing.

FishFish

VinnyMarsden wrote:

And your point is zebra ?

His point is that he did not know his age.

cougie

I did have a pedestrian (kid) run out in front of me years back. I was prepared though so slammed on. Ended up with a leg either side of my front wheel. If he was a little shorter it could have been painful for him.

wolfsbane2k

Ben6899 wrote:

Well, he confessed today that the victim wasn't actually using her phone, when the collision occurred.

That won't help him.

I'd heard that his argument was "she might" have been on his phone - IIRC he'd said "she looked right at me, twice, before stepping out"...

The words & spin the media around this are really aggravating - Where is any coverage from his defence?
(He's still an arse.)

mrfpb

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Well, he confessed today that the victim wasn't actually using her phone, when the collision occurred.

That won't help him.

I'd heard that his argument was "she might" have been on his phone - IIRC he'd said "she looked right at me, twice, before stepping out"...

The words & spin the media around this are really aggravating - Where is any coverage from his defence?
(He's still an ars*.)

Quotes from what he said ARE his defence (he's hardly testifying for the prosecution). It will be interesting to hear if he had an expert witness of any kind.

wolfsbane2k

mrfpb wrote:

Quotes from what he said ARE his defence (he's hardly testifying for the prosecution). It will be interesting to hear if he had an expert witness of any kind.

Sorry - yeah, that's what I meant. The prosecution side from Monday through Thursday was heavily covered with loads of articles on the 16th (Wednesday) & 17th (Thursday) - And the Thursday papers said "expect wrap up Friday with jury retiring to consider verdict on Monday"

Yet there has been no updates I can find of Friday's court proceedings, just another hit post from the sun for the 18th.
I guess it doesn't fall in the interests of the papers.

I'm almost sounding like a conspiracy theorist...

wolfsbane2k

Oh... 30 mins ago.
http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/cr ... -1-5157690

"It is accepted that Mrs Briggs stepped backwards into Alliston’s path while crossing the street."

niblue

I was interesting enough in this case to do my own brake tests. The 3m that comes up seems to relate to a lower speed as it's definitely not possible to stop a bike from 18mph in that distance. Here were my results:

Done on a slightly damp but still very grippy road in front of my house. All tests from 18mph (or close) measured by my Garmin.

Road bike with disc brakes using both brakes (Ultegra hydros and 25mm Vittoria Corsa's - all brand new): Completely stopped in about 5.5m
Road bike just using rear brake (same bike as above): Completely stopped in about 11m
Road bike with rim brakes using both brakes (105 brakes, Dura-ace carbon wheels with alloy brake tracks, newish 35mm GP4000's): Completely stopped in about 6.5m
Mountain bike using both brakes (XTR discs, 26x2.1" Conti Speed King Supersonic tyres): Completely stopped in about 6.5m

I tried skid stopping with just the rear brake (apparently fixie Gods allege this is an effective away of stopping) on my disc braked road bike and the stopping distance doing that would be measured in miles, not metres! Trying to stop quickly with just the rear brake the trickiest as it was difficult not to lock the wheel up.

I was tempted to try the same on my TT bikes (one of which has carbon wheels with carbon brake tracks) but was getting worried that my neighbours were already thinking me mental! I've also got visitors staying who've got a couple of lowish end V-braked mountain bikes with them and was tempted to try the same test using one of those but didn't really want to explain that I wanted to try a brake test with a shite bike but didn't have one of my own...!

Not based on the 6.65m distance mentioned on being the point at which he shouted (i.e. taking out reaction time) then I'd have been stopped or very close to stopped on any of the bikes I tried using both brakes, but no-where near with just a rear brake. I've also ridden track bikes at the velodrome and there is not a chance I'd have been able to stop one of them using the fixed wheel as quickly as I could with a proper rear brake either. Apparently the cyclist did comment about "skidding" the back wheel so braking would appear to have been a factor in the incident.

rich_e

I was about to post that the same is now up on the Islington Gazette:
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/ ... -1-5157690

I think that's a pretty fair summing up by his defence.
If the shoe was on the other foot, would she be tried with manslaughter if he had died?

He also touches on the fact that a motorist is unlikely to be charged with this level of manslaughter charge, which echos what a number of people have already said on here.

cougie

Up to 14 mph ? That's a bit more responsible than I'd heard before.

niblue

Rich_E wrote:

If the shoe was on the other foot, would she be tried with manslaughter if he had died?

As crossing the road isn't by itself illegal then she couldn't be charged with illegal act manslaughter but could maybe be tried for gross negligence manslaughter. Difficult to say for sure because, as is the case with "cyclist kills pedestrian", "pedestrian kills cyclist" is also pretty rare.

niblue

cougie wrote:

Up to 14 mph ? That's a bit more responsible than I'd heard before.

Might be an issue for the defence though as that's the impact speed - it was estimated he was doing 18mph when she shouted for her to "get the f*** out of his way" so while he did slow, but only by 4mph despite there being time to slow a lot more or even stop if his bike had effective braking capability.

DrLex

Interesting article on a road safety forum, wherein it is suggested that car-related deaths are almost exonerated whilst these rare incidents are seized upon more than just due to the "man bites dog" nature of the event.

niblue

DrLex wrote:

Interesting article on a road safety forum, wherein it is suggested that car-related deaths are almost exonerated whilst these rare incidents are seized upon more than just due to the "man bites dog" nature of the event.

I don't think the guy has picked a great case for comparison because the biggest difference is that the driver in that case pled guilty and a lot of the discussion around the Charlie Alliston case is down the not guilty plea and therefore the subsequent trial. Personally I think the sentence was too light given how dangerous the driving was - put that's really a different question than the situation here.