The Metropolitan Police have released a video that they claim shows comparative stopping distances between a police mountain bike equipped with front and rear brakes, and one with no brakes at all.
The video was made public alongside a press release issued yesterday following the conclusion of the trial at the Old Bailey of cyclist Charlie Alliston.
But it raises a number of questions about the methodology used by the Met to conduct their stopping distance tests.
• Was the police rider an experienced fixed gear cyclist? A number of those who have watched the police video suggest the rider in the video does not appear to be experienced at riding that type of bike.
• Did the police test Alliston’s bike with and without a front brake to find out what the exact difference in stopping distances would have been?
• Did they test another rim braked bike with thinner road tyres? The police bike is heavier and has fatter tyres which should help it stop in a shorter distance than a lighter bike with thinner tyres.
• Did the police perform multiple runs to establish an average stopping distance?
Alliston, aged 20 and from Bermondsey, was acquitted yesterday of the manslaughter of 44-year-old Kim Briggs, who died from head injuries sustained as the pair collided on London’s Old Street.
However, he was found guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious cycling, and could face jail when he is sentenced next month, with the offence carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
> Charlie Alliston cleared of manslaughter of Kim Briggs but convicted of wanton and furious driving
It is unclear whether the video released by the Metropolitan Police is the same as one shown to a jury at the trial last week, and we are seeking clarification on that issue and the others raised above. As at the time of publication of this article, we had not received a reply.
During the trial, the Crown did not dispute that Mrs Briggs had stepped out into the road in front of Alliston.
Instead, one of the central pillars of their case was that his bike – a fixed-wheel Planet X track model – did not have a front brake.
Not only did that mean it was not legal for use on the road, but it was argued that if it had been equipped with one, he may have been able to stop in time, or at least that the collision, during which their heads clashed, would have been less severe.
While Alliston was described in court as a former courier – more recently, he has been working as a scaffolder – it is unclear how experienced or skilled he was at riding a fixed-gear bike, although it appears he had been doing so for at least a year before the fatal collision.
Caspar Hughes, who is on the co-ordinating group of campaign organisation Stop Killing Cyclists, told road.cc: “If Charlie Alliston had a front brake Kim Briggs might still have been here regardless of whether she looked before she walked out or not.
“But this terrible case highlights the double standards in how the national press report fatalities by drivers compared to people riding bikes.”
Hughes is a highly experienced fixed-wheel bike rider. He spent a decade as a cycle courier in London, before founding roller racing business Rollapaluza, which celebrates its tenth birthday this week.
We asked him his opinion of the distance it took the second cyclist to stop in the video.
He said: “It is hard to gauge how experienced the rider in the police video is at bringing his bike to a dead stop, but I know I can bring my bike to a halt much quicker than he did using nothing but the drive train.”
Evidence presented by the police at the trial suggested that Alliston had been riding at 18mph and was 6.53 metres from Mrs Briggs when she stepped into the road.
It was claimed that his braking distance was 12 metres but would have been 3 metres had his bike had a front brake fitted – something that Martin Porter QC, writing in the Guardian Bike Blog, said “is frankly absurd.”
Porter, a club cyclist and cycling advocate who has represented cyclists and their families in a number of cases, said that based on a formula in the book Bicycling Science by MIT emeritus professor David Wilson, the stopping distances here would have been 13.5 metres with no front brake, and 6.5 metres if one were fitted.
It’s worth noting, though, that in the police video, the first bike is indeed shown stopping after 3 metres, albeit from a slower speed of 15mph, and it is a different kind of bike to the one Alliston was riding and has two brakes.
Porter also made the point, as others have done, that the braking distance for a car being driven at 20mph – the location where the crash happened – is 12 metres, according to the Highway Code, and that in those circumstances, as well as in this case, reaction time also needed to be factored in.
> Husband of woman killed by cyclist calls for changes to law on dangerous cycling
























81 thoughts on “Metropolitan Police stopping distance video in Charlie Alliston trial raises questions”
Quote:
Oh good, another Alliston thread, but here we go.
Are all rim brakes the same?
Do the police do similar tests on motorised vehicles?
Do the police climb all over trucks just to see what the blind spot is?
The upshot of this case is that we should start to see more rigorous investigative work by the police and more custodial sentences for drivers.
don simon wrote:
Yes
Yes
Fatal accidents are rigorously investigated. Sentencing is a matter for the courts and the law, and outwith the gift of the police investigation.
durandal wrote:
So why don’t they publicise it like what they done here?
durandal wrote:
If all fatal acidents are “rigorously investigated” this way then they are obviously an utter shambles….
durandal wrote:
I seem to remember in a certain case a police investigator claiming that a motorist could not be expected to react within 5 seconds.
durandal wrote:
When I’ve read about the police doing similar things with a car which has been involved in a fatal collision, they use the same make and model of car with the same tyres at the same location with the same weather conditions and it is loaded the same. None of which apply to this test, so it is anything but rigorous.
don simon]
[quote wrote:
How are drivers in any way related to this? The car is about a woman who lost her life and a cyclist on an illegal, non-roadworthy machine. This has fuck all to do with drivers!
Applecart]
You forgotten which bridge you live under again?
Applecart]
‘Cos both cyclists and drivers use the same fucking roads, with the same fucking rules. ‘Cos a fucking driver can kill and get a few points for careless driving while an equally carefuckingless cyclist is charged with manslaughter.
Get the fuck with it.
OK?
Applecart]
Oh the irony of this comment when compared with nearly every story I’ve ever read about a cyclist and car incident.
The only other person who is blamed as much for anything in the news is Donald Trump…who probably once rode a bicycle…
That’s a ridiculous
That’s a ridiculous comparison.
They could at least have got a fixie with thin tyres and brakes and get an experienced fixie rider to stop with the brakes, remove them and do without. The guy stopping is clearly not experienced…where was the oh so cool skid?
like it posited on the other
like it posited on the other thread. no comparsion between a mtb and a fixie with 1 brake. not a fair comparison at all.
i can almost guarantee i would not be able to stop a roadbike within 3m with two good brakes. Road tyres do not grip the road under heavy braking, they skid, they have always done this, they always will. once the wheel is locked up, that really small contact patch is not enough to stop, it just loses traction and slides. The only other option on a roadbike, with two brakes, is to hard brake the front wheel and try to control the lift of the rear wheel. do this in 3m? never
The whole scenario is a joke.
