[brooksby]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

So how come this guy is facing manslaughter charges whereas if he’d been driving a car he’d be able to say the sun was in his eyes and just walk away… (probably).

Topic

[ktache]

Head injuries, those driving

Head injuries, those driving helmets might have come in useful then.

[Woldsman]

wycombewheeler wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Any chance of seeing any charges for this?

Relaxevous. DFS will so throw the book at the driver if the Scotchguard™ protection is scuffed on that bloke’s sofa.

[wycombewheeler]

Any chance of seeing any
Any chance of seeing any charges for this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41140279
How that can not qualify as dangerous driving is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

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.

[RMurphy195]

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.

[rogermerriman]

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Has anything been made of the fact that he seemed unharmed by the collision but she seemed to have a eggshell for a skull? I’ve no idea if it can be used as a defence angle but seems odd that there’s such catastrophic difference between two people? 

 

quite apart from the eggshell legal rule.

 

In my experince people have wildly different outcomes from very simular events, people can have quite poor outcomes with out a fracture to the skull. and equally have number of fractures yet just walk away from it, it’s not the skull that matters but the little grey cells.

[FluffyKittenofTindalos]

Vehlin wrote:

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-manslaughter-over-bath-tipper-truck-crash

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?)

[MrB123]

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Has anything been made of the fact that he seemed unharmed by the collision but she seemed to have a eggshell for a skull? I’ve no idea if it can be used as a defence angle but seems odd that there’s such catastrophic difference between two people? 

There is in fact a legal doctrine called the eggshell skull rule. Have a Google for it.

[Anonymous]

Has anything been made of the

Has anything been made of the fact that he seemed unharmed by the collision but she seemed to have a eggshell for a skull? I’ve no idea if it can be used as a defence angle but seems odd that there’s such catastrophic difference between two people? 

[beezus fufoon]

things have gone downhill

things have gone downhill since Dave Prowse gave up his Green Cross Code Man outfit for Darth Vader

[brooksby]

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I haven’t actually seen any reporting of why the woman took so long to cross, or went back and forth before freezing, or whatever; has anyone seen any? (pretty much all the coverage I’ve seen has been about the cyclist). (edited to tidy up 21/08/2017)

[fatsmoker]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Pretty straightforward case in my opinion. If you ride a bike in the road without brakes it is illegal and therefore negligent. If you kill someone whilst riding such a bike then a charge of manslaughter is reasonable. It is up to the jury as to whether the negligence was sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict. (I have long argued for manslaughter charges to be brought against motorists who kill vulnerable road users, the irony of a cyclist being charged with it is not lost on me)

Interesting comparison with the Sam Boulton case (Leicester cyclist killed last year). The driver of the van that actually ran him over was drunk, ie illegally driving, therefore negligent. He got off with a ban and a suspended 26 month jail sentence after pleading huilty to drink driving and failing to stop after an accident.  The defence argument was that he couldn’t have avoided the cyclist even if he’d been sober. 

Seems like the defence in this case could make a similar argument – the dude had slowed, had chosen a line to avoid her, she stepped back into his path.

[Anonymous]

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

The rider slowed, this is accepted, that’s one thinking/slowing time frame, that the deceased then does not react to audiable warnings in any rational way nor do the expected and simply continue walking forward out of the way (and they’ve already dawdled at best to not even cross one side of the carriageway in the 3.8seconds which is hugely unsual in itself) means the accused has to make another set of thinking decisions, that’s thinking and braking plus another thinking period as to what to do with an unexpected/variable happening infront of him at about 6-9 metres away that he’s trying to avoid but not sure what they are going to do.

The front brake in itself is immaterial unless you are going to apply the same set of braking rules (of coming to a complete stop ALL the time whenever it looks like or that a pedestrian does cross in front of you unexpectedly at ANY given distance AND that you transit along the highway at a speed at least 1/3 less than the indicated if not half at all these times. Again, that rarely happens if ever in normal conditions, to expect this person to adhere to rules that are not applied every day for all types is ludicrous at best. That’s on top of there being form for the law ignoring the braking capability of a vehicle type known to kill and maim by the tens of thousands each year (precedence set then) and that the police apparently only enforce the law/rules or enforce the law with a totally different set of rules when they see fit and particularly against people on bikes.

