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.”
Metropolitan Police stopping distance video in fixed-wheel rider Charlie Alliston trial raises questions https://t.co/Wyxrbkxbyb #cycling pic.twitter.com/EB1kMvYiXa
— road.cc (@roadcc) August 24, 2017
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.
52 thoughts on “Metropolitan Police says officer in stopping distance video had experience of riding fixed-wheel bike on the track”
Could I just hold the bus
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……
not sure, but it looks 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
I understood that the
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.
Well that was the least
Well that was the least credible pile of donkey dick I’ve ever seen. They used to frame people with slightly better “evidence”
Yeah, least scientific
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.
Not the actual footage shown
Not the actual footage shown in the trial. Here’s a still from the test used.
Hard to be certain but it
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.
Has ridden on a track? Well
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:
4 frames later:
Point B:
4 frames later:
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.
Yep. Anticipating a marked
Yep. Anticipating a marked Stop point versus some randommer walking out unexpectedly in front of you…I can (‘t) do science, me!
That ‘test’ was the biggest
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.
Why has the defence team not
Why has the defence team not done their own test of track bike with front brake v track bike without?
Mungecrundle wrote:
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.
Mungecrundle wrote:
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.
Mungecrundle wrote:
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)
The daily email are milking
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
I wonder if it’s related to
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
Well, look on the bright side
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.
https://www.theguardian.com
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-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge
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.
nbrus 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.
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.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
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…
I updated my post just after you quoted me. This bit of analysis was added…
nbrus wrote:
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.
— BehindTheBikesheds
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.
…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”?
nbrus wrote:
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.
FluffyKittenofTindalos 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. >— FluffyKittenofTindalos 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.— nbrus
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]
nbrus wrote:
Except the law says the bike did have a brake by definition of the action of the thing that propels it, and the prosecution accept that the rider BRAKED from approx 18mph to 10mph.
You can’t even accept the facts given by the prosecution that were used against the convicted nor what the law states.
Jog on troll.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I suppose rubbing your bum against the rear wheel is also a brake, or jamming a pidgeon into your spokes. If you think you can slow a fixie from 18 mph to 10 mph in 1 second while swerving and shouting, then get yourself on you-tube. And you can’t seem to accept the fact that he was convicted of ‘wanton and furious driving’. Pot calling kettle….
nbrus wrote:
Doubling down on the disengenousness?
The pedals are in effect the braking mechanism. Saying it had ‘no brakes’ is an attempt to falsely imply it’s the equivalent of a motorised vehicle with no brakes at all. It isn’t. It has insufficient and not-legal braking capability for use on public roads, sure (and for that the guy deserves a punishment of some sort), but it’s not akin to a car with ‘no brakes’.
You also assume I’m concerned with defending Aliston. Where have I done that? I’m just pissed off at the level of double-standards revealed in the coverage and commentary on this case, am unimpressed by the Police’s remarkably non-rigorous attempt at working out the braking distance, and just generally find your highly selective concern with pedestrian safety irritating.
As for the hypothetical lorry case you raise – well, yes, that’s the point, such a case would get nothing like the attention this one does, might not even lead ot a prosecution yet alone a conviction, and what commentary there was would be trying to excuse the driver (and I suspect you’d be on here busily trying to do just that).
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
[there are no brakes]
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Doubling down on the disengenousness?
The pedals are in effect the braking mechanism. Saying it had ‘no brakes’ is an attempt to falsely imply it’s the equivalent of a motorised vehicle with no brakes at all. It isn’t. It has insufficient and not-legal braking capability for use on public roads, sure (and for that the guy deserves a punishment of some sort), but it’s not akin to a car with ‘no brakes’.
You also assume I’m concerned with defending Aliston. Where have I done that? I’m just pissed off at the level of double-standards revealed in the coverage and commentary on this case, am unimpressed by the Police’s remarkably non-rigorous attempt at working out the braking distance, and just generally find your highly selective concern with pedestrian safety irritating.
As for the hypothetical lorry case you raise – well, yes, that’s the point, such a case would get nothing like the attention this one does, might not even lead ot a prosecution yet alone a conviction, and what commentary there was would be trying to excuse the driver (and I suspect you’d be on here busily trying to do just that).— nbrus
Have you read the road.cc article to which this thread is attached? … it says the bike had no brakes (quote: “He had been riding a track bike without brakes…”) … maybe you should take that up with the authors and explain to them that your definition of a brake is quite different to theirs and that they are wrong. Using your definition of a brake, then rubbing your bum on the rear wheel would also constitute having a brake, hence no bike could ever be regarded as not having a brake. And in one of your posts you even quoted me as saying “… using only his leg power (on rear wheel) …”, which would seem to indicate that I did indeed acknowledge that some kind of method for slowing down was available. But those are not brakes. If PlanetX sold their track bikes as having brakes because by their definition the rider was the brake, then they would have a lot of unhappy customers wanting to sue them. If anyone is disengenuous its you.