I’m sorry but the ONLY valid
I’m sorry but the ONLY valid test here would have been:-
The same bike with and without a front brake, any other test is meaningless
RedfishUK wrote:
Almost right. To be at least remotely valid, the same bike would have to be used, with a rider experienced in riding both fixie and other bikes, but crucially, the test would have to be done multiple times, with the stop signal to the rider being random, so they wouldn’t know whether they were stopping or not. If they knew they were going to stop, the test is not realistic enough to be valid and it should have been challenged by the defence.
burtthebike wrote:
This, and same rider weight, in fact because the tester would have known the signal was coming they’d still have a significant advantage, also that of not having multiple scenario unfold plus fear/panic/emotions possibility of being hurt/hurting someone which all takes up valuable time.
Human beings are not fucking robots as plod/prosecution are trying to insist you have to be to be not found guilty.
I look forward to the same set of values being applied on UK roads from now on for all user types with the resulting tens of thousands of motorists being charged with dangerous driving annually for relatively minor incidents that may or may not result in death or injury. the brakes in themselves were in any case not relevant given the timescales involved, the expectation is that he could think faster than any human having had to make multiple decisions/thought processes as I described above. ones that motorists are not expected to do every single day and due to that are absolved with regularity despite other factors in any case even aggravating ones such as excess alcohol.
burtthebike wrote:
Almost right. The biggest variable here, IMHO, is the road surface. That video is on perfect tarmac – most cycles don’t have suspension or shock absorbers or anti-lock brakes, the quality of the road surface makes a massive difference to braking distances.
You can apply a great deal more force on a perfect surface. If you apply the same level of force to the front break lever on a poor surface and you hit a road defect, your front wheel may bounce up, when it lands it may lock and if it does, you may well go over the handle bars.
The surface was also looks
Almost certainly such different factors as to be totally inconsistent and therefore should not have been admissible in court.
Unbelievable this “evidence” wasn’t challenged by the defence but it seems it wasn’t…
Also I have read it was “established” in court she wasn’t “distracted” by her mobile phone – yet still seemed to have it in her hand. This doesn’t seem to have been challenged by the defence?! Who the hell was defending him?
According to the Highway Code
According to the Highway Code, stopping distance at 20mph is 12m, half of that is thinking distance, 6m.
If he was doing 18mph and she stepped out 6.53m in front of him… well, I doubt I could have avoided colliding with her let alone grabbed both brakes first and shifted my weight back!
This whole anti-cyclist culture stinks.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
That video clearly shows braking distance and not stopping distance.
There was a recent report stating that the thinking distance in the highway code is too low and we should allow atleast 1 second.
18 mph is a tiny bit more than 8 metres a second.
BTW I’ve long felt that speed limits should be in metres per second, not miles per hour. 30 mph is great, if you want to know how long it might take to drive one mile – but it gives no sense of speed. 13.4 metres in one second, on the other hand, does give a sense of speed.
jh27 wrote:
How many metres is it from Manchester to London? How many seconds would it take to get there?
In short… no.
vonhelmet wrote:
How many metres is it from Manchester to London? How many seconds would it take to get there?
In short… no.— jh27
That is exactly my point. Speed limits do not exist to inform road users of journey times. They exist to enforce and inform road users’ safety. Knowing how long it takes to drive from Manchester to London has no impact on road safety.
As an aside, the last time I drove to Manchester, the average speed was about 20 mph, with large sections of it being travelled on the M6 at less than 5 mph.
If that was used in evidence
If that was used in evidence against me I would be laughing all the way to freedom. The Met should be ashamed that they put that video out.
No question the video looks a
No question the video looks a bit crap
However, the first bike is not a mountain bike, it’s a fixie with flat bars. It might have wider tyres but we have no idea.
The rider doesn’t look like a complete novice, but probably not that experienced (a novice would have been crapping themselves if my experience of riding a fixie is anything to go by). However, who’s to say that everyone on a fixie knows how to/has ability to lock the rear wheel, and in any case, as any self respecting kid will tell you, locking the rear wheel doesn’t help you slow down particularly quickly – all it does it give you a massive skid.
In the video thinking distance is not considered, but it may have been during the court procedings.
We have no idea if this was challenged in court or not – hopefully it was but in my view riding without a front brake is stupid and therefore no surprise that they prosecuted him.
Regardless of all that, if the the media reports are at least partially based on fact, the guys attitude probably hasn’t helped matters, and may have played a big part in the reason for the conviction.
Ultimately though we can type whatever we like but it’s all pretty meaningless, as without the court transcripts, we don’t really have a clue what’s gone down.
Wow where are all the
Wow where are all the boasters about road rim brakrs that we usually find in the technical threads?
So let’s clear out things in braking:
2 wheels braking>front wheel only>rear wheel only
fresh tires>old tires
fat tires>skinny tires
slick tires>threaded tires
hydraulic disks>disks>v-brakes>calipers>rear wheel skid (unless you have the thighs of Sir Hoy)
Please finally accept the above if you haven’t so already, because flat earthers exist everywhere.
cyclisto wrote:
You’re wrong on two brakes being better than front alone. There is hard science behind this.
CygnusX1 wrote:
You’re wrong on two brakes being better than front alone. There is hard science behind this.— cyclisto
Yes I know, you know, in laboratory conditions with grippy tarmac, a good rider but who is simultaneously too bored to shift his weight behind the saddle, yes indeed you may equal braking distances with no rear saddle. But there is rain, slippery tarmac, skinny tires, people who don’t have integrated brake assist in their hands like cars do, people who can shift their weight while braking and of course curves. So in real world conditions a rear brake is needed.
Don’t be fooled though about my intentions, it is extremely idiotic to ride brakeless bike, in my opinion a bike with poor caliper brakes with worn skinny tires too, but city speed limits work in another way. Their concept is not that they are low so that drivers and riders may manage to stop, but so that when the inevitable collision happens, the pedestrian victims may survive. It is idiotic too trying to prove that in panic situation a rider can stop in 3m even more when we are talking about a bike/rider combo with minimal mass and therefore damage he may cause. Simply the victim was very very unlucky just like the people struck by lighting, eaten by a shark and so on.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Only if you’re capable of doing a stoppie with the rear wheel 100% unweighted, but not quite going over the handlebars.
Two brakes are also better than a front alone if your front brake ever fails, which is why the law requires two separate systems in the first place:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/manchester-cyclist-hits-bus-after-brakes-fail-at-traffic-lights-173566
armb wrote:
Only if you’re capable of doing a stoppie with the rear wheel 100% unweighted, but not quite going over the handlebars.
