Mathew Briggs article in the guardian

[sirmy]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... gs-widower

He says "“There’s a gap between an 1861 act, which is for horses and carriages, and manslaughter. It’s way too big a gap. All I’m saying [is] the law needs to catch up. For cycling, it’s not even a new law, it just needs to be included in the Road Traffic Act.”". So that would be death by careless or dangerous driving being applied to cyclists?

There are thousands across the country who can tell him how ineffective that is, Alliston would have probably been advised to plead guilty to the lesser and got a fine, although from the press reports of her s attitude he wouldn't have. It would be interesting to see how jury verdicts turn out when a cyclist is charged rather than a driver.

[Bmblbzzz]

If the mooted legislation were "causing death by dangerous/reckless/careless cycling" then no problem. It would be applicable in a tiny number of cases (twice this year, I think). I fear the actual new legislation will be something far more catch-all and open to misapplication or abuse by ignorant or occasionally prejudiced police.

[SilverBadge]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/09/kim-briggs-widower

He says "“There’s a gap between an 1861 act, which is for horses and carriages, and manslaughter. It’s way too big a gap. All I’m saying [is] the law needs to catch up. For cycling, it’s not even a new law, it just needs to be included in the Road Traffic Act.”". So that would be death by careless or dangerous driving being applied to cyclists?

There are thousands across the country who can tell him how ineffective that is, Alliston would have probably been advised to plead guilty to the lesser and got a fine, although from the press reports of her s attitude he wouldn't have. It would be interesting to see how jury verdicts turn out when a cyclist is charged rather than a driver.

Link is
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wrongdoing

Singletrack magazine article argues that manslaughter charges can be more effective than "causing death by . . ." offences in 1988 RTA.
http://singletrackworld.com/2017/09/the ... mustnt-it/

[Steady rider]

I think the proportionally of the circumstances has to be considered. If I drive a 1000 kg car at 40 mph, as I do often, then I have to take a lot of care to ensure I do not hit anyone. If I did hit anyone I could expect to do considerable damage. If I cycle at 25 mph, as I sometimes do, then I have to take care to ensure I do not hit anyone, this may involve say 80 kg. If I did hit anyone I could expect to do some damage. The degree of care/risk is proportional to the risk imposed. The law should take the proportionally of the situations into account.

Quoting from Safer Cycling 1995 by Colin Clarke

Passing Pedestrians
if you are out for a ride
Consider the walkers as you pass by their side
Before you pass rememder to think
Use bell or brake levers for a warning clink
So have some class
And think to clink before you pass

Perhaps education may be more effective then legislation. Equally if someone is riding very dangerously, they will probably harm themselves before anyone else but in some circumstances they should be accountable, bearing in mind proportionally. If someone steps into the road, a cyclist may not be heard and the impact may in rare circumstances result in death.

[sirmy]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/09/kim-briggs-widower

He says "“There’s a gap between an 1861 act, which is for horses and carriages, and manslaughter. It’s way too big a gap. All I’m saying [is] the law needs to catch up. For cycling, it’s not even a new law, it just needs to be included in the Road Traffic Act.”". So that would be death by careless or dangerous driving being applied to cyclists?

There are thousands across the country who can tell him how ineffective that is, Alliston would have probably been advised to plead guilty to the lesser and got a fine, although from the press reports of her s attitude he wouldn't have. It would be interesting to see how jury verdicts turn out when a cyclist is charged rather than a driver.

Link is
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wrongdoing

Singletrack magazine article argues that manslaughter charges can be more effective than "causing death by . . ." offences in 1988 RTA.
http://singletrackworld.com/2017/09/the ... mustnt-it/

Don't know what happened there, copied and pasted the link direct from the guardian. Maybe they went back and corrected a spelling mistake

[Steady rider]

As I understand the situation the woman stepped out in front of the cyclist and the cyclist had a bicycle not in a legal condition.

To try and improve the issues. People could be given a couple of rhymes to learn as kids, 'Passing cyclists' as above plus 'Walking with care' by the same author

Walking with Care
If you are walking around
Before you step out
Be sure to look
In case you get hit by a truck

The other issue, brakes on bikes, a change in the law to require all bicycles used in public place to have two brakes, one on each wheel.
Mainly an educational approach for both cyclists and walkers, to avoid accidents, but also a legal change to require 2 brakes.

A question, what if the cyclist had died (or been injured) and not the pedestrian (assuming the bicycle had no legal issues) how would the case and charges relate?

[drossall]

The other issue, brakes on bikes, a change in the law to require all bicycles used in public place to have two brakes, one on each wheel.

The law already requires that. However, it recognises a fixed wheel as a brake. I'm not sure that this unfortunate case has anything to say about the value or otherwise of having two brakes on the rear of a fixed-wheel bicycle, although everyone agrees that a front brake should have been fitted.

That said, a lot of us (me included) do choose to have two rear brakes.

[SilverBadge]

As I understand the situation the woman stepped out in front of the cyclist and the cyclist had a bicycle not in a legal condition.

. . .

A question, what if the cyclist had died (or been injured) and not the pedestrian (assuming the bicycle had no legal issues) how would the case and charges relate?

Here's one example to keep an eye out for
http://road.cc/content/news/228969-read ... ds-inquest

[thirdcrank]

It seems to me that we need to decide which campaign we are fighting and this has been brought to an unexpected and unwelcome head by this case.

I'd say our long-term goals have been and should remain better "traffic" laws (especially the definition of "dangerous driving") and effective enforcement.

On Monday 18 September, Mr Alliston will be sentenced and then the controversy will be highlighted again. Even if he gets the max two years, there will be many expressing outrage at "only" two years for taking away a life; more interviews with the bereaved etc. Even if he gets substantially less, there will be others who consider his treatment by the legal system oppressive.

