Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[Bonefishblues]

From 2014 you chose to ride a bicycle with a fixed rear hub. Such
cycles are designed for track use and have no manual brake.

So, the Judge fully understood what she was talking about then!
Riders of fixed gear bikes may be surprised to hear this.
She probably should have stuck to the bit she understood, ie that there was no front brake. Yet they cant resist pontificating when they take the stage, who could resist when everybody is powerless to argue against you. It does make it very hard to believe it is all as carefully thought out as they claim.

Strictly, she is right - manual refers to the hands.

[meic]

No she isnt, having a bike with a fixed gear doesnt mean it has no hand operated brakes.
It is having a track bike which means it has no hand operated bikes.
She has obviously been reading all of the newspaper reports that she would not have allowed the Jury to read.

[Bonefishblues]

Let's extract a fuller quote:

From 2014 you chose to ride a bicycle with a fixed rear hub. Such
cycles are designed for track use and have no manual brake. Forward momentum is
impeded principally by the cyclist’s ability to force back against the pedals which are
directly linked to the rear wheel. Some such bikes have the facility for the adoption of
a front-wheel brake operated in the usual way; some do not.
2. It is against the law to ride any bicycle on a public road without a front-wheel brake.

Do you think she doesn't she understood the nuances?

[meic]

I think that her fixation on the fixie shows that she had been influenced by the popular press more than the technicalities and the law.

[Bonefishblues]

If that were the case, how did it influence matters?

[mjr]

If that were the case, how did it influence matters?

We can't tell from what's written, but inclusion of such an obvious factual error in a judgement surely makes people trust and respect it less.

[[XAP]Bob]

“'If you bicycle had a front wheel brake you could have stopped but on this illegal bike you could not and on your evidence, by this stage, you were not even trying to slow or stop.

“You expected her to get out of the way,” she added.

This is a quote that quotes the judge.

I'd just like to draw the parallel with the Rhyl case again.
If he was not even trying to stop then the lack of a front brake made no difference...

It was 'merely' a collision which could have happened to anyone, and no doubt does happen a significant number of times across the country each day.
I've said before that I often don't slow appreciably when pedestrians step out in front of me - I'll target to go behind them, or I'll swing around in front of them. If the pedestrian notices me late, and then jumps into my (now adjusted to miss them) path then there could easily be a collision, or another set of direction changes (rinse and repeat).

On the evidence of the Rhyl case a charge of anything beyond that for cycling with no brake seems rather excessive.

[Bonefishblues]

If that were the case, how did it influence matters?

We can't tell from what's written, but inclusion of such an obvious factual error in a judgement surely makes people trust and respect it less.

I too was probably guilty of imprecise drafting - I should have asked ..how did it materially influence matters?

[MikeF]

"As to why you chose to ride without a front brake and other safety precautions such as wearing a helmet,......."
I'm not sure of the relevance of this.

"You were an accident waiting to happen. The victim could have been any pedestrian."
Or it could have been he himself. No mention of that.

[MikeF]

We've been here before:

viewtopic.php?t=49325

That was about a cycle being a vehicle. Not the same.

[meic]

If that were the case, how did it influence matters?

We can't tell from what's written, but inclusion of such an obvious factual error in a judgement surely makes people trust and respect it less.

I too was probably guilty of imprecise drafting - I should have asked ..how did it materially influence matters?

It didnt but it is a "give-away" as to what had influenced matters.

[Bonefishblues]

We can't tell from what's written, but inclusion of such an obvious factual error in a judgement surely makes people trust and respect it less.

I too was probably guilty of imprecise drafting - I should have asked ..how did it materially influence matters?

It didnt but it is a "give-away" as to what had influenced matters.

How do you mean - how was the influence shown?

Sorry, sounds like 20 Qs, but I'm not seeing something others are

[meic]

"As to why you chose to ride without a front brake and other safety precautions such as wearing a helmet,......."
I'm not sure of the relevance of this.

You probably didnt read the same newspaper articles that the Judge did.

[meic]

I too was probably guilty of imprecise drafting - I should have asked ..how did it materially influence matters?

It didnt but it is a "give-away" as to what had influenced matters.

How do you mean - how was the influence shown?

Sorry, sounds like 20 Qs, but I'm not seeing something others are

It is the current "in" term being banded around in the media, rather than the technical legal terminology that should have been banded around in a court room. I think it shows that the Judge had been substantially influenced by the media coverage of the case.

[Ellieb]

The judge didn't find him guilty.
The fact is the Planet X is a track bike. It is designed to be ridden on the track. He was riding an illegal bike.
I keep asking myself when reading this thread.
"If the defendent was driving a car would people on here be resorting to this quibbling?"