And please don’t get all hysterical on me :=)
My apparently highly selective concern with pedestrian safety would seem to be because a pedestrian was killed, which is related to the topic being discussed here. Maybe I should go off-topic (as you do) and post unrelated material about some motorist that nearly ran down a cyclist last week? Yes, I am concerned about cyclist safety, but that’s not the topic here.
And you’re right … this case has attracted far too much media attention, but that’s the media for you … go take it up with them.
And regarding the police’s apparent non-rigorous attempts at working out braking distance … are you suggesting they hire Chris Hoy to do the testing for them and will it make much difference to the case? Maybe they should have gotten Alliston himself to run the tests? Do we even know the exact speeds and distances involved in the incident and do we know exactly when Alliston started to slow down? Everything is estimated and hopefully in favour of the accused. Since the prosecution accepted that Allinston’s speed had slowed from 18 mph to 10 mph at impact, then that would suggest that they gave him a lot of leeway with that estimate, so exactly how is it that the Police braking tests have negatively affected the outcome?
And why would you say that I would be sticking up for a lorry driver that killed a cyclist? I am a cyclist, and sticking up for justice and fair play is what matters. If you think I should be a millitant cyclist that always sides against motorists and pedestrians just because I am a cyclist, then I’m glad to disappoint you.
nbrus wrote:
I’m sorry, I know you’ve worked harder on your latest incarnation but the mask has truly slipped.
Calling the police’s actions “apparent non-rigorous”. Really? When an incident occurs and a road is closed for a crash investigation team to come in, do you anticipate this level of shoddiness? Demonstrating stopping distances with a totally different type of bike (weight, tyres et al), is this OK? Demonstrating how quickly one might stop in a surprise situation by putting out cones and using inconsistent and unrecorded speed, is this OK?
It demonstrates 2 things to me; a worrying desire to prove a point as opposed to produce evidence and if this is how shoddy they are with something quite simple, how can we trust them with dna for example.
“I am a cyclist” I don’t believe you. If you think you are sticking up for justice you are a million miles short, or from the METs police test about 18 seconds stopping distance. Justice with what has happened in this case would see hundreds of old cases re-opened. Cases where cyclists or pedestrians have been killed and motorists walk away with small fines and points on their license should all be treated as manslaughter until the motorist can prove otherwise.
alansmurphy wrote:
“I am a cyclist” I don’t believe you. If you think you are sticking up for justice you are a million miles short, or from the METs police test about 18 seconds stopping distance. Justice with what has happened in this case would see hundreds of old cases re-opened. Cases where cyclists or pedestrians have been killed and motorists walk away with small fines and points on their license should all be treated as manslaughter until the motorist can prove otherwise.— alansmurphy
You are right as regards the non-rigorous police braking test, but how much difference would a more rigorous approach have made to the outcome? The police testing did show that a bike with normal brakes was able to come to a stop within 3 m whereas Allinson had failed to avoid a collision with 6.53 m stopping distance. If he had had proper brakes then he would still have been guilty for not using them.
I don’t trust the Police to gather evidence either, but they aren’t all incompetent … just like in any profession, some are better than others. I’m not sure exactly what their remit is, but if a case involved a cyclist getting killed by a lorry, then I’m sure you’d be hoping that they would be trying to secure a conviction, but without fabricating evidence of course.
The justice system includes a jury made up of people like me and you, so if it seems unfair, then that could be due to loopholes in the law (and a good lawer will help you exploit them), or more likely the general public not having full access to all the details of the case and reasons how/why particular judgments were made. We all know how easy it is to draw incorrect conclusions from insufficient facts. Or maybe the system is simply rigged against cyclists and pedestrians? Do we know this to be the case? The legal system is far from perfect that’s for certain, no disagreement there.
I try to keep an open mind and remain open to changing my opinion if new evidence/arguments suggest my current opinion is wrong. Others may have different opinions, that’s totally fine.
nbrus wrote:
Don’t know where you get ‘Chris Hoy’ from – I am suggesting they involve someone who knows something about how to conduct tests in a scientific manner. Otherwise what they produce is worthless.
As for the “I’m a cyclist myself” cliche – I don’t care. Don’t know why you think that matters.
I actually suspect you are first-and-foremost a motorist (and for a regular driver to use a claim to be a cyclist in this sort of debate is a bit like a meat-eater claiming to be a vegetarian because they sometimes eat vegetables). But that’s just an aside.
