Cyclist on trial for manslaughter- sentenced

[reohn2]

He's not got any real brakes unless the fixie counts as a brake. It's not the bike being blamed but the decision of the cyclist to ride an inappropriate bike for the required use. Unless you feel a fixie track bike with no brake a suitable bike of course. It's his decision to ride it on the roads of London. It's his actions that led to this.

But is it?
See the Rhyl incident,it was the drivers choice to drive a car on the road with three illegal tyres,and as a consequence of that killed four people yet was only done for that in isolation.And the cyclists in question were doing nothing wrong,they didn't ride out in front of the car,the car failed to negotiate a bend in icy conditions whilst driving at the legal limi which proved to be too fast both for road conditions and inadequate and safe tyres.

PS can anyone honestly think this cyclist made a good or even a reasonable decision to ride a track bike through London streets?

No I don't think it reasonable,but what needs to be considered,was that action the primary cause of the death of this poor woman?
Or was it something else ,such as her crossing the road without looking properly due to being on the phone or did she stumble off the kerb or was the cyclist riding to fast for conitions or any number of other things that could have been the reason for the collision?

[thirdcrank]

... No I don't think it reasonable,but what needs to be considered is,was that action the primary cause of the death of this poor woman?
Or was there something else their primary cause,such as crossing the road without looking properly due to being on the phone or did she stumble off the kerb or was the cyclist riding to fast for conitions or any number of other things that could have been the reason for the collision?

I think you are now posting too quickly. Think carefully about what you are saying here.

[reohn2]

... No I don't think it reasonable,but what needs to be considered is,was that action the primary cause of the death of this poor woman?
Or was there something else their primary cause,such as crossing the road without looking properly due to being on the phone or did she stumble off the kerb or was the cyclist riding to fast for conitions or any number of other things that could have been the reason for the collision?

I think you are now posting too quickly. Think carefully about what you are saying here.

I don't think I am,if we look at the Rhyl incident by comparison.
Whilst I don't think it reasonable to ride an illegal vehicle on the road,in the Rhyl incident there were other factors that weren't properly investigated.
Other causes in this incident have yet to be resolved/proven and could be the primary cause,the focus is on a lack of a front brake that whilst illegal,may not have any bearing on the cause.

[axel_knutt]

It seems to me that you can't logically proceed until you know whether a front brake would have prevented the collision (or reduced the impact sufficiently), because otherwise you don't know whether you're prosecuting manslaughter or the failure to have two brakes.

I hit a pedestrian once, but the impact occurred before I'd even had time to put my fingers on the brake levers. (My shoulder caught him square on the jaw, but fortunately all the teeth he spat out were false ones.)

[reohn2]

It seems to me that you can't logically proceed until you know whether a front brake would have prevented the collision (or reduced the impact sufficiently), because otherwise you don't know whether you're prosecuting manslaughter or the failure to have two brakes.

Which is my stance on the issue.

I hit a pedestrian once, but the impact occurred before I'd even had time to put my fingers on the brake levers.......

Exactly,and could very well be the càse in the this unfortunate incident.

[thirdcrank]

As I've already posted, in the Rhyll crash, the evidence was that the tyres did not cause the crash ie Ice was so bad that even a car with decent tyres would have skidded on the ice. That's the evidence. Looking at it from the POV of the defendant a potential prosecution witness, ie a police vehicle examiner exonerated him from manslaughter. IIRC, This wasn't even a case of the defence digging out some say-anything-for-a-fee expert, but the person on whom any prosecution would normally rely.

I don't know what the evidence is in this case. It may be possible to prove that with both discs and rim brakes on both wheels, a crash was inevitable because of the unpredictable behaviour of the deceased. Or a version of that. This is the kind of thing that the jury has to decide when assessing the evidence.