It seems to me that this is not a good time to be a cycle campaigner, but if I'm right about the long-term goals, they won't be achieved by appearing to argue that cyclists should be exempt because their potential to kill and injure is less than that of the driver of a motor vehicle. These events may be rare, but that's no reason to minimise their effect when they do occur. We've been quick to condemn the use of terms like "accident" but some appear slow to acknowledge offending by cyclists. I'm saying that everybody should be subject to the "long-term goals" and proportionality is already in place. (eg Dangerous cycling s28 RTA 1988 is triable summarily only, max fine level 4. Dangerous driving s2 RTA 1988 is max 6 months impt + max level fine on summary trial or two years impt + unlimited fine on indictment.)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2

Let's be clear about the campaign and with thanks to meic, let's decide what we want on the banner. No "buts" is my recommendation.

On the matter of bike brakes, the regulations require two, with exceptions, and fixed wheel is an exception to the requirement for a rear brake, when a front brake is fitted.

I'm not sure that cyclists are in much of a position to make demands here. I could easily imagine something like the extension of fixed penalties to pavement cycling, but with a police power to seize bikes which didn't comply with the regulations. ie Ask "police chiefs" why nothing is being done and they complain that the existing system is too onerous so streamline it. It may infringe the human right to property but there are powers to seize motor vehicles in certain circumstances. We might even have ministerial reassurances that this wasn't aimed at responsible cyclists, but what responsible cyclist would ride fixed-wheel on a street with no other brake?

[Mick F]

As I understand the situation the woman stepped out in front of the cyclist and the cyclist had a bicycle not in a legal condition.

. . .

A question, what if the cyclist had died (or been injured) and not the pedestrian (assuming the bicycle had no legal issues) how would the case and charges relate?

Here's one example to keep an eye out for
http://road.cc/content/news/228969-read ... ds-inquest

Thanks for that.
Thought provoking.

Sauce for the goose?

[Steady rider]

What specific changes would most likely benefit safety and not be over bearing?

Having a fixed wheel bike, with one front brake, tested for how well it brakes compared to a standard two brakes bike, may tell us if requiring all bikes to have two brakes is worthwhile. I don't think the science will show much benefit to adding a rear brake to a fixed wheel bike in stopping distances. Perhaps some university could do the tests?

The law side is a problem. All sorts of levels and fines to try and match a situation. Motorists are trained on how to drive and have to pass a test and consequently if they do something wrong they should have known better, at least in most cases. A pedestrian crossing a road without looking is not taking sufficient care, as is a cyclist riding a bike without a front brake. Track cyclists provide an examples of riding without brakes and some cyclists may think if they can do that why not me. The level of danger may not have been that obvious to the individual. A pedestrian crossing without looking may get killed or someone else may be killed. The law has to consider all these issues if it wants to treat people fairly. I suppose knowingly acting in a dangerous manner that may or is likely to harm others is the main consideration.

[Bez]

Having a fixed wheel bike, with one front brake, tested for how well it brakes compared to a standard two brakes bike, may tell us if requiring all bikes to have two brakes is worthwhile. I don't think the science will show much benefit to adding a rear brake to a fixed wheel bike in stopping distances. Perhaps some university could do the tests?

In the dry and in a straight line it's trivial: maximum braking is achieved when the rear wheel is completely unweighted, so the rear brake is redundant.

It's only when front wheel grip is the limiting factor, ie when it's possible to lock the front wheel, that the rear brake has any outright benefit.

[tatanab]

Having a fixed wheel bike, with one front brake, tested for how well it brakes compared to a standard two brakes bike, may tell us if requiring all bikes to have two brakes is worthwhile. I don't think the science will show much benefit to adding a rear brake to a fixed wheel bike in stopping distances. Perhaps some university could do the tests?

You would have to compare otherwise identical machines. On fixed, with a front brake only, I have easily stopped more quickly than a rider using the old "suicide levers" on aluminium rims. In the wet, I bet that even with suicide levers that rider would have stopped quicker than somebody with steel rims. All of these a currently acceptable options in law. Hence my braking is far better than the seemingly acceptable steel rimmed rider.

Track cyclists provide an examples of riding without brakes and some cyclists may think if they can do that why not me.

Are people not intelligent enough to realise that track racing is special conditions in an enclosed environment. Much the same as motorcycle racing on slick tyres.

[meic]

Having a fixed wheel bike, with one front brake, tested for how well it brakes compared to a standard two brakes bike, may tell us if requiring all bikes to have two brakes is worthwhile. I don't think the science will show much benefit to adding a rear brake to a fixed wheel bike in stopping distances. Perhaps some university could do the tests?

In the dry and in a straight line it's trivial: maximum braking is achieved when the rear wheel is completely unweighted, so the rear brake is redundant.

It's only when front wheel grip is the limiting factor, ie when it's possible to lock the front wheel, that the rear brake has any outright benefit.

Which is over 50% of the distance on my roads.

[thirdcrank]

... Are people not intelligent enough to realise that track racing is special conditions in an enclosed environment. Much the same as motorcycle racing on slick tyres.

A lot depends on who an individual listens to. Internet forums often have a mix of letter-of-the-law posters and they-can't-touch-you-for-it types. An eighteen year old might most easily be influenced by the latter. Mr Alliston testified that he didn't know that the bike wasn't street legal. IIRC, the prosecution brought evidence that he had previously removed the front brake from another bike, but that doesn't show he knew the regs: on the contrary. Nowadays, many bikes, especially American marques, are plastered with caution stickers with an instruction manual full of warnings. I imagine that track bike manufacturers and retailers don't state the obvious in the instructions. (I do know about ignorance of the law.)

It's easy to sit at a keyboard and encourage others into believing that doing something like this is OK. And then to rationalise it afterwards.