Two brakes are also better than a front alone if your front brake ever fails, which is why the law requires two separate systems in the first place:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/manchester-cyclist-hits-bus-after-brakes-fail-at-traffic-lights-173566
— cyclistoIf you can’t do a stoppie, then your front brake (or tyre) is essentially defective. If you maximise braking through the front wheel then the rear becomes irrelevant.
Been there, done that, still wasn’t enough to avoid hitting a car that pulled out about 6.53m in front of me while I was going 18mph.
armb wrote:
Only if you’re capable of doing a stoppie with the rear wheel 100% unweighted, but not quite going over the handlebars.
Two brakes are also better than a front alone if your front brake ever fails, which is why the law requires two separate systems in the first place:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/manchester-cyclist-hits-bus-after-brakes-fail-at-traffic-lights-173566— cyclisto
Absolutely agree on needing two brakes – but the rear is your backup for a defective front, or for when you are unable to maintain traction with your front wheel (e.g. rough surfaces). If you can’t do a stoppie with an unweighted rear withut going over the bars, you either need to practice or fix your front brakes.
The late Sheldon Brown, though he was not always infallible, was on the money with his write up here:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html
The video is not a good or
The video is not a good or fair comparison.
I don’t really think it matters in this case though.
He had time to shout twice, therefore he had time to brake.
It is obvious that he would have been able to reduce his speed far more quickly with a front brake in situ.
Reduced speed would have made the collision less likely and even if it still occurred it would have involved less energy reducing the likelihood of serious injury.
Rich_cb wrote:
he DID brake, from approx 18mph to approx 10mph (A speed given by the prosecution as within the range of speed upon impact), a speed that you would know is a dawdle and as per pretty much everyone else would be fine to go around someone fart arsing about in the road.
Do you brake to a complete stop as fast as you can possibly manage (Which is what the prosecution are saying you should do to avoid such) at the mere sight of someone potentially going to cross the road or is in the process of crossing the road, either in car or on bike when a fair few metres away? 99.99999% of all situations for all types of road user that would be an absolute no.
he had two lots of thinking to do, the first when he first acknowledged the hazard and braked, that takes up 1.5seconds thinking time for the unexpected situation plus a bit for mechanical action time.
When the deceased failed to get her shit together and cross in a normal fashion as would be expected he would have had yet another set of decisions to make (another 1.5s thinking time for the unexpected step back into him). At this point that is the 3.8sec from her stepping out and thus he had no time to brake further because at 10mph (A slow speed remember, she moves back into him).
Therefore unless you ask every single road user to come to a complete stop every time someone makes a move toward a crossing or a motor, cycle, equine, invalid carriage etc comes to a junction, rounabout you have priority just in case they do the unexpected, then you cannot find the convicted rider of a slow moving bicycle guilty of wanton and furious riding because the law/justice system will not instist on the exact same set of values/responsibilities/actions for all those groups in any given scenario.
We know this already because those rules have being breached time and time and time again with the death of pedestrians and people on bikes by motorists with naught but a slap on the wrist if even any case to answer.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
The point is that once the decision was made to brake he was not able to reduce his speed as effectively without a front brake.
That is undeniable.
Pedestrians do unpredictable things, you’ve previously advocated for motorists remaining vigilant in case of people unexpectedly entering the road.
How is this case any different?
If you’re in an area with a lot of pedestrians reduce your speed and cover your brakes, it’s just common sense.
Rich_cb wrote:
he DID brake, from approx 18mph to approx 10mph (A speed given by the prosecution as within the range of speed upon impact), a speed that you would know is a dawdle and as per pretty much everyone else would be fine to go around someone fart arsing about in the road.
Do you brake to a complete stop as fast as you can possibly manage (Which is what the prosecution are saying you should do to avoid such) at the mere sight of someone potentially going to cross the road or is in the process of crossing the road, either in car or on bike when a fair few metres away? 99.99999% of all situations for all types of road user that would be an absolute no.
he had two lots of thinking to do, the first when he first acknowledged the hazard and braked, that takes up 1.5seconds thinking time for the unexpected situation plus a bit for mechanical action time.
When the deceased failed to get her shit together and cross in a normal fashion as would be expected he would have had yet another set of decisions to make (another 1.5s thinking time for the unexpected step back into him). At this point that is the 3.8sec from her stepping out and thus he had no time to brake further because at 10mph (A slow speed remember, she moves back into him).
Therefore unless you ask every single road user to come to a complete stop every time someone makes a move toward a crossing or a motor, cycle, equine, invalid carriage etc comes to a junction, rounabout you have priority just in case they do the unexpected, then you cannot find the convicted rider of a slow moving bicycle guilty of wanton and furious riding because the law/justice system will not instist on the exact same set of values/responsibilities/actions for all those groups in any given scenario.
We know this already because those rules have being breached time and time and time again with the death of pedestrians and people on bikes by motorists with naught but a slap on the wrist if even any case to answer.
— Rich_cb The point is that once the decision was made to brake he was not able to reduce his speed as effectively without a front brake. That is undeniable. Pedestrians do unpredictable things, you’ve previously advocated for motorists remaining vigilant in case of people unexpectedly entering the road. How is this case any different? If you’re in an area with a lot of pedestrians reduce your speed and cover your brakes, it’s just common sense.— BehindTheBikesheds
So slowing down to 10mph (admitted by prosecution) and diverting around the hazard is not being careful/vigilant in any ordinary circumstance? comparing to the actions of motorists in this instance is total and utter cobblers, motorists rarely show such consideration by comparison and still get off scott free.
As i said, would you yourself come to a complete halt as immediately as is physically possible (or even less than is pyhsically possible going by the prosecutions ridiculous/spurious claims) when a pedestrian is seemingly going to cross the road or does cross in front of you some distance away?
Well, do you, if not, why not? I don’t need you to answer because I know full well that that would rarely if ever happen in the same circumstances that the convicted faced, I include myself and everyone else in that.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You can’t call for stricter sentencing when motorists kill vulnerable road users and not apply the same standards when cyclists do.
That’s hypocrisy.
I would like to see manslaughter charges brought against motorists in similar situations.
The cyclist in this case took reasonable action once the lady stepped in front of him but those actions were insufficient to avoid a collision.
If he had even riding a legal bicycle his braking would have been superior and he could either have avoided the collision or it would have occurred at a much lower speed reducing the likelihood of harm.
I will reduce my speed quite substantially if there are pedestrians in the road ahead, I also keep an eye on the pavement for any pedestrians who look like they may be about to step out.