You cannot start applying rules/laws differently, not change physics/how humans think and how fast they think and how often they have to re-assess what’s happening infront of them in a high stress situation, it was obviously a high stress situation by mere fact of how the defendant reacted directly afterwards. Overloading the brain means you can’t act out perfect lab test scenarios on the road otherwise cycle helmets would be closer to being 86% effective at reducing head injuries which they aren’t, not even close.

Bullshit. The prosecuting case is simple. If the cyclist had a front brake then the whole scenario would have been different. Without a front brake AND with a fixed gear you cannot slow down anywhere near as quickly. You talk about high stress situations? IF the cyclist had a front brake there is little doubt he would have grabbed a fistful of it and things would have been different. The fact is, all of the scenario/reactions/stress outcomes you have speculated/described are not just a result of a pedestrian stepping out carelessly onto a road, they are a result too of the vehicle involved. In this a case one which was defective and illegal and, without doubt, contributed to the outcome.

He DID slow down, to 10mph, this would be a reasonable speed to be able to simply pass behind any ped walking across the road in any normal fashion with an element of safety in mind, that he did not have a front brake for when the pedestrian walked back into his path makes is utterly meaningless. he simply would not have had the time to reavaluate again and be able to do anything.

I’ve being in this situation myself, teenage lad sprints out despite me adjusting my road position early (in case he stepped off the kerb), eyeballed him, reducing speed and still he sprang out and we collided. he was uninjured, yet I had a fractured elbow, fractured hand and a damaged bike. What then if he’d suffered a serious head injury or died, what if I had died, would he or I be at fault? I have very powerful brakes, was covering them, had done all I could safety wise and still I could not avoid the collision. if you had watched it it would have looked like he deliberately aimed his run to knock me off (it wasn’t obviously) If that had being a motorvehicle he’d have being seriously injured at best. yes I did shout at him and give him a sound telling off and in front of his dad who’d got out of his car (to where he was crossing to) he was bloody lucky it was just a bike, I was not so fortunate that someone made an error I could not account for

Yesterday whilst turning into my estate a guy on a BSO had turned just ahead, i rode wide to overtake him and just as I was coming past he decided to turn across the lane to get to the other side of the road without looking but pulled back as he saw me pretty much on the dividing line and he apologised. This was an occasion that the distance/his speed and direction and my positioning worked out.

You simply cannot know if having a front brake would have made any difference, you can’t know that for the reasons I gave. Motorvehicles have brakes on all four corners, they still hit things that have gone into their path and done the unexpected and blame not allayed to the driver. Simply because of thinking time, outcomes that are unexpected/not logical, panic and other factors which make the collision unavoidable.

Why do F1 cars with amazing brakes still crash into each other? It doesn’t matter if you have the best brakes in the world some situations cannot be avoided. this is also why disc brakes won’t work from a safety POV for people on road bikes.

 

[davel]

kevvjj wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

IF the cyclist had a front brake there is little doubt he would have grabbed a fistful of it and things would have been different.

While we’re on hypotheticals, if he’d grabbed his front brake, gone over the bars, landed on his head and ended up dead, one thing is certain: the (much smaller) story would be the idiot cyclist who wasn’t wearing a helmet.

Something’s rotten in Medialand…

[alansmurphy]

Stig, tricky one. Evans will
Stig, tricky one. Evans will sell you a track bike online and nowhere does it mention not legal for use on the roads, maybe the next PPI 🙂

But in all honesty as a non driver and 20 year commuting cyclist, there’s plenty of laws, rules etc. I don’t know. The pedal reflectors (ridiculous) is one I didn’t know til frequenting here as was our exemption to speeding. I also use a cycle path where traffic turning into a doctors is meant to give way to the path, it took me a year to spot it and as yet no cars have. I suppose they’d need 365 trips to the doctors… Strange what you’re programmed to question or not…

[Author]

Replies