Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Ian H

Ancient randonneur
The best you can hope for, without a brake, is to lock the back wheel either with your shoe or (more difficult) by locking your legs. Either way you will slide quite a long way if you're travelling at speed.

He's a young man, so should have a long time to grow up and realise just what he's done.
 

PK99

Legendary Member
Location
SW19
I think but not sure that it was a Pelican crossing going by the pictures in the papers so the cyclist maybe had a green light and the victim maybe walked out into the road, it seems going by what is being reported that the lack of front brake meant the cyclist could not stop in time.

I have no idea how good/bad the braking is on a fixie and whether it would be able to brake quicker with a front brake, maybe someone could comment?

Sheldon Brown:

Track bicycles do not have brakes. Brakes are unnecessary on tracks, since everybody is moving in the same direction, and none of the other cyclists you are riding with can stop any faster than you can. (Most tracks forbid the use of bikes that have brakes, as a safety measure!)

and from Pearson cycles:

If you're worried that repeatedly using a fixed back wheel could cause knee problems, opinions differ. William Pearson, of Pearson, says the key to slowing down is to "put your legs into neutral" and use the front brake
 
Last edited:

Y2k1

New Member
The best you can hope for, without a brake, is to lock the back wheel either with your shoe or (more difficult) by locking your legs. Either way you will slide quite a long way if you're travelling at speed.

He's a young man, so should have a long time to grow up and realise just what he's done.

When I was 18 I knew that riding a bike with no breaks and killing a woman is wrong.

The guy has no empathy. Its that simple. He is one of the vain me generation hipsters.
 
U

User6179

Guest
Sheldon Brown:

Track bicycles do not have brakes. Brakes are unnecessary on tracks, since everybody is moving in the same direction, and none of the other cyclists you are riding with can stop any faster than you can. (Most tracks forbid the use of bikes that have brakes, as a safety measure!)

It said no front brake in the article so I assumed it had some sort of back brake but not no brakes, mental !
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
The best you can hope for, without a brake, is to lock the back wheel either with your shoe or (more difficult) by locking your legs. Either way you will slide quite a long way if you're travelling at speed.

Locking a wheel is the worst you can hope for; it shows that you've broken traction with the road surface and will therefore take longer to stop, and you've lost control of your vehicle.
 

Ian H

Ancient randonneur
Locking a wheel is the worst you can hope for; it shows that you've broken traction with the road surface and will therefore take longer to stop, and you've lost control of your vehicle.

In the given context it's about the only braking you will achieve. Which was my point.
 
From the telegraph article

"In a legal first, he also faces an additional charge of the manslaughter of Mrs Briggs from Lewisham, south London."
The Guardian concurs.
--
Perhaps it was a fixie and he didn't bother making it road legal.
I suspected it was more positive than this suggests and indeed...

The Guardian said:
Alliston told police he had been riding a fixed-gear bike since 2014, having removed the front brake from a previous model.

In 2015, he tweeted: “The time when you first take your brakes off and feeling like you’re in a lucasbrunelle movie,” in apparent reference to an American bike stunt film-maker.
 

Drago

Legendary Member
6120217dba0a239cd25c6588fbdd5560.jpg
 

PK99

Legendary Member
Location
SW19
Even if, as he asserts, the lady launched herself without warning, does the careful and competent road user not moderate their speed a bit and take extra care when in proximity of a crossing?

The definition in wiki is very pertinent :

Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, landing on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the mens rea required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is also termed "unlawful act" or "constructive" manslaughter.
 
Top Bottom