Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[TLandCruiser]

rxe said:

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?

Clearly it seems it is

[fido]

rxe said:

Yes, 20 would be fine in a car or a bike.

and without a front brake [which is a legal requirement]?

[heebeegeetee]

princealbert23 said:

This is a classic bit of misdirection- 'well what about vintage cars?' The topic is this cyclist and the type of cycle he used.

It moved on from that on the third post of the thread, in the typical ph fashion.

[rxe]

I'm not going to defend the lack of a front brake. But suggesting this guy was doing some monstrous speed is a bit odd.

[poo at Paul's]

Did his bike have ANY brakes? They seem to be making a bit of a thing about lack of front brake, but it didn't have ANY brakes did it? Where si the Back brake?

A fixie with no brakes has no brakes, simple as that IMO. Whether you can exert resistance via the pedals is immaterial. it is like saying a car with no brakes has brakes, because of the effect of engine braking.

I hope this gets time. It may make the thankfully rare cycling Nazis think a bit about how much of a bunch of nobs they are.

[J4CKO]

I dont get the thing for not having brakes, see kids on BMX's without them, I kind of like being able to stop if I need to, I know riders of bikes like this slow down using their legs to stop the back when it having a fixed gear but the rear brake on any bicycle is generally pretty hopeless and doesnt really provide much retardation (the rider had plenty of that by the sound of it) before locking, the front does like 3 times the braking of the rear in my experience and disk brakes are so, so much better.

He looks like a style over substance kind of cyclist, a poser and his attitude stinks, he killed someone and really, even if she had her own part in her death, he should be more respectful and just shut up, we all have a responsibility, for our own safety and that of others, sadly this seems to have broken down for both of those involved to a greater or lesser extent.

[ralphrj]

MikeyC said:

rambo19 said:

But the woman was 10 metres away from a crossing, yet choose not to use it, steps into road whilst on/playing with phone.

Hadn't realised she was on her phone !

The accused has claimed that the victim was using a phone as part of his defence but he has not, as far as I can tell, provided any evidence or testimony from any other witnesses that can corroborate that.

[Zigster]

poo at Paul's said:

Did his bike have ANY brakes? They seem to be making a bit of a thing about lack of front brake, but it didn't have ANY brakes did it? Where si the Back brake?

A fixie with no brakes has no brakes, simple as that IMO. Whether you can exert resistance via the pedals is immaterial. it is like saying a car with no brakes has brakes, because of the effect of engine braking.

I hope this gets time. It may make the thankfully rare cycling Nazis think a bit about how much of a bunch of nobs they are.

The bike had a rear braking mechanism activated by exerting backward resistance on the pedals. All fixies do and it's pretty effective (although I'd argue not as effective as having a front rim or disk brake as well).

If this case does make other "brakeless" fixie riders think again about their choice, that's a good thing. But I'm struggling to see the relevance to the overwhelming majority of cyclists out there which have a functional brake on their front wheel.

[rxe]

My fixed doesn't have a back brake. Back brakes are pretty incompatible with fixed, you'd need to reposition the brakes every time you altered the chain tension. But on a fixed, even the most amateur rider can lock up the back wheel by the simple expedient of not pedalling. Its actually more instinctive than pulling on the brakes.

Again, my view is that you need to see very precise evidence of what happened. If he was riding into a crowed at speed, he is a dick and deserves everything he gets. If he was riding along and someone just stepped in front of him, the manslaughter seems excessive unless that is the new penalty for your front brake not working.

Agree on the ears though, manslaughter seems reasonable for those.

[princealbert23]

heebeegeetee said:

It moved on from that on the third post of the thread, in the typical ph fashion.

Wrong!
No one else has tried such whataboutery and everyone but you is on topic.

[Rude-boy]

Zigster said:

If this case does make other "brakeless" fixie riders think again about their choice, that's a good thing. But I'm struggling to see the relevance to the overwhelming majority of cyclists out there which have a functional brake on their front wheel.

IMO it will possibly stop some of those with a few more brain cells than the accused riding around pedestrians at silly speeds.

I don't live or work in London, haven't for many years, but i do go there quite often and there are few trips i have had when i haven't had to jump out of the way of at least one Bradley Frome on a mission.

