Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..
Discussion
Sa Calobra said:
How do you know she was playing on her phone and also he had enough time to shout yet couldn't bloody stop his bike due to insufficient brakes considering the speed he was going at. He caused her death. Let's not forget that and let's not go into generalisation about walking with phones folks
How do you know she wasn’t 
Lance Catamaran said:
Because presumably when they were constructed it wasn't a legal requirement. But I can't imagine the accident rate for Benz Patent-Motorwagens is that high anyway.
There's far more than that. Go to any vscc meeting and you'll find plenty of cars with no front brakes, and of course, very skinny tyres. I had a very enjoyable conversation not too long ago with the owner of a magnificent, aero-engined 17 litre Peugeot, so equipped. He told me it easily does 70mph. Ive also seen a sticker that said 'Front Brakes are for Wimps' on a Model T.
heebeegeetee said:
Lance Catamaran said:
Because presumably when they were constructed it wasn't a legal requirement. But I can't imagine the accident rate for Benz Patent-Motorwagens is that high anyway.
There's far more than that. Go to any vscc meeting and you'll find plenty of cars with no front brakes, and of course, very skinny tyres. I had a very enjoyable conversation not too long ago with the owner of a magnificent, aero-engined 17 litre Peugeot, so equipped. He told me it easily does 70mph. Ive also seen a sticker that said 'Front Brakes are for Wimps' on a Model T.
untakenname said:
They say the speed he was travelling prior to impact was 14mph which doesn't seem that fast to me.
Surely physics would say it's the mass of the object as well as the speed that plays a part in the energy transfer when two objects collide. In this case it was enough to knock her over and for her to die from her injuries.14mph doesn't seem fast, the cctv shows 3.8 secs before impact which is enough time at a low speed to avoid impact if a normal bike, yet he didn't.
If he really had 3.8 seconds (?) to stop then he could have done that easily on a fixie with no front brake. I used to ride a fixie in London (with rim brakes on both wheels) and I could stop pretty quickly without using the rim brakes. 3.8 seconds to stop from 18mph would be easy.
From reading the news articles, it sounds like misjudgment on his part - he thought he could swerve around her without needing to stop - rather than the lack of a front brake. He realised too late that he would have to brake and it sounds like he had barely started to brake if he was still going at some speed.
Doesn't stop him being a complete and utter bell end, though.
From reading the news articles, it sounds like misjudgment on his part - he thought he could swerve around her without needing to stop - rather than the lack of a front brake. He realised too late that he would have to brake and it sounds like he had barely started to brake if he was still going at some speed.
Doesn't stop him being a complete and utter bell end, though.
Zigster said:
it sounds like misjudgment on his part - he thought he could swerve around her without needing to stop - rather than the lack of a front brake. He realised too late that he would have to brake and it sounds like he had barely started to brake if he was still going at some speed.
Exactly this IMOAnotherClarkey said:
REALIST123 said:
Just why would being a fixed wheel bike cause a front brake to be so dangerous?
In any case many (most?) 'fixies' do have at least front brakes.
It is utter mince. The front brake on a fixed wheel bike is the same as on any other bike - the most effective means of stopping. I have been riding 'fixies' <ugh> for the last 20 years and my favorite has a nice front disk which has never sent me over the handlebars, mainly because I don't use the brake lever in a binary fashion. Even if the rider is proficient at skid stopping braking with the rear wheel will never be as effective as with the front. In any case many (most?) 'fixies' do have at least front brakes.
Easily avoided of course, a subtle shift in weight transfer will sort that, but just as with driving, an enthusiast is likely to pay more attention to these things and work ob technique compared to those for whom it's merely a form of transport.
rambo19 said:
Must admit, i'm 50/50 on this.
Cyclist is a knob for not having a front brake, and an even bigger knob for posting on the net what happened, but that seems to be the way of the world with people posting their lives on the net.
But the woman was 10 metres away from a crossing, yet choose not to use it, steps into road whilst on/playing with phone.
Part of me hopes the cyclist gets a not guilty.
