Home
Olympic champion Callum Skiner among those questioning experience of rider shown in police footage

 

A police officer shown in a Metropolitan Police video showing comparative stopping distances between a bike with front and rear brakes and one without either has experience of riding a fixed-wheel bike on the track, the force has told road.cc.

The video was made public by the Met following the conclusion on Wednesday of the trial of Charlie Alliston, who was found guilty of causing bodily injury through wanton and furious driving of pedestrian Kim Briggs.

> Metropolitan Police stopping distance video in Charlie Alliston trial raises questions

Alliston, aged 20, was acquitted of manslaughter in connection with the 44-year-old’s death following their collision on London’s Old Street in February 2014.

He had been riding a track bike without brakes, meaning it was not legal for use on the public highway, one of the prosecution’s chief arguments and which led to police seeking to assess different stopping distances.

The Met told road.cc that they had been unable to speak with the officer who gave evidence in court, so were unable to confirm whether the footage shown was identical to that shown during the trial at the Old Bailey.

They did say that several runs were carried out on each bike, and that “the footage released on the Met’s website was designed to give an example of the test.”

Also, while many people who watched the video questioned whether the rider shown had experience of riding a bike with no brakes, they confirmed that he is a police officer with experience of riding a fixed-wheel bike on a track, points they said were covered during the trial.

Among those with doubts about the rider’s level of experience in handling a fixed-wheel bike, including Rio 2016 Olympic team sprint track cycling champion and individual sprint silver medallist, Callum Skinner.

Retweeting our story from yesterday, he said: “Very misleading video. Maybe find someone who has ridden a fixie before, not a complete amateur.”

We’ve also asked the Met for clarification on other aspects of the video, specifically:

Was the fixed-wheel bike tested the one that was actually involved in the collision in the case? If not, can you confirm the make and model?

Was the fixed-wheel bike tested with and without a front brake, and if so what were the respective results?

Did you test another rim-braked bike with thinner road tyres? From the video it appears the first bike (a police issue one?) is heavier and has fatter tyres which should help it stop in a shorter distance than a lighter bike with thinner tyres.

We are awaiting their response, and will update this story once it is received.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

52 comments

Avatar
Flying Scot [965 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

Could I just hold the bus here, track bikes dont usually have lockrings, so if you rather than doing a skid you unscrew the sprocket.....

 

Callum Skinner's former coach lets call him CW, will tell you what kind of people use lockrings on track......

Avatar
SteveAustin [51 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

not sure, but it looks like the 1st bike has a rear brake as well. looks like a rear caliper on the bike and a cable loop from the handlebar leading to the toptube. so is that 3 braking systems as opposed to one, and a completely different bike as well.

lol what a shambles

Avatar
ktache [609 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

I understood that the defendant was riding his bike at 18mph, why didn't we see relevent stopping distances at this speed.

If the experienced police cyclist perfect braking at 15mph takes him 3.1 metres to come to a stop then I would love to see the state of his face if he attempted to stop from 18mph in 3 metres.

Avatar
Barraob1 [21 posts] 1 month ago
12 likes

Well that was the least credible pile of donkey dick I've ever seen. They used to frame people with slightly better "evidence"

Avatar
ChrisB200SX [496 posts] 1 month ago
9 likes

Yeah, least scientific experiment I think I've ever seen.

He clearly grabs the brakes before the cones and then doesn't appear to make much effort to slow down when in the fixie... and those speed "ranges".

Could they maybe have used a cyclist who had some skill and wasn't biased against cyclists like so many in the police force and general society seem to be.

Avatar
Beecho [156 posts] 1 month ago
7 likes

Not the actual footage shown in the trial. Here's a still from the test used.

Avatar
DaveE128 [904 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes

Hard to be certain but it really looked like the first guy started decelerating way earlier. However, not having a front brake is dumb. See https://youtu.be/frIKK_XU-qE and https://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/how-to-brake-on-a-bicycle/ for more persuasive evidence that lack of front brake leads to excessive stopping distances.