Will that prevent all collisions? Obviously not but if a collision does occur I will be able to say that I took all reasonable steps to avoid it.
The cyclist in this case could not do that due to the simple fact he was riding an illegal bicycle.
Rich_cb wrote:
So slowing down to 10mph (admitted by prosecution) and diverting around the hazard is not being careful/vigilant in any ordinary circumstance? comparing to the actions of motorists in this instance is total and utter cobblers, motorists rarely show such consideration by comparison and still get off scott free.
As i said, would you yourself come to a complete halt as immediately as is physically possible (or even less than is pyhsically possible going by the prosecutions ridiculous/spurious claims) when a pedestrian is seemingly going to cross the road or does cross in front of you some distance away?
Well, do you, if not, why not? I don’t need you to answer because I know full well that that would rarely if ever happen in the same circumstances that the convicted faced, I include myself and everyone else in that.
— Rich_cb You can’t call for stricter sentencing when motorists kill vulnerable road users and not apply the same standards when cyclists do. That’s hypocrisy. I would like to see manslaughter charges brought against motorists in similar situations. The cyclist in this case took reasonable action once the lady stepped in front of him but those actions were insufficient to avoid a collision. If he had even riding a legal bicycle his braking would have been superior and he could either have avoided the collision or it would have occurred at a much lower speed reducing the likelihood of harm. I will reduce my speed quite substantially if there are pedestrians in the road ahead, I also keep an eye on the pavement for any pedestrians who look like they may be about to step out. Will that prevent all collisions? Obviously not but if a collision does occur I will be able to say that I took all reasonable steps to avoid it. The cyclist in this case could not do that due to the simple fact he was riding an illegal bicycle.— BehindTheBikesheds
This, and if Alliston has to do time in order to achieve it, I won’t lose any sleep. The prosecution has given us the tools to do it. I would want this prosecution team in my corner if I were to be hit by a motorised vehicle.
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s hypocrisy.— Rich_cb
Is it?
When a cyclist and pedestrian collide, and someone dies – what percentage of those who die are pedestrians and what percentage are cyclists. I know of two recent case where a cyclist and a pedestrian and who stepped into the road have collided, in one case (this case) the pedestrian died, in the other, it was the cyclist.
When a motorist and pedestrian collide, what percentage of motorists die?
How many pedestrians die from a slip/trip/fall without colliding with anyone?
I try to be a cautious as is practical when cycling around pedestrians, but primarily for my own safety as I know that I stand a good chance of coming off worse from any collision. When I drive, I primarily drive safely to avoid injury to others.
Operating a motor vehicle caries much less risk to the driver, which is why they have much greater responsibility.
jh27 wrote:
Yes it is.
If you drive a defective car you’re putting both yourself and other road users in danger.
Ditto for a defective bike.
A defective bike may not be as dangerous as a defective car but it can still be fatal.
That is the crux of the matter, a man rode an illegal bike and a lady died in a collision with that bike.
Had the bike been legal the collision would have either not occurred or occurred at much lower speed reducing the likelihood of injury.
A Bugatti Veyron stops more
A Bugatti Veyron stops more quickly than a Renault Clio from the same speed. I think we should ban all cars that fall below this standard.
Well done MET. They really are making quite a significant rod for the motorists back aren’t they…
As far as I understand it
As far as I understand it Charlie Alliston was riding a bike which did not have a front brake, which is illegal to use on the open road.
At the time of the incident it is said he was doing 18 mph.
He collided with Kim Briggs, who had walked out into the road without seeing him. He tried to slow or stop his bike and avoid the individual, yelling at the Kim. Unavoidably they collided, and in the resulting collision Kim hit her head badly and died from this injury.
Sadly, we don’t know if having a front brake would have changed the outcome for Kim.
Alliston’s personal lack of contrition has made him look very callous in all of this – and his attitude in not accepting blame for this tragic accident has made him a pariah.
But if his crime is being in a fatal accident and having a vehicle that was not road worthy a lot more motorists should consider themselves lucky.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
good summary – maybe could be modifed to “reported personal lack of contrition” – in view of their past record, why should we give the MSM the benefit of doubt over their accuracy of reporting of the emotional aspects?
It gets worse. Look at this
It gets worse. Look at this nonsense from a BBC interviewee.
Mr Lane, who rides a fixie himself with a front brake, suggested that bikes should have to be regularly serviced and checked, much like the MOT system for cars.
Fuck that. MOT for bikes!! Imagine your local spanner monkey at halfords failing your bike for excessive dirt on running gear and requiring you to buy a new chain.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I think you’re missing what an MOT is about. It’s about testing to see if the vehicle is safe to be on the road, not whether it’s running properly or even if it’s correctly maintained (other being kept to a level of being safe).
You could go years without getting your car serviced and it might still pass the MOTs.
Therefore you could go years without replacing things like your chain on your bike or lubing/cleaning it correctly, but it could still be deemed safe if all the rights bits are tight, it has two working brakes and the tyres are pumped up (any bike MOT would be a bit more than that, but you get the idea).
Also, the thing with an MOT is that its a nationally defined test with clear guidelines, unlike the building/checking of a bike at your local shop (halfords or otherwise). Before anyone jumps on this, yes I know many mechanics are cytech certified – myself included – and that there are documentented approaches, but the point is they are not mandatory and applied rigorously.
In some ways an MOT for bikes is good idea, but the problem is that it will likely put many people off cycling, much like making helmets compulsary would.
I’m not surprised that the bloke from LMNH is backing the bike MOT though – don’t they have repair/servicing workshops? It’d be a nice little additional money spinner.
joules1975 wrote:
I think you’re missing what an MOT is about. It’s about testing to see if the vehicle is safe to be on the road, not whether it’s running properly or even if it’s correctly maintained (other being kept to a level of being safe).
You could go years without getting your car serviced and it might still pass the MOTs.
Therefore you could go years without replacing things like your chain on your bike or lubing/cleaning it correctly, but it could still be deemed safe if all the rights bits are tight, it has two working brakes and the tyres are pumped up (any bike MOT would be a bit more than that, but you get the idea).
Also, the thing with an MOT is that its a nationally defined test with clear guidelines, unlike the building/checking of a bike at your local shop (halfords or otherwise). Before anyone jumps on this, yes I know many mechanics are cytech certified – myself included – and that there are documentented approaches, but the point is they are not mandatory and applied rigorously.
In some ways an MOT for bikes is good idea, but the problem is that it will likely put many people off cycling, much like making helmets compulsary would.