Your mode-of-travel isn’t relevant anyway, the important point is that you are clearly instinctively very conservative. Hence your determination to always defend the status-quo.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’d like to think I was balanced and open minded. I try to look at the evidence without picking sides. It is always wrong to start with an opinion and then look at ways to make the evidence fit, because you will always find a way to make it fit.
nbrus, I don’t know Old
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.
alansmurphy wrote:
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.
nbrus wrote:
Have no idea what you are talking about or what point this is supposed to make.
nbrus wrote:
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!
alansmurphy wrote:
Your horn must be worn out, I do hope you carry spares.
nbrus wrote:
Little blue pills
Probably at my most cynical
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.
Gus T wrote:
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.
This might be useful,
This might be useful, although it is refering to motorbikes, but seems like general good practice…
https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/learners/i-want-ride/starting-ride
nbrus]
Does that also apply to pedestrians, or only wheeled vehicles?
If so, looking at your mobile phone and walking out into the road without looking are probably not covered by this.
Learning to be a good
Learning to be a good motorcyclist
Good riding isn’t just about learning the rules of the road: your skill and your attitude as a rider are vital too, and you’ll keep learning and developing these over the years.
A good rider:
Carries a donor card.
Fixed that for you x
alansmurphy wrote:
A good rider:
Carries a donor card.
Fixed that for you x— alansmurphy
Does that also apply to pedestrians? … no need to answer that.
nbrus wrote:
I will answer that. It would be good, and thanks munge for the link.
Yes I was being facetious but you want to bob around between responsibilities and vehicles et al, whilst claiming below that you do not.
Nobody has suggested that the accused (or convicted in this case) couldn’t have done more in terms of the bike. However, you keep taking things to the n’th degree which can only ever lead to staying indoors in bubble wrap. At a very simple level; cars are 400 times more likely to kill a pedestrian, crossing a road whilst distracted is stupid and riding with less than adequate brakes is negligence.
I’m thinking a fine and some
I’m thinking a fine and some community service would be about right.
It was an accident after all, but he was riding a bike which he knew couldn’t stop quickly although he didn’t know it was illegal. He should have been going slower around pedestrians given his inability to stop quickly in response to a hazard. Someone died. He has to take some responsibility for this.
nbrus, a fixed-gear is
nbrus, a fixed-gear is considered to be a braking system, can you just accept that and make some sort of useful point?
Donor registration.
Donor registration.
http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk
Make sure your next of kin are aware of your wish to be a donor.
This so-called bicycle
This so-called bicycle “stopping distance” test defies belief. I mean in a back street and without sound or commentary – since when has silent movies been acceptable? Seriously, this cannot be legit, particularly that the cone is visible to the test rider way back from his long starting point. Presumably, the cone acts a point where he should brake. So is this not cheating, giving him a massive long head start to react and brake? Don’t they know this not how it is in the real world. So where is the hazard that should have sprung up directly into his path 6.53 meters in front of him? Also, in the first test it appears he is cheating again by having his hand already over the left brake lever going alongside the light brown fence and probably braking by as much as 10 meters before the cone. Wearing black gloves and poor video quality, only suggests an attempt to conceal this and other suspect detail.
If this test rider is to be believed that he managed stop from 18mph in “3 meters”, why does the rear wheel not lift off the ground? As a teenager, I have actually somersaulted when I suddenly braked in a panic and, as an adult, experienced the back wheel lifting during heavy braking. Also its odd that the goon in the green coat is only present in the second test and, also having their faces blurred, makes them look guilty as hell.
To react and brake to a stop safely in 6.53m whilst travelling at 8m per sec, could any human have done so in that split second? Only last week, I was put to the test having just turned a corner and forced into a left to right dance motion with a pedestrian who suddenly appeared in my path, despite a lit zebra crossing only a few meters ahead that he could have used. I had no time to flick my fingers over the brake levers and only the swift actions of stirring, changing directions opposite to his, I was able to avoid a collision. What helped here was that i was central in the lane, which gave me room to manoeuvre safely. May be its time all cyclists ride in the middle of the lane to help guard against going through this hell.
With my experience, I believe Alliston was correct, “front brakes would not have made any difference.” Brakes are not be all and end all as accidents still occur even with the best all round brakes. I myself and a family member have been hit by a car and drivers were not blamed because we did not look before crossing. So, equally, this case is no different here, Alliston is not to blame for the accident apart from the offence of no front brakes.