Avatar
aracer [7 posts] 1 month ago
6 likes

Has ridden on a track? Well whoopee doo - I know lots of people who've ridden on a track, many of whom have no other experience of riding a fixie, and on a track you don't ever try and brake quickly, so it's utterly irrelevant experience.

As mentioned by others, the testing shown in that video is a load of rubbish - just for starters the speed is being measured some distance before the rider starts braking with a speed gun with a resolution of 1mph. Also as suggested the starts braking in the first test before the braking line - I did a bit of video analysis:

Point A:

//s2.postimg.org/jatq7em21/charlie-alliston0099.jpg)

4 frames later:

//s2.postimg.org/5jp956x49/charlie-alliston0103.jpg)

Point B:

//s2.postimg.org/6kphube3t/charlie-alliston0108.jpg)

4 frames later:

//s2.postimg.org/7cs5tiiax/charlie-alliston0112.jpg)

 

You can see from the wheel reflectors that the wheel doesn't turn as far in the 4 frames after Point B as it does in the 4 frames after Point A, yet all of those frames are before the braking point.

Avatar
The _Kaner [1133 posts] 1 month ago
9 likes

Yep. Anticipating a marked Stop point versus some randommer walking out unexpectedly in front of you...I can ('t) do science, me!

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [627 posts] 1 month ago
14 likes

That 'test' was the biggest load of shite I've seen in ages, ludicrous in fact and verging on deliberately perverting the course of justice as it in no way related to what happened. it proves fuck-all apart from some idiots can ride a bike and hold a speed gun/use a measure.

The charge should still only have being contrary to construction and Use regs and heard in a magistrates.  He was fitted up well and truly by plod/CPS and they have done a fine job in deflecting away from the real killers and putting even more onus/responsibility onto people on bikes.

Congrats.

Avatar
Mungecrundle [866 posts] 1 month ago
9 likes

Why has the defence team not done their own test of track bike with front brake v track bike without?

Avatar
spen [185 posts] 1 month ago
2 likes

The daily email are milking this for all its worth and some of the comments must be coming close  to warranting a visit from the police

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4822476/Fixie-fans-defend-illegal-cyclist-crashed

Avatar
Flying Scot [965 posts] 1 month ago
1 like
Mungecrundle wrote:

Why has the defence team not done their own test of track bike with front brake v track bike without?

 

1) Because they wouldn't get away with such a unscientific test as the police.

2) Perhaps because its ££££££ and cant afford it.

 

We need to fight this, the hysteria is incredible in the media and the law does not need changed.

 

Im all for the manslaughter charges, if someone knocks down and kills a pedestrian riding fast on a pavement for example, but this one was a collision at right angles on a road, the pedestrian (I understand, correct me if I am wrong) effectively 'pulled out' in front of the bike without regard to allowing a reasonable space for it to stop or go around.

Also, is it buried in the news somewhere as the man on the street seems to think that the lady was knocked over on a pedestrian crossing where the cycle should have stopped - is this correct ? - I know Old St. But only for walking along.

Avatar
Ric_Stern_RST [44 posts] 1 month ago
3 likes

I wonder if it's related to the Michael Mason case... we (cyclists) complained a lot to the Met etc, i wonder if they're trying to get back at cyclists because of the private prosecution etc.... just wondering

Avatar
hawkinspeter [905 posts] 1 month ago
6 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:

Why has the defence team not done their own test of track bike with front brake v track bike without?

This is the important question. From our limited knowledge of the evidence presented in the trial, it does look like the defence team didn't try very hard at all.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1745 posts] 4 weeks ago
5 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:

Why has the defence team not done their own test of track bike with front brake v track bike without?

Is there a truly expert analysis of this 'experiment'? From an actual scientist?

Because I hesitate to slate it the way I'm tempted to in case I've misunderstood something about it, particularly the question of what it was actually intended to establish.