I’m not surprised that the bloke from LMNH is backing the bike MOT though – don’t they have repair/servicing workshops? It’d be a nice little additional money spinner.— Yorkshire wallet
I think that you are over estimating how effective MOT’s are for motor vehicles. Certain areas are pretty good, but others not so much. There are lots of people in to car modification who put things back to how they should be for the MOT, then revert to the modified state as soon as they get their certificate. Even relatively normal enthusiasts of some top end manufacturers do things to their vehicles e.g. to improve the sound (temporary mod’s to exhaust systems) or performance (plug in ECU box things) which would make a vehicle fail an MOT if left in the modified state.
If a similar test was introduced for bikes, they are even easier to mess around with. There would be nothing to stop your man in this instance from sticking a front brake on to the bike for an hour, then removing it as soon as it was certified. It would only take about 5-10 min’s.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Any half competent person should be able to check that they have two brakes and inflated tyres. Now unless this proposed MOT has carbon frame X-raying thrown in for less than £50 I’m dead against it.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Next: Timpson’s call for compulsory shoe-inspections for pedestrians.
That test is ridiculous and
That test is ridiculous and surely cant be the basis of a safe prosecution.
And while they’re at it, what about an MOT for horses and careless walking being an offence.
Alliston was riding a bike
Alliston was riding a bike that was illegal to use on the road.
He (unintentionally) killed someone whilst using illegal machine.
Car driver (unintentionally) kills someone whilst using an illegal machine.
Both should expect jail time the length of which is up to the judge and the sentencing guidelines.
When in Dallas a few years
When in Dallas a few years back, I went to the book depository to test if a sniper could have shot JFK from there by dropping a load of napalm on the street below.
What would help our
What would help our understanding would be if the journalists who attended day 1 in court, had also reported on the next 4 days, until the jury was sent out. We’re missing a lot of information from the trial and have no idea how the defence was conducted.
Not sure many would argue
Not sure many would argue that, I cover more with a kid out of a buggy etc. However, you can’t always predict the unpredictable. The main points being raised are why this bloke is being treated so differently to a car driver and wtf were the police trying to do with their ‘evidence’ on stopping distances.
Not come to a complete stop
Not come to a complete stop at every potential situation, but certainly reducing to a speed where a complete stop is an option should the potential situation develop into one that requires such action. This is a basic duty of care around other road users.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Except in real life that rarely ever happens does it?
Do you reduce your speed to say 10mph for every junction, every footway/footpath, roundabout, that woman with a pram is standing 20 metres away, that child with a football exiting the park a good 10m from the crossing or every time a pedestrian looks like they might cross, what about out of town, do you slow to 10mph for every farmers gate/entrance, every unsighted bend in the road, if not why not?
Because you’ve just said that you should slow to a speed that you might be able to come to a complete stop should the unexpected happened (and we are talking last few seconds in fron of you right), or can you stop from say 18mph in less than 3 metres when the unexpected occurs and thus by doing so break the laws of physics as was proposed by the prosecution???
How slow must one slow to for each and every situation I’ve described and others beside, which bike type, rider weight, brake type, rider age (because older people have slower reactions as we know) do you ascribe that for, what about an old side pull braked bike, ridden by a 120kg elderly male, should that mean one slows to 5mph in case little miss steps out a few metres in front or a tractor potentially pulls out of a farmers track. C’mon, please let us know these speeds and for which scenario and which type of bike, brake, person?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Except in real life that rarely ever happens does it?
Do you reduce your speed to say 10mph for every junction, every footway/footpath, roundabout, that woman with a pram is standing 20 metres away, that child with a football exiting the park a good 10m from the crossing or every time a pedestrian looks like they might cross, what about out of town, do you slow to 10mph for every farmers gate/entrance, every unsighted bend in the road, if not why not?
Because you’ve just said that you should slow to a speed that you might be able to come to a complete stop should the unexpected happened (and we are talking last few seconds in fron of you right), or can you stop from say 18mph in less than 3 metres when the unexpected occurs and thus by doing so break the laws of physics as was proposed by the prosecution???
How slow must one slow to for each and every situation I’ve described and others beside, which bike type, rider weight, brake type, rider age (because older people have slower reactions as we know) do you ascribe that for, what about an old side pull braked bike, ridden by a 120kg elderly male, should that mean one slows to 5mph in case little miss steps out a few metres in front or a tractor potentially pulls out of a farmers track. C’mon, please let us know these speeds and for which scenario and which type of bike, brake, person?— Mungecrundle
Pretty much right in principal, though as usual you extrapolate to absurdity. I can give you two recent instances where I have felt the need to reduce speed to significantly below the posted limit.
First scenario, 30 mph urban road, driving. I see a middle aged bloke pursuing a small girl on a bicycle with stabilizers across some grass and towards the curb. I can see he is going to catch her in time but cover the brakes anyway then I see a second small girl legging it at another angle towards the road, she looks to be about 3 years old and there is no other adult in proximity. I stop the car, ready to get out and intercede if necessary. Dad has now caught first wayward daughter, looks up and shouts to second daughter. She doesn’t go into the road.
Scenario 2. End of club ride, I turn into the High Street and see spotty youth. Pair of cans over head, red bull in hand angling towards what I know to be a popular crossing point for peds to the park opposite. I slow, I shout “Oi oi!” as he starts to cross but without much hope that he will hear me I slow to walking pace as he wanders across the road without so much as a glance in my direction.
It’s an accumulation of experience, as you allude to, every journey throws up a novel set of circumstances and permutations. Most peds don’t just randomly jump off the pavement. Most drivers don’t just pull out without looking, but if you are observing what is going on around you then it becomes less challenging to anticipate the actions of other road users and be prepared. My personal standard is that nothing that occurs in your forward field of vision should really come as a surprise.
And to answer a specific challenge, if I was on a country road and came to a truly blind corner or junction, then yes I would slow to whatever speed was necessary to be able to stop within the distance I can see (a favourite phrase of yours I seem to recall whenever you go off on one about hi viz or cycle lights) even if that is 10mph.
This is simply a tragic
This is simply a tragic accident.
It is deeply unlikely that the speed Alliston hit Mrs Briggs contributed to her fatal injury. It seems very unlikely that even with a front brake that he would have avoided her. Mrs Briggs injury was a fatal head injury caused largely by the speed and angle of her head hitting the ground from a fall. My friend’s mother died 2 years ago after slipping on her bottom step and her head hitting the edge of the stairs. This caused a non-reversible head injury and she died 2 days later in hospital. From certain angles human heads are rather delicate (something that helmets try to assist with), and although Alliston hitting her certainly caused the fall, it is almost certain that there is almost nothing about Alliston’s speed that caused the fatal injury.
madcarew wrote:
Complete nonsense.
