- This topic has 123 replies, 48 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
ktache.
-
CreatorTopic
-
August 14, 2017 at 9:00 pm #27507
brooksby
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).
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
alansmurphy
As an experienced rider,
As an experienced rider, would you say from noticing something to reacting and stopping, that you stop in 3 metres?And surely it should have been compared to the original bike with the original brakes?
alansmurphy wrote:
alansmurphy wrote:18mph down to 10mph in 3. 8 seconds. So they’ve factored that he could nearly half his speed with one brake thus have fully scrubbed it off with two brakes. Sounds like nobody told them that thinking time probably actually outed for the majority of that. This would also suggest that riding on the tops is unsafe as it’d take a couple of seconds to change position to brake. Or having a brake pedal a few inches from the accelerator on a car. Alternatively, and to sound somewhat like his crass comments in defence, give someone doing 18mph less than 10 metres to stop (maybe around half that) and the likelihood is that there will be a collision.From the latest Grauniad story:
“Edward Small, a crash investigator who studied CCTV of the incident, concluded that Alliston, who was then aged 18, would have been able to stop and avoid a collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake.
The defendant had been travelling at an average of 18mph before he noticed Briggs step out into the road, jurors heard. He was a minimum of 6.65 metres away when he swerved and tried to take evasive action.
Tests on a conventional mountain bike found a stopping distance of about three metres (10ft), but Alliston’s model had a stopping distance of about 12 metres, the court heard.
Cross-examining, Mark Wyeth QC asked Small whether there could be a margin of error in his calculations of Alliston’s average speed before he saw Briggs. The expert replied that any difference would only have been a “fraction of a mile per hour”.”
18mph down to 10mph in 3. 8
18mph down to 10mph in 3. 8 seconds.So they’ve factored that he could nearly half his speed with one brake thus have fully scrubbed it off with two brakes.
Sounds like nobody told them that thinking time probably actually outed for the majority of that.
This would also suggest that riding on the tops is unsafe as it’d take a couple of seconds to change position to brake. Or having a brake pedal a few inches from the accelerator on a car.
Alternatively, and to sound somewhat like his crass comments in defence, give someone doing 18mph less than 10 metres to stop (maybe around half that) and the likelihood is that there will be a collision.
Canyon48
brooksby wrote:wellsprop wrote:Totally agree that pedestrians are utterly clueless and ignorant when crossing roads – I’ve collided with two when cycling around Bristol… First was someone crossing a road when the red man was showing at the crossing – a car passed and they stepped out behind it (in front of me) without looking. The second, someone crossed the road (not at a crossing) whilst staring at their phone and walked straight into my path.Worst area for that in Bristol is the road between “old” Broadmead and Cabot Circus. The one that’s supposed to be buses, cycles, taxis, and “access only”.
Pedestrians just walk across from shopping area to shopping area without looking, just going on whether they can hear a bus coming, I think. And that’s even people with pushchairs/prams.
I avoid that area like the plague! When I have to cycle through/to there, I don’t even bother cycling that part, easier to walk and push my bike.
jh27 wrote:wellsprop wrote:Can’t say I have an awful lot of sympathy for him either. The law is quite clear, you need brakes front and rear (rear fixed wheel counts as a brake).Posting online probably didn’t do him any good.
Totally agree that pedestrians are utterly clueless and ignorant when crossing roads – I’ve collided with two when cycling around Bristol… First was someone crossing a road when the red man was showing at the crossing – a car passed and they stepped out behind it (in front of me) without looking. The second, someone crossed the road (not at a crossing) whilst staring at their phone and walked straight into my path.
I stayed upright on both occasions. The first pedestrian and the phone didn’t.
Doesn’t take a lot to be at least a little aware of vehicles on roads…
Probably teaching you to suck eggs, but as you’ve had to incidents, I’ll continue. In areas like this, it is a good idea to ride in primary. It gives you extra time when they step off the kerb without looking and without warning – it also reduces the risk of this occuring whilst you are being overtaken by heavier vehicles (moving into the path of a lorry to avoid a pedestrian isn’t likely to end well). Obviously difficult if you are on cycle infrastructure that puts you next to pedestrians.
