Fixie Rider charged with manslaughter after collision with pedestrian.

prowlbass

Last year I had a school child step into the road in my path. I was doing a little over 20mph, realised the kids were going to step out about 10m out, shouted and immediately pulled the brakes. They were waiting at a pedestrian crossing on a wide, open road with little traffic and good visibility, so I saw no reason to be riding slowly or overly cautiously. I realised they were going to step out because they watched a 4x4 pass, then, still looking left at the 4x4 began stepping out into the road. When I shouted, one immediately began running, the other froze. The gap between the kerb and frozen girl was too small to safely aim for and dodging right would have resulted in hitting the girl that ran.

Disc brakes and the fact I was so scared of hurting a young girl meant that it seems I pulled the front hard enough to just barely connect with her while going over my bars. She was fine, I dislocated my AC joint and spent the rest of the day in hospital getting xrays and MRIs (my helmet exploded, I was badly concussed and had a lot of pain in my neck). AC separation doesn't ever fully heal - I'm permanently disfigured and have a lovely new clicky sensation when I move my arm in certain directions. I got a 50 quid wiggle voucher from her mother to replace the jersey I was cut out of - I replaced my helmet, bibs, base layer, broken handlebar etc. out of my own pocket.

Luckily I had video footage that very clearly showed the girls stepping out without looking as the girl's immediate response (after fleeing the scene and being bought back by her mother an hour later) was 'the pedestrian light was green'. No one gave a damn about my injuries and I've often thought I was extremely lucky the girl was uninjured as I suspect no amount of video footage would have redeemed me in the eyes of the public and law.

With that experience in mind, the stopping distances and police videos really irk me. They're simply unrealistic and that video suggests there was no attempt to create accurate results. I have a fixie (with a front brake) that I use for plodding about town and when I'm decelerating without using the front brake, my attempts to slow down look nothing like that. There appears to be no effort to actually stop the bike, rather they've just measured how long it takes a fixie to stop if you cease actively pedalling and perhaps apply a bit of resistance to the pedals. As my story above illustrates, even with disc brakes, 30mm tyres and a heavy (80kg) rider, you can't stop a road bike in such a short distance without serious injury to the rider.

No comment on the case (I've not followed closely enough), but the precedent set makes me very worried about what happens next time a pedestrian steps directly into my path within a distance the police have now suggested I should be able to stop in. With one shoulder already permanently knackered, I'd rather not lose the other because the law would rather see me injured than someone stepping into my path (and the concussion wasn't enjoyable at the time either).

meursault

niblue wrote:

navt wrote:

Martin Porter sums is up nicely in his article.

His comment "The charge of wanton and furious driving is also puzzling. Although the archaic 1861 wording could encompass more, it generally relates to speed" is deliberately misleading as he knows full well that the charge encompasses "wilful neglect" which would apply to the lack of effective braking and there was no need for the riding style or speed to be a factor. I'd expect better from a lawyer when discussing a point of law.

Wilful neglect, implies knowledge of requirement for effective braking.

niblue

Wilful neglect, implies knowledge of requirement for effective braking.

Not really a problem as his statements about not knowing about the requirement for a front brake weren't credible anyway (his social media postings and him saying he sometimes fitted a front brake meant that he probably knew the law, but even if he didn't he was aware of the impact of removing a front brake on effective braking distances).

gabriel959

Indeed, the wilful neglect part is only ok if he knew it was illegal to ride a bike without a front brake, which he didn't. I agree with Martin.

gabriel959

niblue wrote:

Wilful neglect, implies knowledge of requirement for effective braking.

Not really a problem as his statements about not knowing about the requirement for a front brake weren't credible anyway (his social media postings and him saying he sometimes fitted a front brake meant that he probably knew the law, but even if he didn't he was aware of the impact of removing a front brake on effective braking distances).

That is a stretch, sorry.

niblue

gabriel959 wrote:

niblue wrote:

Wilful neglect, implies knowledge of requirement for effective braking.

Not really a problem as his statements about not knowing about the requirement for a front brake weren't credible anyway (his social media postings and him saying he sometimes fitted a front brake meant that he probably knew the law, but even if he didn't he was aware of the impact of removing a front brake on effective braking distances).

That is a stretch, sorry.

It's all about opinions, as it would be in the court room. Any experienced cyclist would be aware that a bike stops quicker with a front brake that without, and that's pretty much all the prosecution would have to say on the matter.

TheBigBean

I'm all for strict liability cars-> cyclists -> peds. That's obviously not the law at the moment, so is of no relevance to the case.

Cyclists can avoid pedestrians if they really want to. I had this moment of clarity many years ago. Sometimes it involves braking and / or going slightly slower.

niblue

I did some more testing to see if I could replicate that 3m from 15mph stop that the police video seems to claim. Even with my hydro disc braked road bike I couldn't get close to that. I was about 4m from 15mph and needed to be around 12/13mph to stop in 3m. That was on a very dry and grippy road surface as well, plus my stop was a lot more dramatic than in that video - with the back wheel off the ground at the point of stopping. Braking distances were consistently about double with just the back brake.