My first thought in constructing such an experiment is that you'd have to recreate the randomness of the actual event. First you'd have to give the bike rider a real incentive to ride at a consistent 18mph (i.e. set them a time target for completing a course), so they are concentrating on that and not on their foreknowledge of what is going to happen. And then repeat the test a great many times, with only in a small number of randomly-selected instances of rriding the course, have someone unexpectedly step out 6m ahead of them.

On most run-throughs the people (and there would have to be multiple people next to the course) would not step out, and then you see what happens on the few occasions when they do.

Having the rider aim to stop at a clearly marked point they already are aware off well in advance of stopping doesn't seem to replicate the actual event in any way. I don't think there were markings on that road telling the cyclist where the pedestrian was going to step out.

One thought I have is maybe it should be compulsory for every citizen to do a science degree, so whether they end up in the police or on a jury, they have some clue how to reason about such things.

(Actually having real people step out might not get past the ethics-committte, but some sort of virtual equivalent could be thought of I'm sure)

Avatar
burtthebike [1037 posts] 4 weeks ago
3 likes

Well, look on the bright side;  with this level of incompetent evidence, the appeal should be a doddle.

Since the person riding the bike was a policeman, I would suggest that they weighed considerably more than a teenage cyclist, which would also affect the results.  As others have said, this experiment lacks all credibility and would seem to have been conceived and conducted in order to convict, not to indepently verify facts.

Avatar
nbrus [459 posts] 4 weeks ago
0 likes

There's some science in this guardian article, which seems to suggest that Alliston was attempting to go around Mrs Briggs rather than attempting to brake. It also says that Mrs Briggs stepped backwards to get out of his way when she heard him shouting. Unfortunately, that put her directly in his path as he was attempting to go behind her rather than attempting to brake, suggesting she was struck at close to 18 mph.

Looking at some of the numbers quoted (6.53m @ 18 mph = 8 m/s) the whole event lasted around 1 second, which would also suggest that Alliston was doing 18 mph with no brakes in very close proximity to pedestrians, leaving him (or a pedestrian) very little chance to react. An unfortunate accident, but one where having a front brake would have made a significant difference had it been used and where a lower speed (or greater distance from pedestrians) would have been sensible.

We won't really know all the facts until after the case, so a lot of speculation here. The whole case comes down to Alliston not having a front brake and was he riding recklessly.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-w...

Quote:

Front brakes are important on bicycles. In an emergency, a skilled cyclist will get all their stopping force from the front brake because of the effect of the bicycle and rider decelerating. Unlike a car, or a heavy police-issue mountain bike, the limit of effective braking on dry level ground is reached at the point where the rear wheel lifts off the ground potentially pitching the rider over the handlebars.

Studies in David Wilson’s seminal work Bicycling Science demonstrate that a deceleration of 0.5g is the maximum that a seated rider can risk before he goes over the handlebars. Unlike a car driver, a cyclist cannot safely achieve the limit of adhesion of the tyre to the road, which in the dry is typically about 0.8g. Braking with the rear wheel alone can achieve only 0.256g before the rear wheel locks up and skids. Wilson also cites reliable research that in wet weather conventional block-on-rim braking distances are increased by a factor of four.

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 Briggs stepped out, this difference is crucial. The Highway Code gives a typical stopping distance of 12 metres for a car driving at 20mph, suggesting that if 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.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [627 posts] 4 weeks ago
3 likes
nbrus wrote:

There's some science in this guardian article, which seems to suggest that Alliston was attempting to go around Mrs Briggs rather than attempting to brake. It also says that Mrs Briggs stepped backwards to get out of his way when she heard him shouting. Unfortunately, that put her directly in his path as he was attempting to go behind her rather than attempting to brake, suggesting she was struck at close to 18 mph. An unfortunate accident, but one where having a front brake would have made a significant difference had it been used. We won't really know all the facts until after the case, so a lot of speculation here. The whole case comes down to Alliston not having a front brake.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-w...

