Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[keyboardmonkey]

Personally I think it's time to leave this topic and revisit after there's a verdict.

+1

[thirdcrank]

Tangled Metal

I appreciate what you mean but the situation won't be so very much different when the verdict is known. We are certainly unlikely to have much more detail about the evidence which was heard during the trial. Depending on which way the verdict goes, I suspect we'll not get much change in views already firmly held.

I'd agree that discussions about a death should not unnecessarily add to the sufferings of family and friends and IMO there's little room for humour.

Thanks for the comments BTW.

[BakfietsUK]

I wonder if the frame had appropriate brake calliper drillings for road use. There seem to be a lot of manufacturers who supply frames without any drillings at all. This is ok if they are used on the track only. Suppliers don't always seem to make it clear whether their products actually have drillings, so potentially a customer may end up with a frame not suitable for road use. I believe that road conditions nowadays warrant two mechanical brakes. That is even if you can retard the bike by back pedalling this is insufficient for riding in traffic at the speed of the traffic in built up areas. The presence of pedestrians makes it even more important. The alleged attitude of the rider would suggest that more emphasis needs to be given to updating and enforcing minimum braking standards. After all they were probably drafted when cycling was a very different experience and traffic very much lighter.

It is very scary that a cyclist can be charged with manslaughter whereas a driver will only be subject to road traffic law. This inequity needs to be challenged and I would suggest making a manslaughter charge the very least anyone could expect if killing someone through negligence. This is pretty common in industry where negligence can give rise to a charge of manslaughter. In some industries, the prospect of this makes the work particularly arduous and a particularly keen sense of personal responsibility prevails. This is highly appropriate and it's about time that motoring was included in the activities which warrant this level of "professionalism".

My heart goes out to the victim of this incident and her loved ones. I was also shocked by the allegedly callous attitude of the rider who allegedly killed this person. This makes the charge of manslaughter highly appropriate, I just sit in wait for road traffic law to catch up.

[Bonefishblues]

I wonder if the frame had appropriate brake calliper drillings for road use. There seem to be a lot of manufacturers who supply frames without any drillings at all. This is ok if they are used on the track only. Suppliers don't always seem to make it clear whether their products actually have drillings, so potentially a customer may end up with a frame not suitable for road use. I believe that road conditions nowadays warrant two mechanical brakes. That is even if you can retard the bike by back pedalling this is insufficient for riding in traffic at the speed of the traffic in built up areas. The presence of pedestrians makes it even more important. The alleged attitude of the rider would suggest that more emphasis needs to be given to updating and enforcing minimum braking standards. After all they were probably drafted when cycling was a very different experience and traffic very much lighter.

This bike is a track bike. A specialist track bike. It is marketed as such. There is absolutely no mention by the retailer of using it for any other purpose, and as I've said before, I think it's wholly unsuited to the purpose to which it was being put. That also speaks to the charge applied here. Perhaps an analogy might be a driver using a race car on the road?

ETA (actually, that's not a very good analogy, but the fact is the track bike's specifically not designed for stopping...)

[[XAP]Bob]

The facts of this case are being placed in front if a jury. A jury of peers. Yes peers because you can bet there will be motorists and cyclists on the jury.

That is optimistic. There might be one person who cycles regularly on the jury, but it's not a given. There will be at least 11 people who cross roads on foot whilst using a phone - probably 9 or more who regularly rely on hearing over vision...
When I was on a jury there was no one else on the jury who could identify with either the defendant or the victim. Now that is as fair as you can reasonably get - but in a case where the whole jury identifies with the same one or the other...

Whilst I would welcome a vehicular manslaughter charge, as well as a manslughter with a vehicle charge, they should be the default for all road deaths, not just those where a cyclist is the defendant.


He should have had a front brake, without seeing the CCTV there is no way we can know whether he could have stopped in time. I find the choice of a MTB for comparison very odd - a road bike is the logical comparison - or a track brake with a front calliper...
For me (as a recent juror) that calls into question the integrity of said evidence - and they won't be allowed to ask the question about a road bike...

[[XAP]Bob]

Back pedal brakes can be perfectly sufficient for retardation.

I don't know why this forum is so anti coaster brakes, or back-pedalling as a brake (not that I've ever ridden fixed).
I've ridden with coaster brakes quite a bit and find them an effective and pleasant way of braking. They might not be as sharp as a disc brake, but then neither is my cars brake as sharp as a Lotus Elise...

[661-Pete]

My only experience of coaster brakes. Mrs P and I (not so fast - Mrs P was Ms P back then, she was my fiancée ) were on holiday on Cos, in the early 1980s. We decided to hire a couple of bikes and explore the island's interior. The only bikes we could get had coaster brakes. Fair enough, we thought, it's only for a day. As we ventured inland, the road got steeper and steeper, and also degenerated in quality - in the end it was no more than a dirt-track. Nevertheless we made it to a convenient cafe for lunch, and admired the view.

Going back, steep downhill on loose gravel, with only the coaster brake to hold one back, was a different story. I have never been more terrified on a bike! Several times we had to get off and walk.

Coaster brakes may be fine on Holland's flat, smooth cycle paths - but for me: never again!

[gaz]

I wonder if the frame had appropriate brake calliper drillings for road use.

It doesn't really matter. Either way the accused chose to use it on the road without the legally required front brake.

I believe that road conditions nowadays warrant two mechanical brakes.