I also re-did my tests from 18mph again, this time in the dry and using a market 6m length of road, and had no problem stopping my hydro braked road bike in that distance, using both brakes. I even had the space to modulate my braking a bit to stop the rear wheel lifting.

Just for interest I also tried stopping from 18mph on my TT bike, which has carbon wheels and carbon specific pads. I couldn't stop that in 6m - was more like 7m.

kiwimatt

TheBigBean wrote:

Cyclists can avoid pedestrians if they really want to. I had this moment of clarity many years ago. Sometimes it involves braking and / or going slightly slower.

Too sweeping. A guy who jaywalked (sprinting) through the red man trying to catch up with a group of friends clattered into me, in the dark, and he was drunk. I suppose you may counter that if I had been going slower and had more cat like hazard perception and braking skills he might have been avoided.

I really want to avoid pedestrians (and crashing). But sometimes stuff happens.

elbowloh

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm all for strict liability cars-> cyclists -> peds. That's obviously not the law at the moment, so is of no relevance to the case.

Cyclists can avoid pedestrians if they really want to. I had this moment of clarity many years ago. Sometimes it involves braking and / or going slightly slower.

Sometimes you can't. I was going pretty slow, in a cycle lane as it was just after a junction. A lad looked straight at me, I was "sure" he had seen me, but he still stepped out in front of me. I was aware that he might step out so I was ready to put the breaks on and slowed, but I still hit him albeit at low speed and we both stayed upright, but I couldn't avoid him. The only thing damaged was one of the 4 boxes of pizzas he was carrying. To avoid him I would pretty much have had to come to a stop before he stepped out and realistically cyclists are not going to do that all the time.

fenix

TheBigBean wrote:

Cyclists can avoid pedestrians if they really want to. I had this moment of clarity many years ago. Sometimes it involves braking and / or going slightly slower.

This is clearly bollox. Not all of the time. We're cyclists - not ninjas.

If you cycle like a nob - then yeah you can reduce the risk by not cycling like a nob - but even the most cautious rider could get caught out..

dhope

elbowloh wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Cyclists can avoid pedestrians if they really want to. I had this moment of clarity many years ago. Sometimes it involves braking and / or going slightly slower.

Sometimes you can't. I was going pretty slow, in a cycle lane as it was just after a junction. A lad looked straight at me, I was "sure" he had seen me, but he still stepped out in front of me. I was aware that he might step out so I was ready to put the breaks on and slowed, but I still hit him albeit at low speed and we both stayed upright, but I couldn't avoid him. The only thing damaged was one of the 4 boxes of pizzas he was carrying. To avoid him I would pretty much have had to come to a stop before he stepped out and realistically cyclists are not going to do that all the time.

Or the lady that ran into the road from behind a bus. I was riding in primary and had left plenty of space between the bus and me incase someone stepped out. But planning for someone running into the middle of the road from a hidden position isn't a reasonable expectation. We collided at probably 10-15mph and fortunately both got up and walked away with nothing more than a slight scuff.

xbnm

I agree sometimes you cant i was cycling on a off road cycle only cycle lane, when grandma who was picking up grandson decided to park in the cycle lane I slowed and went past the car on the inside (too dangerous to try to get on the road to the right) at about 4mph. Excited grandson ran out from the drive past another parked car and straight into the left handlebar fortunately due to anticipating a potential issue no serious damage occurred but I'm sure there was no way i could have avoided the collision even though i was covering the breaks i barely had a chance to pull them. The grandma ended up getting words of advice from the police about her parking. To this day i dread to think what would have happened if i had been going at any speed.

TheBigBean

elbowloh wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm all for strict liability cars-> cyclists -> peds. That's obviously not the law at the moment, so is of no relevance to the case.

Cyclists can avoid pedestrians if they really want to. I had this moment of clarity many years ago. Sometimes it involves braking and / or going slightly slower.

Sometimes you can't. I was going pretty slow, in a cycle lane as it was just after a junction. A lad looked straight at me, I was "sure" he had seen me, but he still stepped out in front of me. I was aware that he might step out so I was ready to put the breaks on and slowed, but I still hit him albeit at low speed and we both stayed upright, but I couldn't avoid him. The only thing damaged was one of the 4 boxes of pizzas he was carrying. To avoid him I would pretty much have had to come to a stop before he stepped out and realistically cyclists are not going to do that all the time.

It's tricky in cycle lanes (which is why I don't use them). They are too narrow and put you too close to the kerb. Also, it sounds like it was hardly worse than walking into someone, so maybe you would be fine under TheBigBean rules. Perhaps in that case, I'd need to prosecute the council for a shoddy cycle lane.

niblue

My office is close to one of London's cycling super highways and despite that being clearly segregated there are still lots of peds that wander into it without looking. Some of them are also confused by it being two-way though, only checking one direction. Sometimes they step out so close that there would be little you could do to avoid them, however it's prudent to allow for that when riding along there at busy times.

kingstongraham

niblue wrote:

My office is close to one of London's cycling super highways and despite that being clearly segregated there are still lots of peds that wander into it without looking. Some of them are also confused by it being two-way though, only checking one direction. Sometimes they step out so close that there would be little you could do to avoid them, however it's prudent to allow for that when riding along there at busy times.