Sad outcome for all involved.
Hadn't realised she was on her phone !Cyclist is a knob for not having a front brake, and an even bigger knob for posting on the net what happened, but that seems to be the way of the world with people posting their lives on the net.
But the woman was 10 metres away from a crossing, yet choose not to use it, steps into road whilst on/playing with phone.
Part of me hopes the cyclist gets a not guilty.
Sad outcome for all involved.
had a female on her phone 'wander' across the road infront of me, didn't bother looking and started away from the crossing but wandered onto it
On the other hand, I've been nearly hit by drivers when using a crossing, someone else on the other side was crossing and we crossed at which point a car passed within my reach infront of me
So I'm partly with you on this
Sway said:
To be fair, fixies do tend to have a shorter wheelbase and steeper head angle than other bikes. Both make going over the handlebars easier and more likely.
Easily avoided of course, a subtle shift in weight transfer will sort that, but just as with driving, an enthusiast is likely to pay more attention to these things and work ob technique compared to those for whom it's merely a form of transport.
But as you say, those factors are marginal compared with knowing how to ride or entirely removing the most effective brake on your bike for the sake of pathetic, desperate, vanity.Easily avoided of course, a subtle shift in weight transfer will sort that, but just as with driving, an enthusiast is likely to pay more attention to these things and work ob technique compared to those for whom it's merely a form of transport.
AnotherClarkey said:
But as you say, those factors are marginal compared with knowing how to ride or entirely removing the most effective brake on your bike for the sake of pathetic, desperate, vanity.
It's worse than that, the bike was a specialist aero track bike and doesn't have the ability to every have a front brake fitted. Choosing to ride a bike on the road which can never meet the 'very' basic legal requirements for road use will count massively against him. It's an enthusiasts specialist bike, as such he should know enough about bikes to know how compromised they are for road use, and that he should ride much more cautiously as a result. His negligence has meant that instead of him having the time and ability to stop and / or avoid the pedestrian, he's hit her and caused her death.
The Surveyor said:
AnotherClarkey said:
But as you say, those factors are marginal compared with knowing how to ride or entirely removing the most effective brake on your bike for the sake of pathetic, desperate, vanity.
It's worse than that, the bike was a specialist aero track bike and doesn't have the ability to every have a front brake fitted. Choosing to ride a bike on the road which can never meet the 'very' basic legal requirements for road use will count massively against him. It's an enthusiasts specialist bike, as such he should know enough about bikes to know how compromised they are for road use, and that he should ride much more cautiously as a result. His negligence has meant that instead of him having the time and ability to stop and / or avoid the pedestrian, he's hit her and caused her death.
Without seeing actual footage of the incident, it is very hard to pass a judgement. I've ridden bikes all over London, done 300 mile a week commute, done the Etape, own a fixie, own 2 bikes with tri-bars that put you a long way from the brakes.
Over about 2 decades riding in London, I had 3 hard crashes with pedestrians. Every single one of them just walked off the pavement while I was doing about 20 - 30 mph (keeping up with traffic), 2 of them looked right at me before doing so. These weren't "filtering" accidents, they were a ped stepping out into traffic because they didn't see a car coming. Even with front brakes, there's sod all you can do - you're going to hit, and you learn to hit head on, because crashing while avoiding them doesn't make any difference to the outcome and hurts a lot. Filtering accidents are even harder to avoid, but you aren't doing 20 mph when filtering (unless you want to die).
So I can easily believe that she just walked out into his path. I'm having trouble understanding why he hit her if he had 3.8 seconds of notice - that is a long time, and I don't understand how it is measured. It could easily be a case of ped hesitation, he thinks she has seen him, he goes into the gap, and so does she.
As to the bike - there are two things. The lack of front brake in traffic is stupid. I don't understand how he has managed to survive without a front brake - you'd be more likely to end up in the back of a bus. The arse up in the air doesn't help either - keeping that position AND looking a decent distance up the road ahead is very hard on the neck, and you end up looking at a point about 15 feet in front of you.
