Cyclist facing manslaughter charge

wellsprop wrote:

Can't say I have an awful lot of sympathy for him either. The law is quite clear, you need brakes front and rear (rear fixed wheel counts as a brake).

Posting online probably didn't do him any good.

Totally agree that pedestrians are utterly clueless and ignorant when crossing roads - I've collided with two when cycling around Bristol... First was someone crossing a road when the red man was showing at the crossing - a car passed and they stepped out behind it (in front of me) without looking. The second, someone crossed the road (not at a crossing) whilst staring at their phone and walked straight into my path.

I stayed upright on both occasions. The first pedestrian and the phone didn't.

Doesn't take a lot to be at least a little aware of vehicles on roads...

Probably teaching you to suck eggs, but as you've had to incidents, I'll continue.  In areas like this, it is a good idea to ride in primary.  It gives you extra time when they step off the kerb without looking and without warning - it also reduces the risk of this occuring whilst you are being overtaken by heavier vehicles (moving into the path of a lorry to avoid a pedestrian isn't likely to end well).  Obviously difficult if you are on cycle infrastructure that puts you next to pedestrians.

The last time this happened to me, it was a on one of the cycle superhighways in London - travelling about 20mph on a Boris bike with probably lot less stopping power than brakeless fixie.  She was stepped out onto the crossing (against the red man), into the cycle lane without even glancing. I'll admit, with hindsight, I should have tried to swap it for one with better brakes or kept my speed down.

Now, the cyclist with on the fixie.  He could have stopped quick with a working front brake - but what if he'd been on a road bike, with two brakes, travelling at 30mph.  Would the outcome have been any different?  I suppose we can only speculate.

brooksby wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

Totally agree that pedestrians are utterly clueless and ignorant when crossing roads - I've collided with two when cycling around Bristol... First was someone crossing a road when the red man was showing at the crossing - a car passed and they stepped out behind it (in front of me) without looking. The second, someone crossed the road (not at a crossing) whilst staring at their phone and walked straight into my path.

Worst area for that in Bristol is the road between "old" Broadmead and Cabot Circus.  The one that's supposed to be buses, cycles, taxis, and "access only". 

Pedestrians just walk across from shopping area to shopping area without looking, just going on whether they can hear a bus coming, I think.  And that's even people with pushchairs/prams.

I avoid that area like the plague! When I have to cycle through/to there, I don't even bother cycling that part, easier to walk and push my bike.

jh27 wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

Can't say I have an awful lot of sympathy for him either. The law is quite clear, you need brakes front and rear (rear fixed wheel counts as a brake).

Posting online probably didn't do him any good.

Totally agree that pedestrians are utterly clueless and ignorant when crossing roads - I've collided with two when cycling around Bristol... First was someone crossing a road when the red man was showing at the crossing - a car passed and they stepped out behind it (in front of me) without looking. The second, someone crossed the road (not at a crossing) whilst staring at their phone and walked straight into my path.

I stayed upright on both occasions. The first pedestrian and the phone didn't.

Doesn't take a lot to be at least a little aware of vehicles on roads...

Probably teaching you to suck eggs, but as you've had to incidents, I'll continue.  In areas like this, it is a good idea to ride in primary.  It gives you extra time when they step off the kerb without looking and without warning - it also reduces the risk of this occuring whilst you are being overtaken by heavier vehicles (moving into the path of a lorry to avoid a pedestrian isn't likely to end well).  Obviously difficult if you are on cycle infrastructure that puts you next to pedestrians.

Yep, definitely sucking eggs - always ride in primary with hands covering the brakes where there's lots of traffic/pedestrians.

Funnily enough, both incidents were on the same stretch of road - Bristo City Centre Anchor Road/St Augustines Parade - nightmare. Two of the guys in the cycle club have had run-ins there too.

Comes to something with a pulsing 800-lumen front light isn't adequate to get you noticed prevent people walking out in front of you. I suppose mobile phones are just more interesting to most than road safety.

