Rides illegal machine - kills pedestrian & blames her........

[Gringo]

Not relevant to the court case topic directly but I neede to vent a little steam.
A work colleague ride 5 miles along country lanes to work on his BMX bike, in fact he rides it everywhere, mostly standing as the saddle is too low and using his foot on the front wheel as a brake
Anywho, a few weeks ago he was pulled over by the police for riding badly on an unsafe bike, he understood what they were saying but replied in his native tongue (Latvian), eventually the officers gave up and sent him on his way
As we already knew, the police tend to favor a soft target, someone with ID and a UK resident.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

It's a shame that the fixie rider didn't think of that. It would have let him off the hook. I'll have to remember that one.

 

[anotherkiwi]

It's a shame that the fixie rider didn't think of that. It would have let him off the hook. I'll have to remember that one.

You speak Latvian too?

 

[flecc]

As we already knew, the police tend to favor a soft target, someone with ID and a UK resident.

Wouldn't work when someone is dead in the road though.
.

 

[flecc]

The judge has been giving the jury guidelines on finding guilt on the two charges. I think the complexity of those for the wanton/furious riding charge will confuse them, but the manslaughter ones seemed very clear, and she put considerable emphasis on the lack of a front brake. I've felt all along that is the main issue, and the judge emphatically ruled that his plea of not knowing was irrelevant when she repeated the old adage "ignorance of the law is no excuse.
.

 

[Danidl]

Riding a bike without any brakes goes far beyond carelessness, it's intentional.

Remember, as I've already pointed out, the fixie transmission does not count as a brake and the defence have acknowledged that he had no brakes.

The regulations clearly state that a fixie with a front brake fitted has one brake, and that is legal.
.

Respectfully I disagree. In my reading of the text you supplied, The fixie does serve as a brake. However because the bike has no front brake, it is still illegal. Had the fixie been attached to the front wheel, without a chain, it would have been legal. In the way that children's trikes used to have a crank connected directly the front wheel.

 

[flecc]

Respectfully I disagree. In my reading of the text you supplied, The fixie does serve as a brake. However because the bike has no front brake, it is still illegal. Had the fixie been attached to the front wheel, without a chain, it would have been legal. In the way that children's trikes used to have a crank connected directly the front wheel.

If you read section 7 - (1), again, which applies to chain transmission bikes:

In (a) it says every bicycle must have at least one braking system.

Then in (b) (i) it specifies that a fixie must have a front brake.

Therefore a fixie is the bike that has the one brake mentioned as legal. Clearly the fixie is not counted as a brake, since if it were it would be a bike with two brakes and there would be no single brake chain transmission bike to qualify as having "at least one braking system".

A fixie on the front wheel without a chain is a separate type dealt with by section 8.

I believe the prosecution are correct and the defence also for accepting that he had no qualifying brake, and therefore in law had no brakes.
.

 

[anotherkiwi]

Lucky him he wasn't in France! Here you need two brakes (even if you have three or four wheels). Nobody around town here rides real fixies they all have a single speed freewheel and (drumroll) a front brake. So unless they have a coaster brake hidden somewhere in the rear wheel, really well hidden, they are illegal too. But with a front brake at least they can stop when they need to.

 

[flecc]

He has been cleared on the manslaughter charge but found guilty on the charge of wanton and furious etc. riding. We'll now have to wait for the sentencing announcement.
.

 

[Nealh]

Which is due in approx 28 days time, the last case of this kind the rider was given a 7 month prison sentence. In this case the judge has mentioned a custodial is being contemplated due to the riders lack of remorse during the case.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I think that's a shame. He's guilty of a bit of stupidity. It wasn't really wanton, neither was he cycling furiously.

Personally, I don't believe that the outcome would have been different if he had a brake. For cyclists, momentum is precious. You never want to give it up unless you have to. You always hope that you can avoid collisions by steering, but you sometimes get the one where you think it's sorted, then they take another step back, though I must admit that I always have the brakes covered and have managed to save the situation by emergency braking a few times.

 

[flecc]

Which is due in approx 28 days time, the last case of this kind the rider was given a 7 month prison sentence. In this case the judge has mentioned a custodial is being contemplated due to the riders lack of remorse during the case.

Which is what i've expected throughout this thread. His defence that even with a front brake he would have been unable to stop was obviously silly, since he said he shouted two separate warnings. Clearly he had plenty of time to slow to a safer speed.

He's not alone in London in thinking it's ok to skim close to pedestrians at speed, it never is, and that message needs to be sent.
.

 

[mike killay]

Well this is what British Justice is all about.
The technicalities of Manslaughter/Furious driving are not really important.
He has acted like a dangerous and deadly fool, the Jury, heard the evidence and had the responsibility of bringing a verdict.
They convicted him of a serious, but lesser offence.
Now it is time to see how our Judges perform!

 

[LeighPing]

Now it is time to see how our Judges perform!

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years."

I reckon that he'll get 12 months. Out in 6 for 'Good behaviour'.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

2 years is the maximum if he had ridden up the pavement and killed someone minding there own business. Don't forget that the woman stepped out on him when he had right of way. She caused the accident and he, through his negligence, was unable to or messed up his attempt to avoid it. If I were the judge, I'd give him no more than a suspended sentence. Don't forget that from now on he'll be constrained to a life of poverty anyway.

Don't forget also that there's many thousands of other people riding around with no front brakes and probably many more than that riding illegal electric bikes. All those guys are willing to take the chance because the chance of something going wrong is so small. This guy just got mixed up in some unfortunate circumstances, like some people get struck by lightning or wiped out by terrorists driving their cars at them. Other people put themselves in danger by jumping out of planes with parachutes. They know that occasionally things go wrong and people get wiped out by it or end up with ruined lives, but it doesn't stop them from taking the risk. It's easy to say, when they break their backs in a fall, that they shouldn't have jumped.

 

[flecc]

I think there's a very big difference between taking a risk with one's own life and taking a risk with another's.

I agree with Mike, 12 months custodial is the most likely sentence, which is a little over the usual due to his lack of remorse and initial arrogant stance.

He has been his own worse enemy at every stage, for not having a front brake, for not slowing enough at the time (typical of a London ex-courier), for his initial online comments, for his insistence on continuing to emphasise the victim's part, and for his own evidence of two shouted warnings, advertising how much time he had to avoid the severity of the accident.

That lot didn't leave the defending barrister much to work with.
.

 

[Danidl]

Well he made it to the BBC news tonight.

 

[soundwave]

why dont the bbc and council try ppl under common law then and use statute law instead for not paying the tv licence ect.

 

[Fordulike]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-41036581

 

[flecc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-41036581

That article has this wrong comment by the BBC:

"By law, a bike on a public road in the UK must have two brakes.

A fixed-wheel bicycle has a single gear, no freewheel mechanism and dropped handlebars. The rear fixed wheel of a fixie - which a rider can slow using the pedals - counts as a brake."

The law specifies that a fixie with a front brake has one brake, and that it is legal, so it is incorrect to say every bicycle has to have two brakes. Nowhere does the law specify the fixie transmission is a brake. By inference from a further section it says the opposite.
.