If this does turn out to be manslaugher, there's going to need to be a bit of clarification on the rules. How effective does the front brake need to be? Are tri-bars legal? Tri-bars are fantastic for an aero position, and take all the load off your shoulders, but you've got about a second before you can even get on the brakes, and if you move too fast the bike is unstable as you apply them.
Over about 2 decades riding in London, I had 3 hard crashes with pedestrians. Every single one of them just walked off the pavement while I was doing about 20 - 30 mph (keeping up with traffic), 2 of them looked right at me before doing so. These weren't "filtering" accidents, they were a ped stepping out into traffic because they didn't see a car coming. Even with front brakes, there's sod all you can do - you're going to hit, and you learn to hit head on, because crashing while avoiding them doesn't make any difference to the outcome and hurts a lot. Filtering accidents are even harder to avoid, but you aren't doing 20 mph when filtering (unless you want to die).
So I can easily believe that she just walked out into his path. I'm having trouble understanding why he hit her if he had 3.8 seconds of notice - that is a long time, and I don't understand how it is measured. It could easily be a case of ped hesitation, he thinks she has seen him, he goes into the gap, and so does she.
As to the bike - there are two things. The lack of front brake in traffic is stupid. I don't understand how he has managed to survive without a front brake - you'd be more likely to end up in the back of a bus. The arse up in the air doesn't help either - keeping that position AND looking a decent distance up the road ahead is very hard on the neck, and you end up looking at a point about 15 feet in front of you.
If this does turn out to be manslaugher, there's going to need to be a bit of clarification on the rules. How effective does the front brake need to be? Are tri-bars legal? Tri-bars are fantastic for an aero position, and take all the load off your shoulders, but you've got about a second before you can even get on the brakes, and if you move too fast the bike is unstable as you apply them.
No disrespect but should you really be using tribars in a situation where you may need very quick access to the brakes? If you are cycling in the city, then you're not cycling for a race. Tribars are not meant for every day commute style riding. They were surely meant for the competetive cyclist where the chances of you needing the brakes due to pedestrians stepping out on you are vastly reduced.
Tribars in a city environment, to me, seem to be an unnecessary risk.
Tribars in a city environment, to me, seem to be an unnecessary risk.
I'd only use tri-bars in fast moving traffic - unless you're trying to hold big speeds, they aren't helpful. So, yes, at the crazy junction of the A4 when all of the motorway traffic going to the M4 is in the left hand two lanes, I'd be on the bars in the outside lane, doing about 40 mph, trying not to hold up the traffic behind me.... Outside circuits of Regent's park, I didn't use them in London.
But the point applies - if you are a second from the brakes are you actually safe.....?
But the point applies - if you are a second from the brakes are you actually safe.....?
kiethton said:
Zigster said:
it sounds like misjudgment on his part - he thought he could swerve around her without needing to stop - rather than the lack of a front brake. He realised too late that he would have to brake and it sounds like he had barely started to brake if he was still going at some speed.
Exactly this IMOIt does not matter that the women may or may not have been on the phone as it was only a contributing factor to the incident. The cyclist should have anticipated the risk of travelling to fast down a busy a street during the lunch hour whilst also factoring in the lack of a front brake in the likely situation of a pedestrian stepping in their way or not seeing them.
TLandCruiser said:
Which is irrelevant as he was still travelling at a speed which was excessive for the situation.
It does not matter that the women may or may not have been on the phone as it was only a contributing factor to the incident. The cyclist should have anticipated the risk of travelling to fast down a busy a street during the lunch hour whilst also factoring in the lack of a front brake in the likely situation of a pedestrian stepping in their way or not seeing them.
According to the article linked, the cyclist was doing less than 20 mph. That's not "fast". Or is there some special speed limit for cyclists? It does not matter that the women may or may not have been on the phone as it was only a contributing factor to the incident. The cyclist should have anticipated the risk of travelling to fast down a busy a street during the lunch hour whilst also factoring in the lack of a front brake in the likely situation of a pedestrian stepping in their way or not seeing them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff