Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[oldstrath]

Can we please stop describing Matthew Briggs' campaign as "anti-cycling"? It isn't. It's a grief stricken man trying to make some sense out of his loss. What he is calling for isn't 'anti-cycling' - that's coming from the bandwagon-jumpers.

I'm sure that's his motivation. But the law change he is demanding would be inequitable - no ordinary jury would have the same notion of competent cycling as of competent driving, because of their car-centric experience. It also seems bizarrely pointless. Alliston has been punished - his punishment is at least as serious as that received by most drivers who kill. Why does it matter whether the label is ' furious' or 'dangerous'.

It is also anti cycling in effect because his campaigning gives opportunities to those you describe as bandwagon jumpers.

If he really wanted to improve road safety there are far more important areas to which he could direct his intelligence and determination ( both of which are admirable).

 

[Buddfox]

Without any caliper or disk brake? Where?

Yep, the first thing I notice is no front brake, and then I observe how they pedal and slow down, just to confirm it's a fixie (as opposed to a SS with just a rear brake, if you are that way inclined). Along the east-west cycle superhighway occasionally, along CS8 but in particular once you get down to Kings Road, New Kings Road into Putney and Richmond.

EDIT: I should add, most days which I cycle, which is 3 to 4 times a week. Plus also to add a good number of couriers working in the City and West End also ride bikes like this.

 

[Dan B]

Sometimes I think I've seen bikes with no front brake and then on a second look I realise they have a crosstop lever.

When riding my fixed wheel bike I quite often use leg braking if I want to slow down gradually instead of applying the brakes (of which I have two, thankyouverymuchforasking), mostly because I can, and also because it saves on rim wear.

 

[youngoldbloke]

I understand that a Single Speed (with freewheel) bike must also have a front brake fitted to be legal on the road.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Yes every bike, of normal adult size, must have two independent brakes.

- except of course those with a fixed gear, which must have a front brake fitted. Pedal Cycle Construction and Use Regulations
(edit: the use of pedals/fixed wheel being the second independent braking system)

 

[Venod]

Why does it matter whether the label is ' furious' or 'dangerous'.

I think labeling it as dangerous cycling is the way to go, the case would have been a lot simpler, as riding an illegal bike must be construed as dangerous.

 

[adscrim]

I think labeling it as dangerous cycling is the way to go, the case would have been a lot simpler, as riding an illegal bike must be construed as dangerous.

I think I agree but I'm worried about the speed applied to the review. I'm worried that the review will ignore user groups and change the law to appease the 'voting public' - remembering the cyclists don't count because the don't even have jobs that allow them to afford cars and they all vote green or communist anyway.

 

[oldstrath]

I think labeling it as dangerous cycling is the way to go, the case would have been a lot simpler, as riding an illegal bike must be construed as dangerous.

Here's a clue. The bike was illegal. There is a law already.

The problem with dangerous/ careless offences is that they talk about failure to achieve the standard of a competent driver. Courts seem to have recognised that this has no clear meaning, and operationalized it by asking juries to ' use their experience'. Most jurors will have no real experience of cycling, so will likely hold higher expectations of cycling than of driving.

The probable net effect will be to make convicting cyclists easier than convicting drivers. Having accepted death by dangerous/ careless, we'll then get the 'undecorated' dangerous/careless offences imposed, because, hey, equality with drivers, and what you or I might regard as ordinary defensive riding will be criminalised.

 

[youngoldbloke]

No, that is wrong, in that there is no exception for fixed wheel bikes. The fixed wheel is a brake for this purpose.
In common with every other adult bike, a fixed wheel bike must have a front brake to be legal on the road.

I think you will find that is what I said - I also provided a link to the Pedal Cycle Construction and Use Regulations.

 

[Venod]

Here's a clue. The bike was illegal. There is a law already.

Yes I realise that, but to be charged with having no front brake is different to being charged (under the new dangerous cycling label) with having no front brake and causing the death of a pedestrian by not having one. they had to resort to the old Victorian charge of Wanton and Dangerous Driving to secure a conviction in line with causing death by dangerous driving, I have no problem with the new wording.

.
The probable net effect will be to make convicting cyclists easier than convicting drivers. Having accepted death by dangerous/ careless, we'll then get the 'undecorated' dangerous/careless offences imposed, because, hey, equality with drivers, and what you or I might regard as ordinary defensive riding will be criminalised.

This is just an assumption.

 

[mjr]

Yes every bike, of normal adult size, must have two independent brakes.

Except a visitor's bike, which only must have one brake, but a fixed wheel doesn't count for that. (UNECE 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, Article 44)

It's strange, one-braked bikes are internationally regarded as safe, but our anti-cycling government requires two, so we get to pay extra for UK-specific forks on some imported bikes.

 

[oldstrath]

Yes I realise that, but to be charged with having no front brake is different to being charged (under the new dangerous cycling label) with having no front brake and causing the death of a pedestrian by not having one. they had to resort to the old Victorian charge of Wanton and Dangerous Cycling to secure a conviction in line with causing death by dangerous driving, I have no problem with the new wording.



This is just an assumption.

I'd call it a prediction and a warning.

Do you really imagine it's in any way sensible to make a new law because one person unluckily died and the man responsible had to be tried under an old law?

Either this is a government of knee jerking idiots (which may be of course) or this is an attempt to restrict cyclists.

 

[Milkfloat]

This is just an assumption.

An entirely logical and worrying one though. If a new law is to be introduced it needs to be very well thought out and not just a knee jerk reaction to one knob on a bike. Plus - let's look at where the real danger lies first.

 

[mjr]

Either this is a government of knee jerking idiots (which may be of course) or this is an attempt to restrict cyclists.

"Either"?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think labeling it as dangerous cycling is the way to go, the case would have been a lot simpler, as riding an illegal bike must be construed as dangerous.

No pedal reflectors dangerous?