In the case of a conventonal fixed wheel bike the law already requires this for road use, a mechanical front brake operated by the rider's hand* and a mechanical rear brake operated by the rider's legs. Some people choose to have a third mechanical brake.

The alleged attitude of the rider would suggest that more emphasis needs to be given to updating and enforcing minimum braking standards. After all they were probably drafted when cycling was a very different experience and traffic very much lighter.

Either minimum braking standards need updating and enforcing or they don't, that has nothing to do with the attitude of the rider in this case.

The current standards date from 1983, requiring (in most cases) two efficient braking systems, operating independently on the front and rear wheel. Apart from saying that a brake which operates directly on a pneumatic tyre is not efficient, the regulations are unhelpful as to what is or is not efficient. That would certainly be an area for improvement.

Short of introducing a bicycle equivalent to MoTs I cannot see how you would improve upon current enforcement.

It is very scary that a cyclist can be charged with manslaughter whereas a driver will only be subject to road traffic law.

Drivers of motor vehicles can be charged with manslaughter, recent examples include the Bath tipper truck driver and the driver in the "dooring" that led to the death of Sam Harding. This rarely happens because the offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving are usually considered to be a more appropriate charge. There are no offences of causing death by dangerous/careless cycling.

*The regulations do not specify how the front brake should be operated, a traditional brake lever seems the most likely method.

[mjr]

If my wife or mother were run over, I'd not have any problem with online comments considering the accuracy of the evidence. I'd not be so fond of attempts to blame the victim, though!

Well I think I would have issues with the general feeling of cyclists closing ranks. By this I mean there is a lot of posts expressing doubt that lack of front brake would have an effect without having evidence only spurious opinions, links supporting their view and assumptions.[/quote]
IIRC, I expressed doubt that lack of front brake was a significant factor, but the evidence is what the cyclist reportedly wrote on LFGSS forum shortly after. In case it wasn't clear: I think it's right that the case is being put.

I just put the idea out there that we should give this matter a break until after the court process reaches a conclusion or at least until there's a verdict. I also wish media would drop the story until then.

That would be lovely, but the anti-cycling media aren't going to drop the story and this is too serious for us to let them be the only commentary on the case.

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not sure it's a case of anti-cycling media. It's just a very good story which will lift readership if you look at it objectively.

[simonineaston]

I just want to say how perfectly ghastly for the woman's family and I feel for them - and indeed for the cyclist... I had a friend who years ago killed a pedestrian and it took him ages to come to terms with it, even though he was found not to have been at fault at the inquest. My neighbour's brother was fatally injured while cycling back in June... and another cyclist was found lying in the road not far from me the other morning and has since died. It's really all just too sad.

[bovlomov]

From today's hearing:

...Alliston, who admitted not wearing a helmet...

Admitted? Says more about the reporter than it does about the defendant.

[The utility cyclist]

Scenario seemed to be overlooked.
Defendant braked/slowed/shouted, slowed more and shouted and the pedestrian still dithered (3.8seconds is approx 2mph to cover 3.8m carriageway and be fully across) the pedestrian ignored two clearly audible verbal warnings, and whilst not crossing prudently as one would expect moved into the path of the person on a bike who was trying to swerve around them/second guess which direction the pedstrian was going. Why was the pedstrian not able to fully cross in the timescale given before impact, why did they ignore the warnings, why did they seemingly hang around on the road instead of crossing fully over. I walked at a slow pace just now and covered 6 metres in just under 4 seconds, approximately 3.5mph

Slamming on the brakes to achieve the maximum theoretical braking distance when something/someone is moving across in front, that you anticipate would be out of the way under normal circumstances, simply does not happen that often. When do motorists come to an absolute stop when pedestrians are crossing in front of them, even more so when the motorist has priority at that instance, can't say I've seen that many in 30+ years and indeed would you on a bike come to an absolute stop when someone steps out or would you brake gently anticipating they would be fully across before you got to the intersection point. if the pedestrian failed to fully cross, step back all of a sudden into your path just as you had shouted two warnings and slowed already would you just before the point of impact have had enough to time to rethink, re-apply brakes to avoid the impact when the pedestrian is moving one way and the other and failing to cross as any ormal person would?

Quite honestly the amount of crock/witch hunt/predetermined nonsense written on this thread before the one sided rubbish that is coming from the prosecution (the stopping distance of an MTB being the start of it) is even finished is just oh so typical of forums.
People are talking about stopping/braking distances in absolute terms, forgetting about thinking time, confusion as to what X is doing, forgetting about mechanical action time and that braking isn't the absolute maximum force applied for the vast majority of the time in these circumstances.

According to standard MET police force practice if she wasn't wearing a helmet/hi-vis and was just in the road then she's entirely to blame for her demise and there's no case to answer (she would already be expected to know that as a pedstrian she is going to be more likely to suffer serious head injury than a person on a bike so there's no excuse not to wear one right ) http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/ ... -acquitted

The application of the rules/laws/situation to this case seem to differ massively to motorvehicle v pedestrian/person on a bike/motorist incidents, same old natch.

[Zigster]

kills and maims many,many more people annually,and the perpetrators walk away with no more than a fine and points on their licence.

Gail Purcell killed a cyclist in London and her defence was she did not see him. She walked away.
The driver of the Bath Tipper with defective brakes which killed four people walked away.

This case with the guy with no front brake on his fixie reminded me of this similar case from 10 years or so ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5241798.stm
Killed 4 cyclists and got a trivial fine for having defective tyres.

[LollyKat]

Already covered in several posts from page 2 onwards.