This is why I prefer wider roads with decent bike lanes rather than segregation. Every segregated lane on my route has people walking in it every day. Except the one where they decided to surface the bike lane in gravel. Where it doesn't even have any cyclists.

You just need to modify your riding in town to take account of people not being where they shouldn't be. Because they will be there. And then they will either stop, run or step back when something happens that you are either aware of or not.

If cars are going at 20mph, people won't step out. If cars are stopped, people will.

niblue

KingstonGraham wrote:

You just need to modify your riding in town to take account of people not being where they shouldn't be. Because they will be there. And then they will either stop, run or step back when something happens that you are either aware of or not.

Very true, plus in London you also get a lot of tourists who are distracted and who also sometimes look the wrong way before stepping off the pavement. I'm always very wary of wayward peds when riding in town, especially in busy areas and at busy times like lunchtime. The road setup can be confusing on places as well, which also doesn't help.

rick_chasey

niblue wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

You just need to modify your riding in town to take account of people not being where they shouldn't be. Because they will be there. And then they will either stop, run or step back when something happens that you are either aware of or not.

Very true, plus in London you also get a lot of tourists who are distracted and who also sometimes look the wrong way before stepping off the pavement. I'm always very wary of wayward peds when riding in town, especially in busy areas and at busy times like lunchtime. The road setup can be confusing on places as well, which also doesn't help.

Cambridge is infinitely worse for this.

mrfpb

There's no such thing as jaywalking in British law, you can cross the road at any point you want to. You don't have to use a nearby Zebra/Pelican crossing or wait for a green man at a pelican crossing. The onus is on the road users to be aware of pedestrians. The behaviour of the pedestrian can be a mitigating factor, but the road user is at fault if they don't pay due care and attention.

niblue

There's no such thing as jaywalking in British law, you can cross the road at any point you want to. You don't have to use a nearby Zebra/Pelican crossing or wait for a green man at a pelican crossing.

They are advised in the highway code though, which will have some weight in the courtroom.

Tashman

With all the fixie chat I've not seen anything mentioned about BMX's.
i know that genrally they're not travelling at speed but i often see them near me, usually ridden by an oversized manchild on the pavement with no brakes at all

fat daddy

Tashman wrote:

With all the fixie chat I've not seen anything mentioned about BMX's.

bmx's are bikes .... I think they come under the same regulations

fenix

BMX's should come with brakes though whereas track bikes dont.

niblue

BMX's should come with brakes though whereas track bikes dont.

If the bike's seat height can't be raised above 635mm it only requires a single braking system. I suspect it was aimed at kids bikes but not sure if it'd apply to a BMX as well.

rich_e

Tashman wrote:

With all the fixie chat I've not seen anything mentioned about BMX's.
i know that genrally they're not travelling at speed but i often see them near me, usually ridden by an oversized manchild on the pavement with no brakes at all

I've got to be honest, I don't see too many people commuting on BMXs in London, as most people do tend to ride them more for their intended purpose.

That said, there are plenty of other modes of transport I've seen that can't be road legal that people use for commuting. Lots of people seem to be buying motorized scooters now and I don't believe those are legal be used on the pavement or the road. Earlier this week, there was a guy on my commute who was using an electric motor skateboard on the road, he was really giving it some as well, as he was very quick to accelerate and was ahead of me on all but the hilly sections of my ride. I believe that has some kind of remote you can use too slow down and brake, but given what has happened with this case, it made me think about how very wrong it could go with somebody on a heavy skateboard who can barely stop properly. I've never seen anyone get pulled up for using something like this though.

slowbike

niblue wrote:

Isn't there a flaw ? They've taken out reaction time as they know when to brake ?

The available distance quoted was from when he shouted so I think the view was that there is therefore no need to take reaction time into account.

Providing the hands were already poised to brake ....

Bikequin

Slowbike wrote:

niblue wrote:

Isn't there a flaw ? They've taken out reaction time as they know when to brake ?

The available distance quoted was from when he shouted so I think the view was that there is therefore no need to take reaction time into account.

Providing the hands were already poised to brake ....

Erm... except he wasn't breaking with his hands.

jds_1981

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/25/police-fo ... o-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.

Thick Mike

In the second video, did he just Coast to a stop? Not on a fixie?

milemuncher1

I've had single speed bikes with flip flop hubs, in the past. I've ridden them set to fixed, on the roads. I've even had a track bike, with no freewheel, and ridden that on the road as well. It was no big deal to fit front and rear brakes to it. I used the rear brake to stop the inevitable nightmare when going down a hill, but never bothered with the front brake, it was there to keep the bike in line with the legal requirements regarding brakes, I don't ever recall actually using it. I always managed to stop, without crashing into anything. I think the thing that grates with most law abiding folk, is that a lot of the 'too cool for school' fixie riding brigade, don't have a front brake, just " 'cos only pussies put front brakes on a Fixie, innit fam".