[Sylvaforever]

rxe said:

My fixed doesn't have a back brake. Back brakes are pretty incompatible with fixed, you'd need to reposition the brakes every time you altered the chain tension. But on a fixed, even the most amateur rider can lock up the back wheel by the simple expedient of not pedalling. Its actually more instinctive than pulling on the brakes.

Again, my view is that you need to see very precise evidence of what happened. If he was riding into a crowed at speed, he is a dick and deserves everything he gets. If he was riding along and someone just stepped in front of him, the manslaughter seems excessive unless that is the new penalty for your front brake not working.

Agree on the ears though, manslaughter seems reasonable for those.

Pedestrians have right of way.

If he hadn't hit her would she have died ? of course not.

Occams razor applies

[okgo]

SantaBarbara said:

Surely the time has come that bike couriers need to be Licenced?

One accident and EVERYTHING MUST BE RED TAPED - ffs.

[okgo]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Am I thinking of a different old st to you? It is a big wide road? I would certainly be riding similar speed.

[Rude-boy]

okgo said:

SantaBarbara said:

Surely the time has come that bike couriers need to be Licenced?

One accident and EVERYTHING MUST BE RED TAPED - ffs.

Whilst i am not 100% convinced that licensing them is the answer this is just one incident, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents caused on the streets of big cities by people on bikes treating pedestrians like they are in some sort of game.

I'm not a small bloke (of course i can't be to be on PH and have a post count like mine!) but i have been sent into the bushes and knocked to the ground by people like the accused, let alone the times i have had to jump out of their way and i don't even spend more than a 6 or 7 days a year in London...

A good friend had their arm broken by one a year or so back.

I'm not saying 'ban everything and make them all wear registration plates' but we do need to look at how we deal with the interaction of cyclists and pedestrians in a world where both are far more common than they were even 10 years ago.

[okgo]

Rude-boy said:

Whilst i am not 100% convinced that licensing them is the answer this is just one incident, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents caused on the streets of big cities by people on bikes treating pedestrians like they are in some sort of game.

I'm not a small bloke (of course i can't be to be on PH and have a post count like mine!) but i have been sent into the bushes and knocked to the ground by people like the accused, let alone the times i have had to jump out of their way and i don't even spend more than a 6 or 7 days a year in London...

A good friend had their arm broken by one a year or so back.

I'm not saying 'ban everything and make them all wear registration plates' but we do need to look at how we deal with the interaction of cyclists and pedestrians in a world where both are far more common than they were even 10 years ago.

And almost none of them result in people dying. Frankly, its a non issue when we consider the greater problems that exist.

In classic PH, I'm surprised someone has said something like "its all very well pedestrian having right of way, but when you've been clobbered by a bike, nobody cares if they were right or not" because that is what gets trotted out every single time on here about cyclists and cars.

[Rude-boy]

okgo said:

And almost none of them result in people dying. Frankly, its a non issue when we consider the greater problems that exist.

In classic PH, I'm surprised someone has said something like "its all very well pedestrian having right of way, but when you've been clobbered by a bike, nobody cares if they were right or not" because that is what gets trotted out every single time on here about cyclists and cars.

So people need to die before a problem should be addressed do they?

Come on. I know you are a keen cyclist and more power to you but just as there are dicks in cars who think 30cm is a good distance between their car and the bake they are passing there are cyclists who don't consider or accept their responsibilities to less protected road users.

Please ignore the squirrel. We are talking about cyclists running into pedestrians. Not about cars and bikes.

[okgo]

Rude-boy said:

So people need to die before a problem should be addressed do they?

Come on. I know you are a keen cyclist and more power to you but just as there are dicks in cars who think 30cm is a good distance between their car and the bake they are passing there are cyclists who don't consider or accept their responsibilities to less protected road users.

Please ignore the squirrel. We are talking about cyclists running into pedestrians. Not about cars and bikes.

Tiny numbers of incidents are serious, seriously tiny. Its really an irrelevance in the grand scheme of anything, I don't see that anything needs to change, bikes should pay more respect to less vulnerable people, such as peds (though you cannot avoid everything), and cars likewise. You'll never stop everyone being a dick.

[Rude-boy]

okgo said:

You'll never stop everyone being a dick.

To be fair this is possibly the most sensible thing anyone (me included) has said on this thread!

[heebeegeetee]

princealbert23 said:

Wrong!
No one else has tried such whataboutery and everyone but you is on topic.

Then how did I correct someone's point?

The third post moved off from your interpretation of what the thread should be about.