Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[T4tomo]

'Catherine, Jim, Robert and Dora' - Christ, all we need is a Giles and we'd have the most middle class Government advice ever seen!

Could you imagine the furore if they had used obviously ethnic minority names? They have played it safe!

 

[KneesUp]

Has anyone found the testimony from the 'Crash Investigator' to be a bit weird. He concludes that Alliston would have been able to stop if he had a front brake. He does this by saying that a mountain bike has stopping distance of about 3 meters and that this bike was four times longer at 12 meters.

It does seem especially lazy not to use a comparable bike, but perhaps the data isn't available, and the cost of testing was prohibitive? I don't know which would stop quicker on road to be honest - an MTB would be able to generate more friction because of the wider tyres, but a road bike would have less momentum due to lower weight. I reckon I can stop my road bike quicker than my (slick-shod) MTB on the road given the same starting speed, but only because the brakes on the road bike are better adjusted (because they're easier to adjust) 3 metres @ 18mph doesn't sound very far to me - it's less than the length of a Fiat 500, and less than the braking distance for a car (5m) Incidentally the thinking distance is also 5m, giving a total stopping distance for a car of 10m. I reckon I'd struggle to stop either of my bikes in the length of a Fiat 500 from 18mph.

It would certainly be something I'd query as the defence, but then the prosecution could point to the fact that it has been reported that he shouted out twice, which may indicate he had sufficient time (I guess it depends on how far apart the shouts were)

 

[Milkfloat]

It would certainly be something I'd query as the defence, but then the prosecution could point to the fact that it has been reported that he shouted out twice, which may indicate he had sufficient time (I guess it depends on how far apart the shouts were)

This is the bit that really confuses me - how does he have time to shout out quite a few words - twice. I only shout out at the last moment when I think I am going to get munched, before that I am slowing down, manoeuvring and making eye contact. With a pedestrian in a busy city, surely in the time it takes to shout out a sentence twice, the pedestrian would be over the other side of the road, even if they are on their phone.

 

[jefmcg]

Don't see why not.

So then, until the court decides whose fault the collision was, we don't know who killed her.

It outcome might look obvious in this case, but I think the principal of not convicting people in the press/on social media (even if doesn't affect the jury) is an important one. Remember the Atlanta bombing suspect?

 

[jefmcg]

[QUOTE 4919267, member: 1314"]Sorry @MacB but nothing to do with his age. It's the older middle aged road users who are the problem.

And the Mamils.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, who are they killing again?

the cost of testing was prohibitive?

Order a similar model from PX and asking them to fit a front brake, got to come in under £600. The prosecution has engaged a QC, so <google>

• Queen’s Counsel (Silk): £350+ per hour + VAT

I.E. Using the cost of the bike is pocket change.

 

[mjr]

3 metres @ 18mph doesn't sound very far to me - it's less than the length of a Fiat 500, and less than the braking distance for a car (5m)

Yeah - I was wondering about that. One of my bikes has hub brakes front and back (90mm XL-FDD up front), which are the fiercest brakes I've had yet (solid forks required!) and I reckon my stopping distance from about 16mph is still about 4m. Is an MTB stopping from 18mph in 3m the best case - maybe some sort of well-maintained disc-braked lightweight rarely seen as a London commuter bike?

 

[mjr]

If the expert reckons 3m and the space available was 12m, the margin for errors in either figure is sufficient as to render questions about it pretty much irrelevant.

Is the expert still expert if the 3m is completely incredible? It's well below even the theoretical good-tyres-on-dry-concrete numbers given by calculators like http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

 

[Tin Pot]

So what actually happened?

Man riding bike, woman walking. Collision. Woman dies.

That's all I've got so far. Oh and that he should be punched, "just look at im!".

Was she crossing the road?
Did he try to stop?
Country, residential or city road?

 

[KneesUp]

If the expert reckons 3m and the space available was 12m, the margin for errors in either figure is sufficient as to render questions about it pretty much irrelevant.

There is only 9m difference (two VW Golfs) between the two figures. Given that the 3m sounds optimistic to me, the 12m needs to be fairly accurate for the errors to be irrelevant.

 

[KneesUp]

Who needs to be convinced here, you or a jury?

I was responding to your post which expressed your opinion. I didn't realise I wasn't allowed one

 

[Milkfloat]

If the expert reckons 3m and the space available was 12m, the margin for errors in either figure is sufficient as to render questions about it pretty much irrelevant.

I think if you asked the average person to stop an average bike at 19 mph, that more than 50% would take over 12m. I am not talking super cyclists with great well maintained equipment, just the stuff you see out on the roads everyday. For a start about 75% or more of these people would use their back brake alone.

I see the stopping distances as an irrelevance to the whole prosecution - so I am unsure how they can get the manslaughter charge to stick. The defence should quite easily be able to get an expert with a legal bike and show that it takes more than 12m to stop.

 

[KneesUp]

I think if you asked the average person to stop an average bike at 19 mph, that more than 50% would take over 12m. I am not talking super cyclists with great well maintained equipment, just the stuff you see out on the roads everyday. For a start about 75% or more of these people would use their back brake alone.

I see the stopping distances as an irrelevance to the whole prosecution - so I am unsure how they can get the manslaughter charge to stick. The defence should quite easily be able to get an expert with a legal bike and show that it takes more than 12m to stop.

I would imagine that most people on an 'average' bike could slow it significantly in 12m even if they couldn't stop it.

 

[Milkfloat]

I would imagine that most people on an 'average' bike could slow it significantly in 12m even if they couldn't stop it.

As could a former courier on a fixed with no front brake.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It outcome might look obvious in this case, but I think the principal of not convicting people in the press/on social media (even if doesn't affect the jury) is an important one.

I'm not saying he's guilty of any crime.

As I pointed out earlier, it's possible to be the cause of another's death but be found to be not criminally responsible.

 

[KneesUp]

As could a former courier on a fixed with no front brake.

But not as much as if it had a front brake. I guess that's the crux of the issue.