Quote:

Front brakes are important on bicycles. In an emergency, a skilled cyclist will get all their stopping force from the front brake because of the effect of the bicycle and rider decelerating. Unlike a car, or a heavy police-issue mountain bike, the limit of effective braking on dry level ground is reached at the point where the rear wheel lifts off the ground potentially pitching the rider over the handlebars.

Studies in David Wilson’s seminal work Bicycling Science demonstrate that a deceleration of 0.5g is the maximum that a seated rider can risk before he goes over the handlebars. Unlike a car driver, a cyclist cannot safely achieve the limit of adhesion of the tyre to the road, which in the dry is typically about 0.8g. Braking with the rear wheel alone can achieve only 0.256g before the rear wheel locks up and skids. Wilson also cites reliable research that in wet weather conventional block-on-rim braking distances are increased by a factor of four.

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 Briggs stepped out, this difference is crucial. The Highway Code gives a typical stopping distance of 12 metres for a car driving at 20mph, suggesting that if 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.

I'll repeat it again. HE BRAKED from the outset, this is accepted by the prosecution, he WAS (past tense) doing about 18mph BEFORE she stepped out, a figure given by the prosecution. He BRAKED to the admitted by the prosecution speed of as low as 10mph just before impact.

I've given my comments on the amount of thinking time involved when multiple (unexpected) things happen one after another in a short space of time, simply put, by the time the pedestrian stepped back he was trying to swerve around her and was doing circa 10mph and had  no additional time to take this into account.

Unless all road users should slam on their brakes for all potential scenarios when hazards present themselves on the road, not only the testing but the whole 'he didn't have a front brake and could have stopped' is ludicrous. 

Ride at 10mph and at the last second (literally in this case) only a couple of metres away get something to unexpectedly fall into your path (say push a person in front) after having to previously a second or two before have had to deal with another unexpected event. See how one does in being able to apply the brakes in time when both those scenarios present you with danger and the potential for harm to both yourself and the hazard.

unless you can think quicker than any human being you can't think fast enough nor would there be enough time for the mechanical action of putting on the brakes/action of brake to take effect.

None of this is put forward by the defence and the prosecution does not include it in their pathetic tests. it should be a mis-trail but the defence lawyer is clearly inept or just not bothered to do his/her job properly.

 

Avatar
nbrus [459 posts] 4 weeks ago
0 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I'll repeat it again. HE BRAKED from the outset, this is accepted by the prosecution, he WAS (past tense) doing about 18mph BEFORE she stepped out, a figure given by the prosecution. He BRAKED to the admitted by the prosecution speed of as low as 10mph just before impact.

So he managed to brake from 18 mph to 10 mph in around 1 second using only his leg power (on rear wheel) and all while attempting to swerve around Mrs Briggs and shouting for her to get out of the way? Maybe he did. 

Imagine you were out on Old Street with your kids, and one of them stepped out...no

I updated my post just after you quoted me. This bit of analysis was added...

nbrus wrote:

Looking at some of the numbers quoted (6.53m @ 18 mph = 8 m/s) the whole event lasted around 1 second, which would also suggest that Alliston was doing 18 mph with no brakes in very close proximity to pedestrians, leaving him (or a pedestrian) very little chance to react. An unfortunate accident, but one where having a front brake would have made a significant difference had it been used and where a lower speed (or greater distance from pedestrians) would have been sensible.

Avatar
alansmurphy [746 posts] 4 weeks ago
5 likes

nbrus, I don't know Old Street very well, I assume the cars drive down the centre line of the road at under 10mph. Sounds very civilised.

Avatar
nbrus [459 posts] 4 weeks ago
0 likes
alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus, I don't know Old Street very well, I assume the cars drive down the centre line of the road at under 10mph. Sounds very civilised.

I suppose where you live cyclists overtake families on shared cycle paths at 20 mph on fixies with no brakes. Yes, very civilised. You probably have a bell on your bike, just to be nice.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1745 posts] 4 weeks ago
7 likes
nbrus wrote:
alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus, I don't know Old Street very well, I assume the cars drive down the centre line of the road at under 10mph. Sounds very civilised.