If he hit her at 0.0001 mph do you think the outcome would have been the same?
Of course it wouldn’t.
Therefore the speed he hit her at was a factor.
All the data on RTCs show that your chance of surviving a collision is inversely proportional to the speed that speed that the collision occurs at.
Rich_cb wrote:
This is simply a tragic accident.
It is deeply unlikely that the speed Alliston hit Mrs Briggs contributed to her fatal injury. It seems very unlikely that even with a front brake that he would have avoided her. Mrs Briggs injury was a fatal head injury caused largely by the speed and angle of her head hitting the ground from a fall. My friend’s mother died 2 years ago after slipping on her bottom step and her head hitting the edge of the stairs. This caused a non-reversible head injury and she died 2 days later in hospital. From certain angles human heads are rather delicate (something that helmets try to assist with), and although Alliston hitting her certainly caused the fall, it is almost certain that there is almost nothing about Alliston’s speed that caused the fatal injury.
— Rich_cb Complete nonsense. If he hit her at 0.0001 mph do you think the outcome would have been the same? Of course it wouldn’t. Therefore the speed he hit her at was a factor. All the data on RTCs show that your chance of surviving a collision is inversely proportional to the speed that speed that the collision occurs at.— madcarew
It’s not complete nonsense. I provided a simple example where someone wasn’t struck with a bicycle but died from (effectively) the same injury. He caused her to fall. His speed (and I quote, so you can read it carefully and take the time to understand) “it is almost certain that there is almost nothing about Alliston’s speed that caused the fatal injury. “
In this case, yes. He could have hit her at .00001 mph. He could have been laying down in front of her, stopped, she tripped, fell and received exactly the same injury. The fall caused her injury (almost certainly). Him running in to her caused the fall. Yes, in RTC the injury is (generally) proportional to the speed squared. This is not true of pedestrians striking pedestrians, or, across the board, of cyclists striking pedestrians. The mechanics are largely different to motor vehicle collisions, which are, of course the largest data set.
madcarew wrote:
It’s still nonsense.
Even if it was the fall that killed her (I’ve not read a single report that states this) the likelihood of her falling and the likelihood of the fall injuring her both increase with the speed of the collision.
The more energy involved in a crash the more likely injury is to occur. Energy is proportional to the square of velocity so speed is the crucial factor here.
To try and dissociate the speed of the collision from the injuries suffered is patently ridiculous.
madcarew wrote:
I’m puzzled why there’s no-one calling for mandatory helmets for pedestrians. Never mind the brakes on the bike – a helmet would have saved her life!
Almost got divorced over this
Almost got divorced over this business last night. Wife told me that she thinks cyclists are going too fast through our town and I said what as opposed to cars going 10-15mph faster and weighing 20x more combined weight? She can’t really substantiate anything, just ‘ feels’ cyclists are going too fast, I counter, she gets strop on as I’m a know it all cyclist.
I told her that as a driver, a motorcyclist, a pedestrian and a cyclist – I feel the least safe as a cyclist. Deaf ears.
If the speed of the cyclist
If the speed of the cyclist was 10-14mph on collision i would be interested to hear the statistics for how many such collisions result in a fatality. I heard that only 20% of collisions with cars at 20mph are fatal so with a bike at half the speed I would think it would be incredibly low.
The police experiments (despite their obvious flaws) seem to show that:
a) the cyclist’s decision to ride a modified bike was no worse than the motorists decision to ride at 20mph in the 30mph zone in a fully equiped car.
b) leaving that decision aside he did remarkably well to get the speed down as much as he did.
If you consider the high number of such bikes supposedly on the London streets. (I’ve never seen one in Dorset) If it was as reckless as the prosecution seem to say there would be a long queue of such cases to try. It clearly is not the problem they claim.
Whilst one fatality is a tragedy. If you mix pedestrains cycles and motors in one zone there will always be casualties.
There is an offence of riding an unroadworthy bike, he is guilty of that. Personally I think that is all. To prosecute further for the fatality is holding cyclists to a far higher standard than is demanded of other road users.
I think the police video is
I think the police video is significantly flawed.
Having been involved in an accident on my road bike, where a car pulled out of a junction in front of me and I was doing 18.4mph(according to my Garmin) when the car pulled out of a junction ahead of me, I would reckond the car was about 5m in front of me when they pulled out of the junction.
I had been covering the brakes as I had spotted the car at the junction, yet despite this fact, and the fact that my bike had two working brakes. I had enough time to shed a few mph of speed but still struck the side of the car with enough force to split the frame of my bike in 3 places.
As many people have commented the correct tests should have been a fixie with a front brake and without a front brake, with the same size of rider and the same tyres under the same road conditions. That’s before you get into the nuances of low end brake calipers and blocks vs high end calipers and blocks.
If the prosecution are
If the prosecution are correct in saying that the deceased was 6.35 metres away from the cyclists when she stepped out into the road, the thinking distance alone at 20mph is 6 metres. So if we call it 5.35 metres from 18mph, gives the guy 1 metre braking distance. Even by the Police standards, he still would have hit the woman at some speed.
It took the Police 3.1 metres from 15mph to stop, so 5mph per metre. In the one metre he had to stop, he reduced his speed by up to 8mph and by a minimum of 4mph. This is entirely in line with the results of the Police video using two brakes.
He wasn’t cycling a defective bike which has been mentioned when it comes to comparing cars and bikes, the bike was perfectly okay. It wasn’t appropriate nor legal to be on the road as the law states that a bike needs two means of stopping, although there are caveats. For example, you can ride a penny farthing legally on the road without any brakes, but if you have a trike, the rear brake must act upon both rear wheels. However for a recumbent bike, the rules are unclear as the need for two brakes is designated by the height of the seat (needs to be above 635mm above the ground). Who reading this knew that?
jigr69 wrote:
He had time to shout out twice before the impact therefore he had time to brake.
The bike may have been ‘OK’ by your definition but it was illegal and incapable of stopping as quickly as an equivalent legal bicycle.
Rich_cb wrote:
The bike was perfectly okay in any sense of the definition, but wasn’t legal to be where it was, don’t think any disputes that fact. That is something that everyone agrees on. The guy is also an idiot for doing so, likewise his comments afterwards didn’t help the situation.
Muscles take longer to react and enact than a mouth does to say anything.
