Cyclist knocked down and killed pedestrian

[LTD]

I agree about the ability to stop with the correct specification of bike.

He claimed to have slowed down. He could have stopped or taken avoiding action.

How many of us debating the thread have actually ridden a fixed wheel bike ?

I have and they are not easy to stop or take evasive action at speed. It is an art that the professionals on TV make easy.

I'll sum it up simply as an experienced cyclist who rode track, rode thousands of miles each year and competed at junior level as a time-trialist before a training accident fractured my skull.

My daughter's boyfriend is a Go-Pro cyclist that commutes and I would gladly kick his **** in if he ever behaved to me the way I have witnessed him berate other road users.

And he knows it ....

 

[190]

There is something exposed in this case which is the superior attitude that some cyclists have. Regular cyclists can be obsessive individuals. It's not just that they are entitled to be on the road the same as the rest of us but they believe they are more entitled. It seems the defendant in this case had only perspective which was everyone get out of my way. Add to that he was riding a fashion statement in the form of a fixed wheel bike and he was a disaster waiting to happen. This attitude earned him a deserved guilty verdict.

 

[Red C220]

This attitude earned him a deserved guilty verdict.

This is what I was alluding to in my earlier posts. He appears to have been tried as much on his attitude as his actions/equipment.

The case has highlighted the completely inadequate system for dealing with road traffic incidents of this nature (having to resort to a 19th century law designed for horses and carriages) and it will undoubtedly lead to some form of clarification with regard to cycling offences.

There shouldn't be an over reaction though, this was a very unfortunate freak occurrence (a fatality caused by a cyclist to a third party). The law shouldn't be seeking to "licence" cycles, however it needs to made clear when a bike is sold if it's road legal or not and the serious consequences that could occur if it's modified otherwise.

It would be sensible to consider some form of third party insurance, particularly for people using cycles for work (couriers etc).

On a personal note it does make me think back to my childhood in the 70's when we used to cobble together all sorts of bike parts in a shed to make something rideable. The world really has changed since then.

Also, and I might well get flamed for this, I feel the contribution of the pedestrian stepping out into the road without paying enough attention (and potentially looking at a mobile device rather than the traffic) was the major contributory factor in the accident and has been understated. Unfortunately it cost her her life. The attitude of the lad after this appears to be absolutely appalling. It makes me wonder if there would have been a different outcome (to the court case) had his manner and reaction of the aftermath would have been caring, compassionate and regretful even with all other facts unchanged.

 

[Doodle]

On a personal note it does make me think back to my childhood in the 70's when we used to cobble together all sorts of bike parts in a shed to make something rideable. The world really has changed since then.

Sort of. Construction and Use regulations for bicycles (as we know them now) were formulated in the early 80s, however I believe the requirement for 2 independent working braking systems goes back as far as 1954.

 

[rockits]

There is very much two sides to this & I'm not sure what side I'm with as both are far from perfect and/or blameless.

If she wasn't on her phone & crossed on a crossing it would be completely different.

His bike was illegal...fact so he should be fined or given the appropriate action against this to kick off with..Did it solely cause the incident or her unfortunate death.....no.

I think I would be pretty p1ssed if someone had walked in front of me & didn't/couldn't stop & I had killed someone. I would have to live with this for the rest of my days.

Would I cross a road on a crossing or not on my phone...no...never. Even across a red light on a pedestrian crossing I want my wits about me to try to save my life if an idiot jumped a red light. On a phone...no chance....no phone...I have half a chance.

She did not deserve to lose here life for sure but as soon as she stepped foot on a road....yes...ROAD without proper due care & attention her risks increased a hundred fold.

There is no guarantee that it still wouldn't have happened if she wasn't on her phone or if he had a front brake but the chances I suspect would have been much lower.

His attitude & reaction is a little poor but he is young & probably foolish which is no defence but half expected these days. It is a rare freak accident caused by 2 people caring less about others & themselves than they should be. Par for the course it seems these days.

We need to learn & improve but prison isn't going to help the kid....reform & education is. Maybe a ton of community service helping improve bicycle/road safety/pedestrian awareness would be more appropriate & be more beneficial to all.

 

[brucemillar]

There is very much two sides to this & I'm not sure what side I'm with as both are far from perfect and/or blameless. If she wasn't on her phone & crossed on a crossing it would be completely different. His bike was illegal...fact so he should be fined or given the appropriate action against this to kick off with..Did it solely cause the incident or her unfortunate death.....no. I think I would be pretty p1ssed if someone had walked in front of me & didn't/couldn't stop & I had killed someone. I would have to live with this for the rest of my days. Would I cross a road on a crossing or not on my phone...no...never. Even across a red light on a pedestrian crossing I want my wits about me to try to save my life if an idiot jumped a red light. On a phone...no chance....no phone...I have half a chance. She did not deserve to lose here life for sure but as soon as she stepped foot on a road....yes...ROAD without proper due care & attention her risks increased a hundred fold. There is no guarantee that it still wouldn't have happened if she wasn't on her phone or if he had a front brake but the chances I suspect would have been much lower. His attitude & reaction is a little poor but he is young & probably foolish which is no defence but half expected these days. It is a rare freak accident caused by 2 people caring less about others & themselves than they should be. Par for the course it seems these days. We need to learn & improve but prison isn't going to help the kid....reform & education is. Maybe a ton of community service helping improve bicycle/road safety/pedestrian awareness would be more appropriate & be more beneficial to all.