I'd say the dooring crash I referred to above may be more comparable. Would anybody on here say that if the rider had been complying with the HC and anticipating the door being opened in their path the crash would not have happened, so ipso facto this should not have gone to court? Now, it seems likely that the jury in that case was motivated more by emotive issues than an academic consideration of the evidence. We should try to avoid falling into the same trap, IMO.

One of the problems is the lurid word "manslaughter" with its connotations of an abattoir. In reply to a question about what the queues were like at the crimbo sales, many people might reply "absolute murder" but they'd never say "complete and utter manslaughter." "Unlawful killing" seems to be an easier verdict for juries to reach. Apart from anything else, it's easier to link to my ABC above.

[Bonefishblues]

For most cases there are more specific charges, eg causing death by careless/dangerous driving, which were introduced with the supposed intent to address jurors' reluctance to convict drivers for manslaughter. There is no similar homicide offence for non-mechanically propelled vehicles. There are still very (very) occasional uses of manslaughter in motor vehicle cases.

I was aware that certain charges are available in the case of motoring deaths (but you've elucidated it much better than I could have done). But it still begs the question. I cannot see how it can be applied to cyclists if not routinely to drivers. AIUI, manslaughter is more serious a charge than CDbyDD but if the same situation occurred with a car (pedestrian steps into road), it's likely there would be no charge at all. AIUI the cylist wasn't speeding.

The car driver in the Rhyl incident where 4 cyclists were killed and two seriously injured when a car with three illegal tyres lost control and hit them whilst driving at the legal limit (50 mph) on icy untreated bend
The driver got a fine of less than £200 and points for the illegal tyres but no other conviction.

I don't want to comment on the case in question but it seems the faulty/no front brake is a seperate matter unless it can be proven it was the major contribution to the collision.

Correct - it has to be material in some way, as its absence is being held to be here.

[Bonefishblues]

PK99 on Cyclechat pointed out that the bike is described on http://www.planetx.co.uk/c/q/bikes/trac ... track-bike as "a speed weapon" I wonder how long until they edit that!

It's a track bike, it's described as such, it's marketed as such, and frankly it's pretty darn unsuitable for the purpose to which it was being put by the defendant.

[RecumbentRide]

I've read what the Guardian has written on this and the headline also used by other papers 'Dangerous' cyclist killed pedestrian then blamed crash on her, court told' is I feel unnecessarily inflammatory and preempts the reader from independent thought and I wonder if the writer is of the same ilk as Janice Street Porter or has a disregard for cyclists.

From the information given it sounds like the pedestrian just walked out onto the road (not at a designated crossing) without due care into the path of the cyclist. I wonder what would the headline be if the cyclists had been killed instead would it be 'Cyclist killed by Dangerous inattentive Pedestrian', somehow I very much doubt it. Why is the cyclist in this case considered dangerous? Is it because of the lack of front brakes? So a pedestrian on a mobile phone jaywalking isn't dangerous? Where's the ownership of responsibility here?

My feeling is this is a case of contributory negligence unless of course the CCTV shows a complete disregard on the part of the cyclist. Yes the cyclist has not helped his case by his comments or attitude but then again it's not an offence to have a bad attitude or is it? Cycling a fixie at 20 mph without front brakes in a city where jaywalking is an epidemic is asking for trouble but clearly the reporting on this case is squarely laying the blame with the cyclist and this is wrong in my view as they know as much as we do.

Yes I admit as a cyclist the reporting on this has put me in defensive mode not to mention some of the decisions by the courts over the last few years. Many of us will have heard of the case of Michael Mason who was killed on Regent St by a driver who said she thought she'd hit a bag of potatoes! What did Michael Mason do wrong? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. What did the driver Gail PurcelL do wrong, well apparently nothing either. As apparently from the outcome of the case no explanation is necessary for “failing to be aware of what’s in front of you” if your a motorist.

I'm angry at the reporting on this and unfortunately as has been proven again and again the courts fail us as well.