This test is a cheat and an insult to experienced cyclists. Obviously, bad cyclists need dealing with, but only properly. I hope this is not the benchmark that cops and cps will now use and frame cyclists with much harsher offences than they deserve. Allistin, incidentally, has no reports of prior crashes so I believe they used this dubious test to frame him.
Reports of speeding were false and the media used this to demonise and gang up on him when he was only 18. Had the victim been a male and non-white, would this media have gone into such frenzy when they don’t with drivers who kill? The irony is, if only Alliston was cycling a little faster, then he would have passed Kim Briggs safely before she stepped into the road. No one has explained why Kim Briggs did not jump out of the way and save herself from the accident which all pedestrians i have witnessed do.
Shame on the judge and jury for not considering the life saving green cross code. Failing this, they failed to promote its value and, effectively, demoted it out of existence, giving green light for pedestrians to cross roads unsafely and willy-nilly.
projectcyclingfittness wrote:
Are you saying that Track bikes should be made road legal? You seem to be suggesting that any pedestrian killed by a cyclist is always the pedestrians fault because they should have been looking where they are going.
nbrus wrote:
I’d say the reverse – that maybe the ban on front-brakeless track-bikes on the road should actually be enforced. If Aliston had been told, even with just a caution or something, to fit front brake before this point, everyone would have been far better off.
But then it seems no road rules are enforced these days, for motorists or anyone else.
Having mentioned the crash-strewn road the other day, the very next day passed the aftermath of a nasty motorcycle crash on it (groups of motorcyclists and even quad-bikers regularly zoom up and down that road, sometimes doing wheelies – on one past occasion one came off his steed and flew across the pavement in front of me).
Loads of cops and an ambulance were all in attendance…then a big crowd of kids on bikes came along the road, without a single light or reflector between them, to stop and gawp. Needless to say the cops didn’t seem to even notice the lack of lights on the bikes. (Pretty sure it was after lighting up time)
The authorities appear to have entirely given up on enforcing the rules of the road.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Are you saying that Track bikes should be made road legal? You seem to be suggesting that any pedestrian killed by a cyclist is always the pedestrians fault because they should have been looking where they are going.
— nbrus I’d say the reverse – that maybe the ban on front-brakeless track-bikes on the road should actually be enforced. If Aliston had been told, even with just a caution or something, to fit front brake before this point, everyone would have been far better off. But then it seems no road rules are enforced these days, for motorists or anyone else. Having mentioned the crash-strewn road the other day, the very next day passed the aftermath of a nasty motorcycle crash on it (groups of motorcyclists and even quad-bikers regularly zoom up and down that road, sometimes doing wheelies – on one past occasion one came off his steed and flew across the pavement in front of me). Loads of cops and an ambulance were all in attendance…then a big crowd of kids on bikes came along the road, without a single light or reflector between them, to stop and gawp. Needless to say the cops didn’t seem to even notice the lack of lights on the bikes. (Pretty sure it was after lighting up time) The authorities appear to have entirely given up on enforcing the rules of the road.— projectcyclingfittness
Its difficult to prosecute children for having no lights on their bikes … there are just too many of them for a start. I think in general the police will ignore minor infringments unless there is an accident. They don’t have the manpower to deal with it. They will also tend to focus on the event for which they were called out.
Maybe manufacturers like PlanetX should put warning stickers on their track bikes to say that they are not road legal without the addition of a front brake?
On another thought … shouldn’t the Police have been comparing the stopping distance on a bike with the worst available road legal brakes to see if having proper brakes would have made a difference? Would that speed reduction have been sufficient to avoid killing Mrs Briggs? In their favour (normal brakes test) they did do their testing in the wet. They also claimed a ‘butchers bike’ would have been able to stop … where is the evidence of that test?
Serious skulduggery and the
Serious skulduggery and the most pathetic stopping distance “test” known to mankind. Do these goons think it meets the government approved tests? Anything less then an actual recreation of the accident does not cut it and should have been thrown out of court.
Q. So what kind of a judge and jury accepts this as valid evidence in a court without questions? A. Anti-cylists lobbyists.
Q. Why are the cops faces blurred? A. Prevent being identified and implicated in this fraudulant “test” – similarly when cops shoot and kill people and end up in court, their force will not reveal their true identy. Poor quality silent video and no graduated distance markers (as there on the road with speed cameras) alone makes it suspect. More incriminating evidence in the 1st test where rider actually has his hand over the left brake lever (see image) and clearly slowing down long before the cone. Maybe we should do our own test and stick them on the road and ride towards them at 18mph and brake 3m before them and see if they jump out of the way. Charlie Alliston was victimised and this was a malicious prosecution and now there’s a witch hunt against cyclists. The only thing that can explain why Kim Briggs jumped in front of moving traffic not even considered was suicide.