When cycling and driving if an obstacle suddenly appears infront of you, your first thought is, can I avoid it. If you cannot avoid it, then stopping and hoping for the best is the next and last resort. That is called the reaction time since in the process of that thinking etc, you car or bike is still moving forward.
If he had a front brake, he would still have to move his hands onto the brake after his thought process had gone through the process. A roadie on the tops or drops would have to do the same.
Have you ever seem two people walking down the street, try to avoid each other and end up bumping into each other? They didn’t just stop dead, but tried to avoid the issue by going around the obstacle, if the other person does precisely the same but in the opposite direction, you are still on a collision course. Sometimes this happens two or three times with one person normally commenting about having a dance.
He saw the deceased, tried to avoid her by going on the inside of her, between kerb and her, but she stepped back and they collided. A tragic accident, yes. An unavoidable one, I don’t think so.
jigr69 wrote:
You do know that speech involves the use of muscles right?
It is a far more complex process to form and vocalise words than to simply move a limb.
If he had a brake he should have been covering it in that situation anyway.
Even if he wasn’t the time taken to move his hand on to the brake and use it would be far less than the time taken to shout out a warning.
Regardless he had time to shout out twice and he had time to begin braking, had he had legal brakes he would have reduce his speed far more effectively and the lady may well still be alive.
jigr69 wrote:
The bike was perfectly okay in any sense of the definition, but wasn’t legal to be where it was, don’t think any disputes that fact. That is something that everyone agrees on. The guy is also an idiot for doing so, likewise his comments afterwards didn’t help the situation.
Muscles take longer to react and enact than a mouth does to say anything.
When cycling and driving if an obstacle suddenly appears infront of you, your first thought is, can I avoid it. If you cannot avoid it, then stopping and hoping for the best is the next and last resort. That is called the reaction time since in the process of that thinking etc, you car or bike is still moving forward.
If he had a front brake, he would still have to move his hands onto the brake after his thought process had gone through the process. A roadie on the tops or drops would have to do the same.
Have you ever seem two people walking down the street, try to avoid each other and end up bumping into each other? They didn’t just stop dead, but tried to avoid the issue by going around the obstacle, if the other person does precisely the same but in the opposite direction, you are still on a collision course. Sometimes this happens two or three times with one person normally commenting about having a dance.
He saw the deceased, tried to avoid her by going on the inside of her, between kerb and her, but she stepped back and they collided. A tragic accident, yes. An unavoidable one, I don’t think so. — Rich_cb
As I described elsewhere, the time it takes for the physical pulling of the brake (or pushing of the brake pedal in a motorvehicle) is ‘mechanical action’ time. This is totally ignored by pretty much everyone, that and the multiple thought processes (not just one) and why the not having a front brake/not having enough time to brake to a complete stop was actually accurate.
mickey poor defence lawyer, not having your owen expert and accepting spurious evidence from the prosecution/police is all part and parcel of the outcome.
I think a lot of people are
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Whether he could have stopped in 3m or 12m, having a front brake fitted would have undoubtedly slowed and softened the impact between cyclist and pedestrian and this whole situation could have been avoided. That to me is what the police video highlights.
davsear wrote:
Are you saying that you could have predicted the injuries/result had Alliston been moving at a lower speed?
Who could have predicted a death at 18mph?
This wasn’t an accident (both could have done something to avoid it), but the consequences couldn’t have been predicted though. Nor could they have at 15mph, 10mph or even 0.0001mph.
Point not missed.
Taken from another website:
Taken from another website:
What brakes do you need on your bike?
As a general rule, if you ride a normal bike, you have to have two independent braking systems: one “which operates on the front wheel”, and one which operates on the back. (PCCUR r. 7(1)(b)(ii))
Alternatively, if you ride certain special kinds of bike, the rules can be different:
By law, fixed-wheel bikes (i.e. bikes where “one or more of the wheels is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals”) have to have a front brake. (PCCUR r. 7(1)(b)(i))
Tricycles which aren’t adapted for carrying goods still need to have two independent braking systems, but it’s acceptable to have both brakes operating on the single wheel (whether it’s at the back or the front). (PCCUR r. 9(2))
Other bikes with more than two wheels (i.e. tricycles which are adapted for carrying goods, or bikes with more than three wheels): if there are two or more wheels on the front, the front brake has to operate on at least two of the front wheels. If there are multiple wheels at the back, the back brake has to operate on at least two of the back wheels. (PCCUR r. 7(1)(b)(ii))
Children’s bikes: the two-brake rule only applies to bikes where the saddle is 635mm or more above the ground (when the bike is upright, the saddle is raised to the fullest extent compatible with safety and the tyres are fully inflated). A child’s bike where the saddle is lower than 635mm only needs one braking system (which can be on either wheel). (PCCUR r. 7(1)(a) and (b), (2))
Penny farthings etc: where the bike is constructed so that “the pedals act on any wheel or on the axle of any wheel without the interposition of any gearing or chain”, none of the braking requirements apply – so it seems that they can be ridden without brakes. (PCCUR r. 9(1)(a))
This means that fixies with no front brake are technically illegal. So are adult dutch-style bikes which have ‘pedal backwards’ brakes on the rear wheel, but no separate brake on the front wheel.
As for recumbent bikes, the position is not entirely clear. As I’ve said, bikes are exempt from the requirement for two brakes (so it’s sufficient just to have one) if the highest part of the seating area of the saddle is below 635mm from the ground (which is generally the case for small children’s bikes). Presumably lots of recumbents will put the rider less than 635mm from the ground; but they also often have tall seat backs, which might stretch higher than 635mm above the ground. So it depends what “the seating area” means. There seems to be a good argument that the ‘chair back’ in a recumbent probably does count as part of the “seating area of the saddle”, so that you have to measure to the top of the chair – and if that’s more than 635mm above ground, you need brakes on both wheels. But it’s not entirely clear cut.
The rules for e-bikes (or “electrically assisted pedal cycles”) are different – I’ll look at e-bikes separately in the future.