I suppose where you live cyclists overtake families on shared cycle paths at 20 mph on fixies with no brakes. Yes, very civilised. You probably have a bell on your bike, just to be nice.

Have no idea what you are talking about or what point this is supposed to make.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1745 posts] 4 weeks ago
5 likes
nbrus wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I'll repeat it again. HE BRAKED from the outset, this is accepted by the prosecution, he WAS (past tense) doing about 18mph BEFORE she stepped out, a figure given by the prosecution. He BRAKED to the admitted by the prosecution speed of as low as 10mph just before impact.

So he managed to brake from 18 mph to 10 mph in around 1 second using only his leg power (on rear wheel) and all while attempting to swerve around Mrs Briggs and shouting for her to get out of the way? Maybe he did. 

So now you are saying you don't find the prosecution's analysis to be plausible? You speak in riddles.

Also, why do you keep saying he 'had no brakes'? He had a braking mechanism, just not one that was legally or practically good enough. Drivers often have brakes that aren't sufficient for stopping quickly enough at the speed they are travelling at. Saying he had 'no brakes' is an attempt at spinning the facts, it seems to me.

nbrus wrote:

Imagine you were out on Old Street with your kids, and one of them stepped out...no

...they'd quite likely be hit by a motorised vehicle going a good bit faster than 18mph.
What's your point? That you'd say "phew, thank God it wasn't a bike"?

Avatar
Gus T [316 posts] 4 weeks ago
2 likes

Probably at my most cynical this morning but you would think that Defense Counsel would have got used to the Met falsifying evidence by now and challenged this. Looks like the plan is to take the sentence & get it reduced on appeal , some behind the scene's machinations between the Prosecution and the Defence maybe.

Avatar
alansmurphy [746 posts] 4 weeks ago
4 likes
nbrus wrote:
alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus, I don't know Old Street very well, I assume the cars drive down the centre line of the road at under 10mph. Sounds very civilised.

I suppose where you live cyclists overtake families on shared cycle paths at 20 mph on fixies with no brakes. Yes, very civilised. You probably have a bell on your bike, just to be nice.

I'm not the one suggesting you come to a complete standstill every time you see a pedestrian, that you ride in a position where they couldn't step out on you or that travelling at nearly 50% under the speed limit for heavy metal objects is wrong.

Incidentally, on the rare occasions when I use cycle paths, I'll be pootling along on my commuter which has a big fuck off horn on it... Not to be nice, more to scare the shit out of the wankers!

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1745 posts] 4 weeks ago
4 likes
nbrus wrote:

Looking at some of the numbers quoted (6.53m @ 18 mph = 8 m/s) the whole event lasted around 1 second, which would also suggest that Alliston was doing 18 mph with no brakes in very close proximity to pedestrians, leaving him (or a pedestrian) very little chance to react.
>

You superficially _sound_ less trollish than someone like bikelikebike, but your constant agenda is to minimise the problem with motorised vehicles and to push an 'everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds and nothing should ever change' conservatism, in order to defend a car-centric culture.

Which is why you come out with weird stuff like the above.

First you say 'no brakes', which you know full well is not true. He had _inadequate_ brakes. Which certainly merits a legal penalty, no argument with that, but why the need to guild-the lilly on your part?

And are you seriously suggesting that it's outrageously unusual to travel at the horrendously high speed of 18mph 'in very close proximity to pedestrians'?

Travelling at speeds far higher than that in close proximity to pedestrians is the norm on our roads. Remember the Glasgow tipper truck disaster? Do you agree then that that needs to change, and more has to be done to keep motorised vehicles away from pedestrians?

Insisting that 18mph is a high speed is just a joke. Drivers rarely go that slowly and find it intolerable to be asked to do so. Which is why I suppose you have to try and push the 'no brakes' spin. Because if you admitted it was a case of 'insufficient brakes' that would raise the point that motorised vehicles go much faster so have trouble stopping even with fully working brakes.