Rockits. I think that is a fair post. One point to make here. The news tonight reported that "experts" testified that with a front brake fitted, this was a 100% avoidable collision. He simply could not slow the bike in the space they were in.

Sent from my iPhone using sausage fingers.

 

[219]

There has also been some comment about the lady being preoccupied with her phone and stepping off the pavement into the path of the bike , which could just as easily been a car/van/bus ...

While there is some merit in that , and I'm not sure about the stopping ability of a motor vehicle compared to the pushbike , it may also be relevant that the car/van/bus would be very easy to spot coming ( plus they generally make engine noise too ) whereas a bike coming at some speed ( and more or less silently ) , with no lights , and a rider wearing no hi-viz gear , would be much harder to spot amongst the hustle and bustle of a busy city street , even looking for him , and much less likely to be picked up in peripheral vision if attention was focussed on something else .

I would also add that cyclists have just as much of a duty of care to watch out for pedestrians who may not have seen them as motorists do .

 

[Charles Morgan]

I watched a young lady who was totally pre-occupied with her phone walk into the path of a double decker bus in London. It was extremely lucky that the bus driver anticipated her doing so and was able to brake just in time. She was level with the driver with the air brakes full on before she even realised what was happening. I have nothing to add to the main theme, but a phone is exceptionally distracting.

 

[renault12ts]

He contended that a lack of front brakes would have made no difference.

The experts disagreed...why didn't they allow him to demonstrate whether he was right or wrong?

 

[brucemillar]

He contended that a lack of front brakes would have made no difference.

The experts disagreed...why didn't they allow him to demonstrate whether he was right or wrong?

A good point. As I understood it the 'expert witness(S)' were able to satisfy the court that it (front brakes) would have made the difference between a collision or no collision. I read it as a 100% avoidable, were he to have had a front brake. In the images shown in court he had what appears to be a significant distance (more than the width of the box junction) to avoid her. His first reaction appears to have been to shout a warning. this was followed by him slowing (almost halving his speed). Shouting another warning. Then swerving to his left and her rear.

Unfortunately it appears that she reacted to his second shout, by turning and reversing her steps as he was swerving. He then hit her, I believe striking her head in the process.

It is a sorry tale and desperately sad for her family. A complete waste of a young life. Knowing how avoidable that it was and that the cycle was illegal must only add to their pain. She has paid a very high price for her own inattention. But........... He could have avoided her if he had brakes.

 

[rf065]

There has also been some comment about the lady being preoccupied with her phone and stepping off the pavement into the path of the bike , which could just as easily been a car/van/bus ...

Do we know that? It was discussed on the radio and they alluded that the cyclist claimed she was on the phone, not sure anyone else confirmed it?

Russ

 

[renault12ts]

Do we know that? It was discussed on the radio and they alluded that the cyclist claimed she was on the phone, not sure anyone else confirmed it?

Russ

It was confirmed, I believe, by the person who picked up her phone.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

I'm coming in late on this, so please forgive me if my points have already been raised.

Not surprisingly, most of the comments here (on brief inspection) echo the media trend to be generally anti-cyclist. But without having access to the full court proceedings I don't see how we can make so many conclusions. There are far too many unknowns.

For instance, do we know how experienced the cyclist was with a fixie (a term commonly used amongst the keen cycling fraternity for a fixed wheel bike)? I know from my time, many years ago at eye take a lot of getting used to. Someone with experience can stop a lot quicker than a novice.

Do we know what the weather conditions were like? The braking efficiency of a fixie isn't effected by water that severely degrades rim brakes.

We're the tests truly meaningful that were done to show the court the relative braking distances of bikes with and without front brakes? From all that I've seen reported, they were done on completely different types of bikes to the one in this incident.

There's no doubt that the fixie was illegal for road use because it didn't have a front brake. But do we know how efficient the brakes are on all the bikes that are supposedly legally in use on our roads now? I suspect that the majority are poorly set up and rarely maintained. If it had been one of those bikes, would the rider have been so severely vilified? Would he have been prosecuted?

In my opinion this extremely unfortunate incident has shown no more than how quickly we all jump to conclusions.

 

[renault12ts]

I'm coming in late on this, so please forgive me if my points have already been raised.

Not surprisingly, most of the comments here (on brief inspection) echo the media trend to be generally anti-cyclist. But without having access to the full court proceedings I don't see how we can make so many conclusions. There are far too many unknowns.

For instance, do we know how experienced the cyclist was with a fixie (a term commonly used amongst the keen cycling fraternity for a fixed wheel bike)? I know from my time, many years ago at eye take a lot of getting used to. Someone with experience can stop a lot quicker than a novice.