Crampy wrote:

Furthermore, how would a front brake have helped?

Perhaps read a bit more about the case?

"If Mr Alliston had been riding a bike with proper brakes, he would have been able to avoid the collision with Mrs Briggs, prosecutor Duncan Penny QC said."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40927791

The prosecution's assertion may be disproven but it wouldn't be an issue in the first place had the accused had not removed it.

Crampy wrote:

It really seems that the Guardian is trying to paint this guy as a "Premium Rush" type dangerous cyclist (and to be honest the internet comments he made dosent help) and the deceased as an innocent victim.

Except  from where Im sitting it looks like she stepped out right in front of him glued to her mobile. 

She was at fault for not looking where she was going but he was at fault for removing his front brake (contrary to the law) and posting like an eejit afterwards. 

At least thats my take. 

Crampy - I don't think The Guardian is trying to 'paint' anything. As it is in a court case they can only report what is said in court and as the case opens with the prosecution it will be critical of the defendant. Whilst papers can't editorialise at this stage (it would be contempt of court), any bias can be seen in how much prominence they give when reporting the defence which I doubt will make front page of The Sun.

At this stage you also shouldn't apportion blame as you could be charged. However, in general, if cyclists are in an area with pedestrians, who may step out, then they have a duty of care towards vulnerable road users just as motor vehicle users should towards cyclists & pedestrians.

Billj wrote:

However, in general, if cyclists are in an area with pedestrians, who may step out, then they have a duty of care towards vulnerable road users just as motor vehicle users should towards cyclists & pedestrians.

And you should take special care  if you've just removed your most effective brake.

Crampy wrote:

Im a bit confused; was he breaking the speed limit? Why is 20mph being reported as excessive when in reality it is 10mph short of what a car would have been doing? Was there a 20mph zone here?

Furthermore, how would a front brake have helped? If this was a situation where she stepped out in front of him, then all a front brake would have done was send him OTB and right on top of her. How is that better? 

If the pedestrian crossed the road whilst on a mobile phone, not paying attention at all, then in reality this is on her, isnt it? Arent you taught as a child to look both ways before crossing? 

I can see the comparison to a track car being used on this thread too, but to be honest that isnt really an apples with apples comparison, is it? The rider can lock the back wheel on a fixie, creating a very effective braking mechanism. A track car usually is lightened, has softer and wider tyres and / or has a more effective braking system installed. These mean that you shorten your braking distances considerably. 

It really seems that the Guardian is trying to paint this guy as a "Premium Rush" type dangerous cyclist (and to be honest the internet comments he made dosent help) and the deceased as an innocent victim.

Except  from where Im sitting it looks like she stepped out right in front of him glued to her mobile. 

She was at fault for not looking where she was going but he was at fault for removing his front brake (contrary to the law) and posting like an eejit afterwards. 

At least thats my take. 

Brakes will do several things - they will provide opportunity to avoid a collision, and by reducing speed the impact of a collision is also reduced. Having seen the maps of the incident, hands on hoods at that point (a habit of mine) on drop bars would remove/reduce the "I wouldn't have been able to grab the brakes in time anyway" excuse. And based on my youthful experiences, a pair of tired legs are not anywhere near as effective a "means of retardation" as a rear brake.

My take - walking, cycling, driving I wouldn't want to die as a result of a moments inattention because someone else simply couldn't be bothered to be prepared for the unexpected, either by attitude or by equipment.

RMurphy195 wrote:

Brakes will do several things - they will provide opportunity to avoid a collision, and by reducing speed the impact of a collision is also reduced. Having seen the maps of the incident, hands on hoods at that point (a habit of mine) on drop bars would remove/reduce the "I wouldn't have been able to grab the brakes in time anyway" excuse. And based on my youthful experiences, a pair of tired legs are not anywhere near as effective a "means of retardation" as a rear brake.