Avatar
brooksby [2507 posts] 4 weeks ago
1 like
Gus T wrote:

Probably at my most cynical this morning but you would think that Defense Counsel would have got used to the Met falsifying evidence by now and challenged this. Looks like the plan is to take the sentence & get it reduced on appeal , some behind the scene's machinations between the Prosecution and the Defence maybe.

I don't think anyone is saying that the police actually falsified evidence, just that their tests were not fair and were not appropriate or equivalent to the situation they were trying to explain.

Avatar
nbrus [459 posts] 4 weeks ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
nbrus wrote:

Looking at some of the numbers quoted (6.53m @ 18 mph = 8 m/s) the whole event lasted around 1 second, which would also suggest that Alliston was doing 18 mph with no brakes in very close proximity to pedestrians, leaving him (or a pedestrian) very little chance to react. >

You superficially _sound_ less trollish than someone like bikelikebike, but your constant agenda is to minimise the problem with motorised vehicles and to push an 'everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds and nothing should ever change' conservatism, in order to defend a car-centric culture. Which is why you come out with weird stuff like the above. First you say 'no brakes', which you know full well is not true. He had _inadequate_ brakes. Which certainly merits a legal penalty, no argument with that, but why the need to guild-the lilly on your part? And are you seriously suggesting that it's outrageously unusual to travel at the horrendously high speed of 18mph 'in very close proximity to pedestrians'? Travelling at speeds far higher than that in close proximity to pedestrians is the norm on our roads. Remember the Glasgow tipper truck disaster? Do you agree then that that needs to change, and more has to be done to keep motorised vehicles away from pedestrians? Insisting that 18mph is a high speed is just a joke. Drivers rarely go that slowly and find it intolerable to be asked to do so. Which is why I suppose you have to try and push the 'no brakes' spin. Because if you admitted it was a case of 'insufficient brakes' that would raise the point that motorised vehicles go much faster so have trouble stopping even with fully working brakes.

Sounds like you are justifying your support for Alliston based on your greivance against motor vehicles. There are no motor vehicles involved in this case. If you believe Alliston has no case to answer, then you are also agreeing that if you suffer a close pass by a lorry (at a slow 18 mph) and are killed then it is your fault for not holding your line as they pass. And if they have Fred Flintstone brakes ... well they still have brakes, so that is also fine.

 

Planet-X Track Bike Full Spec
Bar Tape Planet X Soft Touch Handlebar Tape / Black
Chain SRAM PC1 1/8" Single Speed Chain / 112 Links / Brown
Chainset Stronglight Track 2000 Crankset / 170 mm / Black Chainring / 48t
Handlebars Planet X Road Bar Strada Shallow Drop / 40cm / Polished Black / 31.8 mm Clamp
Saddle Prologo Kappa 3 Saddle / STN Cromo / Black
Stem Selcof Zeta 6061 Alloy Stem / 100mm / Matt Black / 10 degrees / 31.8mm
Track Cog On-One CNC Chromoly Screw-on Track Cog 1/8in/ 16t
Tyres Tufo S3 Pro Tubular Tyre / 700C / Black / 21 mm
Wheelset Planet X Model A Track Wheelset / Fixed Free / Tubular
Head Set Planet X Headset Spacer Set / 1 1/8" / 15mm + 10mm + 5mm / Black
Frame Spare Selcof Carbon Steerer Fork Bung MK 2 / 1 1/8 inch
Bottom Bracket Stronglight JP 400 JIS Bottom Bracket / 107mm / BSA Thread / Aluminium Cups
Head Set FSA Orbit C Headset / 1 1/8inch / Black / Intergrated / 8mm

[there are no brakes]

Avatar
nbrus [459 posts] 4 weeks ago
0 likes
alansmurphy wrote:

Incidentally, on the rare occasions when I use cycle paths, I'll be pootling along on my commuter which has a big fuck off horn on it... Not to be nice, more to scare the shit out of the wankers!

Your horn must be worn out, I do hope you carry spares.

Pages