[tykeboy2003]

I understand that bikes for road use must have front and rear brakes, so in this case the cyclist was clearly in the wrong (probably ignorant of the law, but that is no excuse). Conversely, cycling at 20mph is perfectly acceptable so long as he was on the road (not on a pavement) and with suitable brakes. Of course if the lady was using her mobile (as claimed by the cyclist) then it should be recognised that she contributed to the accident.

Very sad incident, my condolences to the family of the deceased.

[Bonefishblues]

I understand that bikes for road use must have front and rear brakes, so in this case the cyclist was clearly in the wrong (probably ignorant of the law, but that is no excuse). Conversely, cycling at 20mph is perfectly acceptable so long as he was on the road (not on a pavement) and with suitable brakes. Of course if the lady was using her mobile (as claimed by the cyclist) then it should be recognised that she contributed to the accident.

Very sad incident, my condolences to the family of the deceased.

AIUI it's a front only that's required on a fixie. The fact is that it is contended he would have been able to have avoid the incident that she contributed to by her own negligence had his bike been legally equipped with a front brake. If it wouldn't have made any difference, then it would be a different matter, as per the Rhyl tragedy briefly discussed upthread.

[reohn2]

As I've already posted, in the Rhyll crash, the evidence was that the tyres did not cause the crash ie Ice was so bad that even a car with decent tyres would have skidded on the ice. That's the evidence. Looking at it from the POV of the defendant a potential prosecution witness, ie a police vehicle examiner exonerated him from manslaughter. IIRC, This wasn't even a case of the defence digging out some say-anything-for-a-fee expert, but the person on whom any prosecution would normally rely.

Speed and conditions is what I was alluding to in the Rhyl incident.

I don't know what the evidence is in this case. It may be possible to prove that with both discs and rim brakes on both wheels, a crash was inevitable because of the unpredictable behaviour of the deceased. Or a version of that. This is the kind of thing that the jury has to decide when assessing the evidence

.
Agreed,and IMO other than a reporting of the incident,without names or photos of defendent or deceased until after the case has been heard would be a better state of affairs IMO.

I'd say the dooring crash I referred to above may be more comparable. Would anybody on here say that if the rider had been complying with the HC and anticipating the door being opened in their path the crash would not have happened, so ipso facto this should not have gone to court? Now, it seems likely that the jury in that case was motivated more by emotive issues than an academic consideration of the evidence. We should try to avoid falling into the same trap, IMO.

One of the problems is the lurid word "manslaughter" with its connotations of an abattoir. In reply to a question about what the queues were like at the crimbo sales, many people might reply "absolute murder" but they'd never say "complete and utter manslaughter." "Unlawful killing" seems to be an easier verdict for juries to reach. Apart from anything else, it's easier to link to my ABC above.

Agreed.

[reohn2]

PK99 on Cyclechat pointed out that the bike is described on http://www.planetx.co.uk/c/q/bikes/trac ... track-bike as "a speed weapon" I wonder how long until they edit that!

It's a track bike, it's described as such, it's marketed as such, and frankly it's pretty darn unsuitable for the purpose to which it was being put by the defendant.

But is that relevant or a contributory factor?

[reohn2]

I've read what the Guardian has written on this and the headline also used by other papers 'Dangerous' cyclist killed pedestrian then blamed crash on her, court told' is I feel unnecessarily inflammatory and preempts the reader from independent thought and I wonder if the writer is of the same ilk as Janice Street Porter or has a disregard for cyclists...........

That headline is needlessly inflammatory.
J S Porter is utterly anticycling end of.

[drossall]

It's a track bike, it's described as such, it's marketed as such, and frankly it's pretty darn unsuitable for the purpose to which it was being put by the defendant.

The track bike aspect is not really relevant. It's the lack of a front brake. For one of those, you need drilled forks. Many track bikes have those. Traditionally, track riders would bolt on a brake and a lever and ride to events.

Some "fixies" are built on road frames anyway. Track bikes are perfectly safe on the road. Riding without a front brake is not.

People have time trialled on track bikes. Good idea, if you like fixed.