My take - walking, cycling, driving I wouldn't want to die as a result of a moments inattention because someone else simply couldn't be bothered to be prepared for the unexpected, either by attitude or by equipment.

And if a scenario unfolds/happens so close to you that you do not have time to think never mind utilise the brakes what then? She stepped back into him with him only a couple of metres away, again this is accepted, the human mind cannot process information quick enough to unexpected events in this scenario for him to have used the brake. 1.5 seconds is a good reaction time, add into which approx 0.4 seconds mechanical action time. Ergo, having a front brake would have made bugger all difference.

unless you come to an abrupt stop everytime a pedestrian or other road users looks like it might cross in front of you (so that's every junction, every roundabout, gates at farms on rural roads, car park exits etc etc etc then there are times when you simply don't have enough time to hit the brakes and avoid a collision.

Your moments innatention is not what happened in this incident, he DID react by braking from approx 18mph to approx 10mph (this is stated by the prosecution), he tried steering and avoiding the pedestrian at not much more than crawling speed (10mph remember).

if you do not come to an emergency stop at every single occasion that someone does something in front of you then the whole having the extra front brake is irrelevant and has no bearing on the collision itself.

sergius wrote:

I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you - you have to be prepared to stop for them.  Shouting at them to move doesn't count.

Maybe I missed it, but where is a pedestrian crossing mentioned?

Crampy wrote:

sergius wrote:

I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you - you have to be prepared to stop for them.  Shouting at them to move doesn't count.

Maybe I missed it, but where is a pedestrian crossing mentioned?

One of the articles I read on the subject said she was on a pedestrian crossing, maybe that's incorrect though.  He had time to shout at her to move = he had time to brake though.

sergius wrote:

One of the articles I read on the subject said she was on a pedestrian crossing, maybe that's incorrect though.  He had time to shout at her to move = he had time to brake though.

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/capture12.png is the photo the Metro put up at the time. I suspect that had the cyclist run a red light here (thus the ped having RoW) the papers would be full of "red light running cyclist" etc.

With that said, the fact that he was twice heard to shout for her to get out of the way does indicate that there should have been sufficient time for him to stop had he actually had front brakes.

With regards to the poster further above, a skidding stop on rear brake alone is less efficient than stopping on front brake alone (due to the way weight transfer affects braking) and way less efficient than using both together.

sergius wrote:

Crampy wrote:

sergius wrote:

I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you - you have to be prepared to stop for them.  Shouting at them to move doesn't count.

Maybe I missed it, but where is a pedestrian crossing mentioned?

 

One of the articles I read on the subject said she was on a pedestrian crossing, maybe that's incorrect though.  He had time to shout at her to move = he had time to brake though.

Some more details:

“It made me look up immediately, just in time to see a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian.”  [Mr Callan (witness)] said HR consultant Mrs Briggs was not using the crossing some 30 feet away.

Crash investigator Edward Small studied CCTV of the collision which was shown frame-by-frame in court.

He told jurors Alliston was seen in the footage beginning to swerve to take evasive action as he approached the pedestrian.

He was a minimum of between 6.65 and 9.65 metres away from Mrs Briggs and travelling at an average speed of 18mph, jurors were told.

Mrs Briggs stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash, Mr Small said.

The investigator also carried out tests comparing the stopping distances of a police issue mountain bike, Alliston’s Planet X bike and a fixed wheel bike adapted with front brakes.

The court heard that Alliston was doing between 10mph and 14mph as he tried to avoid the collision.

Source:

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/old-street-cycle-death-...

sergius wrote:

I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you - you have to be prepared to stop for them.  Shouting at them to move doesn't count.

I don't  recall seeing anything about the pedestrian being on a crossing.  The lastest DailyFail article quotes a witness that states the collision took place about 30 feet after the crossing.