Do we know what the weather conditions were like? The braking efficiency of a fixie isn't effected by water that severely degrades rim brakes.

We're the tests truly meaningful that were done to show the court the relative braking distances of bikes with and without front brakes? From all that I've seen reported, they were done on completely different types of bikes to the one in this incident.

There's no doubt that the fixie was illegal for road use because it didn't have a front brake. But do we know how efficient the brakes are on all the bikes that are supposedly legally in use on our roads now? I suspect that the majority are poorly set up and rarely maintained. If it had been one of those bikes, would the rider have been so severely vilified? Would he have been prosecuted?

In my opinion this extremely unfortunate incident has shown no more than how quickly we all jump to conclusions.

That may be true.

But could an experienced rider stop the same bike more quickly or less quickly if a front brake had been fitted? If his bike had been legal and well set up I'm sure the vilification would have been less...but his attitude would still have stunk. He may well though have escaped prosecution.

Attitude is important...imo.

 

[brucemillar]

Back to my earlier point(s) the 'expert' witnesses say "he could have stopped and avoided the collision" if he had a front brake. That was the nub of the case. The bike was (a) illegal for road use, due to no front brake (b) it was proved that the lack of front brake made the collision inevitable.

 

[Red C220]

Unlike us, the court had the benefit of watching the entire incident unfold on CCTV, so they were equipped with far more information than us. The author of the article below seems to have either attended the case or at least read transcripts of the evidence.

It suggests a front brake would have reduce the braking distance from 12m to 3m at a speed of 18mph which seems to have been the clincher for the guilty verdict to wanton and furious driving. That seems a little optimistic to me as a non cyclist.

We have some fixie riders in this thread, is it realistic that a front brake reduces stopping distance by a factor of 4 at that kind of speed?

https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html?m=1

Taken from the above article linked to earlier in this thread by Buccal:-

Expert evidence from the police for the prosecution was that Alliston had been going at 18mph (8 m/s) and that his braking distance was 12 metres. From experiments on other bicycles, including a police mountain bike, it was alleged that with a front brake he would have been able to stop in 3 metres. In cross-examination it was suggested to him that with a ‘butcher’s bike’ with good brakes, he could have avoided the collision. There is no record that Alliston had his own expert to give evidence or that the risk of tipping over the handlebars was considered. The 3 metre braking distance is frankly absurd. Newtonian physics using Wilson’s calculated 0.5g yields 6.5 metres with the front brake and 13 metres without it. The difference is a factor or two, not four. Given that the prosecution case was that Alliston was 6.53 metres away when Mrs Briggs stepped out, this difference is crucial. The Highway Code gives a typical stopping distance of 12 metres for a car driving at 20 mph, suggesting that if Mrs Briggs had stepped into the path of a ‘slow’ moving car the driver would not have been able to avoid her. Like a driver Alliston has to be given some reaction and thinking time. He shouted twice and gave evidence that he moved to pass behind her when she stepped backwards. Any cyclist will confirm that quick steering may be preferable to emergency braking when avoiding a pedestrian.

Of course Alliston should have had a front brake. He was unaware of the legal requirement for one and thought himself reasonably safe relying on rear braking. He was wrong and deserves punishment for that offence. Manslaughter though requires either gross negligence or that the Defendant committed an offence that was dangerous and caused death. Dangerous has been taken, at least in a road traffic context, restrictively. For example motorists whose speeding or failure to give way causes a fatal collision are far more likely to face charges of causing death by careless driving than they are manslaughter charges. The risk Alliston presented to a pedestrian stepping out in front of him was no greater than that presented by a car doing 20 mph and his braking distance remained half that of a fully equipped road bike in the wet.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Back to my earlier point(s) the 'expert' witnesses say "he could have stopped and avoided the collision" if he had a front brake. That was the nub of the case. The bike was (a) illegal for road use, due to no front brake (b) it was proved that the lack of front brake made the collision inevitable.

a) No argument from anyone there
b) Was it really proved? Would the rider have applied a front brake if he had one? Or would he have not wanted to stop, but instead move over to ride behind the lady and just a bit slower? And that's what he did - the lady stepped back into his revised path.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Cyclists hate slowing or stopping due to the effort required to get going again.

 

[french]

Cyclists hate slowing or stopping due to the effort required to get going again.

That must apply to some car drivers as well...here is an Email from my son yesterday
Hozay
25 Aug (1 day ago)

to me
Got ran over on the weekend off my bike snapped my arm in half and broke my foot hit and run aswell the ******* left me on the side of the road was there 2 hours before a jogger found me

Sent from my iPhone
I will be seeing him tomorrow ...wish i could find the driver...

 

[markjay]

When I was a kid.... we had a small bell fitted to the handlebars to alert other road users to our presence. Some kids fitted an actual horn. It was considered a must have... what happened to these? Are they illegal now?

I often get yelled at "OY!!!" by cyclists who think I might step into the road or fully swing open the car's door (I crack it open then look back), and that's fair enough becuase I appreciate that the riders are concernced about their own safety as well as mine, but I can't remember when was the last time I heard the sound of bicycle bell or horn?