Brake maintenance
The law also requires you to keep your brakes in efficient working order. (PCCUR r. 10(1))
There doesn’t seem to be any compulsory stopping distance or other standard test, so this is likely to be a matter of judgment. But your brakes will automatically fail the efficient working order test if they operate directly on any pneumatic tyre. So your brake pads mustn’t touch your tyres (unless you come within the exception for a bike with four or more wheels, none of which is bigger than 25cms). (PCCUR r. 10(2))
Inspections
A constable in uniform has the power to test and inspect your bike to see if your brakes comply with the rules. The inspection can be carried out on a road, or on other premises if the bike has been involved in an accident (so long as the inspection is carried out within 48 hours of the accident, and the owner of the premises consents). (PCCUR r. 11)
As I’ve said before, if you’re cycling on the road, a constable in uniform can require you to stop. If you refuse to stop when he demands, you’ll commit an offence and can be given a fixed penalty notice. If you do stop, but refuse to cooperate with a bike inspection, there would seem to be a good chance of some kind of offence of obstruction. (RTA s. 163(2), (3); RTOA ss. 51, 52, 54, Sch 3)
Interesting comments from a
Interesting comments from a legal perspective from “the Cycling Lawyer”
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html
I assume “a car being driven
I assume “a car being driven at 20mph – the location where the crash happened” should be “a car being driven at 20mph – the speed limit at the location where the crash happened”.
(On the one hand, it’s a limit not a target. On the other hand, many drivers complain about 20mph limits being too low, while also complaining that a cyclist doing 20mph (or less, like Alliston) is far too fast.)
Most of the comments on here
Most of the comments on here are just plain fucking drivel and not worth the effort to replying to.
Shitty police ‘forensic evidence’ that has less science than a creationist climate denier can muster.
If she had been hit by a car or bus, you wouldnt even have known her name, let alone there even have been a prosecution
The majority of people have fallen for the pantomime without realising that this is going to be used to beat all cyclists over the head with it, and a lot of you are (and will be willingly) complicit with helping those who will use it.
It was a fucking show trial but most are too dumb to see that. Brought by a CPS that refuses to prosecute the seemingly most air tight cases against drivers, backed by a police force that has repeatedly refused to do anything about repeated incidents of substandard and dangerous driving.
There is an underlying reason this case was brought to trial, and spcifically why it was brought ot crown court, instead of dealt at magistrates as it would have been under any other circumstances. Just as there was a specific reason the ‘grieving husband’ was lined up for endless interviews on mainstream media.
Its a shit show frankly and a lot of people are now covered in it.
Doesn’t matter if she was
Doesn’t matter if she was dancing in the middle of the road. She had right of way. If he had time to yell at her, he had time to take evasive action.
Nymeria wrote:
read the story – he did take evasive action, she jumped back into his path
You don’t have right of way
You don’t have right of way just by stepping out into the road. She couldn’t have looked. A silly mistake.
Are you suggesting that he hit her on purpose ? What cyclist would do that ? He’s just as likely to be hurt if not more likely.
His mistake was to ride a bike that wasn’t legal on the road. If he’s had the front brake he would probably still have hit her but at a lower speed and probably caused less harm.
His mistake was also to be a nob after it.
fenix wrote:
She still has right of way… you might not like it but that is the law. If a child runs out into the road and a car hits them because they’re driving too fast, the driver is in the wrong. It is no different for cyclists.
Nymeria wrote:
She still has right of way… you might not like it but that is the law. If a child runs out into the road and a car hits them because they’re driving too fast, the driver is in the wrong. It is no different for cyclists.— fenix
“It is illegal to obstruct the road. If somebody unlawfully assumes ownership of areas of a road, they are breaking the law. If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a road, they are also guilty of an offence.”
we are talking about a (allegedly) responsible adult establishing right of way over a bicycle riding teenager – the responsible way to do this would be to give clear signals and wait for the bicycle to stop before proceeding.
Nymeria wrote:
She still has right of way… you might not like it but that is the law. If a child runs out into the road and a car hits them because they’re driving too fast, the driver is in the wrong. It is no different for cyclists.— fenix
This is starting to get a bit tricky, now, eh? You might want to read some other posts on this that have covered these scenarios with a lot more consideration.
But here’s a few starter hints:
– The victim wasn’t a child: it was an adult woman – a mother with children of her own, no less
– The vehicle wasn’t a speeding car: it was a bike likely travelling around 10mph when it hit her.
If you have a point worth making, go for it.
Nymeria wrote:
She still has right of way… you might not like it but that is the law. If a child runs out into the road and a car hits them because they’re driving too fast, the driver is in the wrong. It is no different for cyclists.— fenix
Great to know that, thanks. So where are all the reports of drivers being prosecuted for hitting pedestrians who have blindly stepped out front of them? I can recall lots of cases where a pedestrian has stepped into the road without looking, been struck by a car, and the driver has either not been prosecuted or found not guilty of any crime.
If what you say is true, perhaps you ought to get in touch with the police and CPS, as they seem to be getting it wrong all the time.
As a safety engineer and
As a safety engineer and investigator, I find that there is a lot of pontificating and postulating about what may or may not be fact and relevant but the point is this prosecution has been about blame rather than improving road safety.
We are mostly working on limited, prejudiced, snapshot of the incident and are therefore focussing on the “he said -she said” and not a critical analyisis of the evidence.
To address the root cause and reduce the possiblilty of recurrence requires a differnt standard of investigation to what we have seen here.
BikingBud wrote:
You’ve basically said nothing about the ‘evidence’ put forward by the prosecution nor its merits, if any and the testing methodology. Why, if you are qualified in such and have bothered to post a comment (that actually says not very much at all) have you not then gone onto state what is correct, what isn’t?
How do you interpret the testing comparative to the incident itself?
How do you interpret the use of a totally different bike, weight of person (that aren’t specified) and not similar speed at impact offered up by the prosecution (as low as 10mph)?
How do you interpret thinking time in panic/real life situations to ‘lab’ testing such as seen in the video?
What timescales do you use for thinking and mechanical action time in unknown event incidents?
How does multiple scenarios one after the other (i.e. ped steps out unexpectedly and you shout and brake – after thinking, you then think again to avoid (which in this case happened), then have to rethink again when the ped steps back into you a couple of metres away. How much time do you think that adds up to and does that in fact mean that as the ped steps back the convicted would have plenty of time to rethink and apply the brakes or no chance at all?
How does this impact on that thinking time, does it increase /add up, due to overload or is it somehow reduced to one single set of thoughts that somehow according to the ‘investigators’ meant he had ample time to come to a complete stop in 3 metres if he had the front brake?
Do you think it fair to use the whole distance/time from first seeing the ped step off as the total timescale/distance to stop the bike when in 99.99999% of similar scenarios (a hazard crossing in front of you or potentially doing so) you wouldn’t slam on the brakes in the same way as per the ‘test’?
What is your interpretation of the charges, should this in fact be a ‘Con and Use’ infraction as is normally used against motorists for same/worse scenario’s?