Yep, definitely sucking eggs – always ride in primary with hands covering the brakes where there’s lots of traffic/pedestrians.
Funnily enough, both incidents were on the same stretch of road – Bristo City Centre Anchor Road/St Augustines Parade – nightmare. Two of the guys in the cycle club have had run-ins there too.
Comes to something with a pulsing 800-lumen front light isn’t adequate to get you noticed prevent people walking out in front of you. I suppose mobile phones are just more interesting to most than road safety.
CygnusX1
sergius wrote:Crampy wrote:sergius wrote:I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you – you have to be prepared to stop for them. Shouting at them to move doesn’t count.Maybe I missed it, but where is a pedestrian crossing mentioned?
One of the articles I read on the subject said she was on a pedestrian crossing, maybe that’s incorrect though. He had time to shout at her to move = he had time to brake though.
Some more details:
“It made me look up immediately, just in time to see a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian.” [Mr Callan (witness)] said HR consultant Mrs Briggs was not using the crossing some 30 feet away.
Crash investigator Edward Small studied CCTV of the collision which was shown frame-by-frame in court.
He told jurors Alliston was seen in the footage beginning to swerve to take evasive action as he approached the pedestrian.
He was a minimum of between 6.65 and 9.65 metres away from Mrs Briggs and travelling at an average speed of 18mph, jurors were told.
Mrs Briggs stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash, Mr Small said.
The investigator also carried out tests comparing the stopping distances of a police issue mountain bike, Alliston’s Planet X bike and a fixed wheel bike adapted with front brakes.
The court heard that Alliston was doing between 10mph and 14mph as he tried to avoid the collision.
Source:
Anonymous
wellsprop wrote:Can’t say I have an awful lot of sympathy for him either. The law is quite clear, you need brakes front and rear (rear fixed wheel counts as a brake).Posting online probably didn’t do him any good.
Totally agree that pedestrians are utterly clueless and ignorant when crossing roads – I’ve collided with two when cycling around Bristol… First was someone crossing a road when the red man was showing at the crossing – a car passed and they stepped out behind it (in front of me) without looking. The second, someone crossed the road (not at a crossing) whilst staring at their phone and walked straight into my path.
I stayed upright on both occasions. The first pedestrian and the phone didn’t.
Doesn’t take a lot to be at least a little aware of vehicles on roads…
Probably teaching you to suck eggs, but as you’ve had to incidents, I’ll continue. In areas like this, it is a good idea to ride in primary. It gives you extra time when they step off the kerb without looking and without warning – it also reduces the risk of this occuring whilst you are being overtaken by heavier vehicles (moving into the path of a lorry to avoid a pedestrian isn’t likely to end well). Obviously difficult if you are on cycle infrastructure that puts you next to pedestrians.
The last time this happened to me, it was a on one of the cycle superhighways in London – travelling about 20mph on a Boris bike with probably lot less stopping power than brakeless fixie. She was stepped out onto the crossing (against the red man), into the cycle lane without even glancing. I’ll admit, with hindsight, I should have tried to swap it for one with better brakes or kept my speed down.
Now, the cyclist with on the fixie. He could have stopped quick with a working front brake – but what if he’d been on a road bike, with two brakes, travelling at 30mph. Would the outcome have been any different? I suppose we can only speculate.
sergius wrote:I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you – you have to be prepared to stop for them. Shouting at them to move doesn’t count.I don’t recall seeing anything about the pedestrian being on a crossing. The lastest DailyFail article quotes a witness that states the collision took place about 30 feet after the crossing.
But regardless, a cyclist needs the ability to stop quickly. Not sure if that makes it ‘his fault’, but pedestrians stepping into the road without looking isn’t a new thing. Certainly shouting at people, ringing a bell etc, is pretty pointless – if that they don’t have earphones in and actually hear you, what are the chances that they are going to do something sensible? – much more likely that they’ll stop in their tracks, you’ll set a course to avoid them and then they’ll move into your path again, in an attempt to move out off your way – which is what sounds like happened here.
I don’t know what the statistics are, but I’d have thought that it is generally the cyclist who comes off worst in a collision with a pedestrian (all things being equal). In my opinion, he’s lucky we aren’t reading about cyclist killed by pedestrian – not that it is likely to have made it to court.