But regardless, a cyclist needs the ability to stop quickly. Not sure if that makes it 'his fault', but pedestrians stepping into the road without looking isn't a new thing.  Certainly shouting at people, ringing a bell etc, is pretty pointless - if that they don't have earphones in and actually hear you, what are the chances that they are going to do something sensible? - much more likely that they'll stop in their tracks, you'll set a course to avoid them and then they'll move into your path again, in an attempt to move out off your way - which is what sounds like happened here. 

I don't know what the statistics are, but I'd have thought that it is generally the cyclist who comes off worst in a collision with a pedestrian (all things being equal).  In my opinion, he's lucky we aren't reading about cyclist killed by pedestrian - not that it is likely to have made it to court.

simonmb wrote:

I'm curious about bikes fitted with coaster-brakes. Do they require an additional brake to be in place too? Regardless, a tragedy without doubt. And no one in their right mind would ride fixed without at least one other brake.

Pedal Cycle Construction and Use Regulations 1983. You must have two independent braking systems, one for each wheel. A coaster brake or fixed gear system would count as a brake for the back wheel, you'd still need a front one to be legal.

Vehlin wrote:

It's a manslaughter charge because there is no death by dangerous cycling charge that can be brought. If you killed someone in a car that was built for the track with no breaks you'd be facing a DbDD charge. The sentences are largely similar. Th e fact that he's admitted to removing the front brake from his last bike is gonna damn him imo Edit to add: if this had been on a construction site and someone had died because of an accident involving machinery to which legally mandated safety features had been removed or not installed prior to use you'd be seeing a similar case being brought.

But the maximum possible sentences are different, and the message sent to lay people is probably aslso different - manslaughter is generally seen as a more serious thing surely?

oldstrath wrote:

But the maximum possible sentences are different, and the message sent to lay people is probably aslso different - manslaughter is generally seen as a more serious thing surely?

More serious yes, but harder to prove. There's nothing stopping someone causing death by dangerous driving being charged with manslaughter instead but it is a harder charge to prove.

What you will also find is that while Manslaughter technically can attract a life sentence it almost never does, sentences are typically between 2 and 10 years. Max sentence for DbDD is 14 years. So there's nothing to stop the judge giving the same sentence for both offences.

Vehlin wrote:

It's a manslaughter charge because there is no death by dangerous cycling charge that can be brought. If you killed someone in a car that was built for the track with no breaks you'd be facing a DbDD charge. The sentences are largely similar.

Th e fact that he's admitted to removing the front brake from his last bike is gonna damn him imo

Edit to add: if this had been on a construction site and someone had died because of an accident involving machinery to which legally mandated safety features had been removed or not installed prior to use you'd be seeing a similar case being brought.

Googling out of curiosity as to the accuracy of what you say, turned up this

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/22/two-men-guilty-of-mansla...

Which certainly seems to support your point (as well as being completely horrific).

Interesting that in that case it wasn't the driver who was held responsible, but those in charge of the maintenance of the vehicle, and, I guess for that very reason, the conviction was for manslaughter not dbdd/dbcd.

(Curious what the charge/conviction would have been had the driver been responsible for his own vehicle maintenance and consequent failed brakes - would it then be manslaughter or dbdd?)

rogermerriman wrote:

I suspect that the fact that it's unusual plus the guy has a illegal (to use on the road) bike and has frankly said some unwise things.

 

ie has failed the attitude test!

I agree, and I find it hard to have much sympathy for him, but for anyone looking for a precedent, Helen Measures blamed her victim Denisa Perinova in court, despite the fact that she was overtaking on a blind bend and made no attempt to brake or avoid the cyclists.  She wasn't even charged with manslaughter and was acquitted by the jury of careless driving.

rogermerriman wrote:

I suspect that the fact that it's unusual plus the guy has a illegal (to use on the road) bike and has frankly said some unwise things.

 

ie has failed the attitude test!

It would have been a lot less interesting story if his mouth (or keyboard rather) had brakes and it would have gotten a lot less news coverage.