CXR94Di2
IF, he’d been riding a bike
IF, he’d been riding a bike without brakes, then he was riding dangerously. Deserves everything coming his way. His attitude certainly didn’t help his position.Roadworthy bike would of transferred onus of fault probably into pedestrian not looking or listening, but a unroadworthy bike trumps that
Just remember it was a PLANET
Just remember it was a PLANET X, CARBON FRAMED bike as well. Apparently akin to SOMETHING USED IN A VELODROME! Without this pure-bred race machine underneath him he may have only been able to reach 19.8mph rather than 20!
The whole line the prosecution are playing with the fixie thing is pissing me off. Look at the fucking moron headplanting the van earlier today, looked like he was on a BSO and still managed a decent speed. Good job he wasn’t on one of those velodrome race bikes or he’d be dead.
hawkinspeter
Billj wrote:
Billj wrote:However, in general, if cyclists are in an area with pedestrians, who may step out, then they have a duty of care towards vulnerable road users just as motor vehicle users should towards cyclists & pedestrians.And you should take special care if you’ve just removed your most effective brake.
Billj
Crampy wrote:It really seems that the Guardian is trying to paint this guy as a “Premium Rush” type dangerous cyclist (and to be honest the internet comments he made dosent help) and the deceased as an innocent victim.Except from where Im sitting it looks like she stepped out right in front of him glued to her mobile.
She was at fault for not looking where she was going but he was at fault for removing his front brake (contrary to the law) and posting like an eejit afterwards.
At least thats my take.
Crampy – I don’t think The Guardian is trying to ‘paint’ anything. As it is in a court case they can only report what is said in court and as the case opens with the prosecution it will be critical of the defendant. Whilst papers can’t editorialise at this stage (it would be contempt of court), any bias can be seen in how much prominence they give when reporting the defence which I doubt will make front page of The Sun.
At this stage you also shouldn’t apportion blame as you could be charged. However, in general, if cyclists are in an area with pedestrians, who may step out, then they have a duty of care towards vulnerable road users just as motor vehicle users should towards cyclists & pedestrians.
peted76
It’ll be interesting to see
It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out in the courts.. the onus has to be on the cyclist as he couldn’t stop in time, avoiding ignorant, stupid pedestrians on mobile phones is part of the game.
At only 20years old now, I just hope his life isn’t ruined forever from this, although there’s no going back for the 44year old mum and her family. Shame shame shame.
The express has a particualry horrid headline: ‘Cyclist ‘on danger bike blamed victim after killed 20mph crash’
wellsprop wrote:Totally agree that pedestrians are utterly clueless and ignorant when crossing roads – I’ve collided with two when cycling around Bristol… First was someone crossing a road when the red man was showing at the crossing – a car passed and they stepped out behind it (in front of me) without looking. The second, someone crossed the road (not at a crossing) whilst staring at their phone and walked straight into my path.Worst area for that in Bristol is the road between “old” Broadmead and Cabot Circus. The one that’s supposed to be buses, cycles, taxis, and “access only”.
Pedestrians just walk across from shopping area to shopping area without looking, just going on whether they can hear a bus coming, I think. And that’s even people with pushchairs/prams.
Crampy wrote:sergius wrote:I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for the chap, if someone is on a pedestrian crossing in front of you – you have to be prepared to stop for them. Shouting at them to move doesn’t count.Maybe I missed it, but where is a pedestrian crossing mentioned?
I don’t think there was, and I think sergius has misunderstood it. There was a pedestrian who was crossing, not “a pedestrian crossing”.
Vehlin
sergius wrote:
sergius wrote:One of the articles I read on the subject said she was on a pedestrian crossing, maybe that’s incorrect though. He had time to shout at her to move = he had time to brake though.https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/capture12.png is the photo the Metro put up at the time. I suspect that had the cyclist run a red light here (thus the ped having RoW) the papers would be full of “red light running cyclist” etc.
With that said, the fact that he was twice heard to shout for her to get out of the way does indicate that there should have been sufficient time for him to stop had he actually had front brakes.
With regards to the poster further above, a skidding stop on rear brake alone is less efficient than stopping on front brake alone (due to the way weight transfer affects braking) and way less efficient than using both together.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.