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

I don't know what to make of this case but I hope this insensitive twat gets to spend some time with other criminals so he can ponder his actions and statements. What callous indifference he has shown towards the unfortunate victim of his disregard for the law!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40927791

 

Tom

I don't know what to make of this case but I hope this insensitive twat gets to spend some time with other criminals so he can ponder his actions and statements. What callous indifference he has shown towards the unfortunate victim of his disregard for the law!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40927791

 

Tom

 

His defence doesn't stand a chance, the law says a bicycle must have two qualifying brakes, and he had none.

 

I can't see how he can escape a prison sentence.

.

If he had had brakes, would it have made a difference? Probably not, but the poor guy will take the rap for it. That's what happens if there's faults on your side too.

I am confused, did the accident occur on a footpath or on a road. If it was on a footpath the cyclist was clearly in the wrong. If the accident occurred on the road, then who had right of way., Was it a pedestrian crossing. A fixie has a very effective brake. ... The leg strength of the cyclist.

These are the topics which should concern the jury, not the post event justification.

As far as I can tell, he was riding on the road. She was on her phone and stepped in front of him.

 

I'm not saying this is what happened, but you know how it is: They see you, then step one way, and then panic, change their minds and try and step back the other way. You already changed direction once to miss them, but when they step back, you can't get off a collision course. You didn't brake at first because they stepped one way and you steered the other. I've had that loads of times, but I'm always ready for it and able to do an emergency stop. The worse case is when there's to people and they step different ways. maybe it's the herding instinct, but one will always try and reach the other at the last moment.

 

What I find most annoying is that they shouldn't be there in the first place. If they only stuck to the segregated footpath, nobody would have to suffer any stress.

Unfortunately smartphones have dumbed down the average pedestrian. As cyclist or driver you just have to account for it. Right or wrong you still face court trial, easier to slow down and give them hearful as you pass.

 

Plus of ebike slowing down and get back up to speed is easy.

Leaving out the rights and wrongs of this, if your bike or e-bike is illegal and you have a serious accident involving a third party you're going to be in deep trouble.

Dave.

A fixie has a very effective brake. ... The leg strength of the cyclist.

 

At his 20 mph and the associated cadence, slow acting and not even remotely effective, compared to any good bike brake.

 

What matters in court is that his bike didn't have the two qualifying brakes the law requires.

.

They see you, then step one way, and then panic, change their minds and try and step back the other way. You already changed direction once to miss them, but when they step back, you can't get off a collision course. You didn't brake at first because they stepped one way and you steered the other.

 

Agreed, and I think we all know it can happen just like that. I for one have had countless similar experiences.

 

A terrible tragedy, with the very worst of outcomes.

 

Gaz

They see you, then step one way, and then panic, change their minds and try and step back the other way. You already changed direction once to miss them, but when they step back, you can't get off a collision course.

I've had similar. Coming up behind a group of walkers. They are on the left. I slow down & aim towards the right of them. Last minute a couple turn around then one of them jumps, from safety on the left, across to the right & directly in my path. I go off track to avoid a collision & then they have the cheek to shout at me!

 

Not sure really why he jumped in front of me. Is it the feeling that when danger is perceived a panic sets in & they HAVE to do something, rather than taking a second to assess the situation & realise they are not in danger??

I've had similar. Coming up behind a group of walkers. They are on the left. I slow down & aim towards the right of them. Last minute a couple turn around then one of them jumps, from safety on the left, across to the right & directly in my path. I go off track to avoid a collision & then they have the cheek to shout at me!

 

Not sure really why he jumped in front of me. Is it the feeling that when danger is perceived a panic sets in & they HAVE to do something, rather than taking a second to assess the situation & realise they are not in danger??

Fight or flight response mate. Maybe you should stop wearing the stripy orange and black lycra cycling attire

Obviously he thought you were a giant bumblebee.

At his 20 mph and the associated cadence, slow acting and not even remotely effective, compared to any good bike brake.

 

What matters in court is that his bike didn't have the two qualifying brakes the law requires.

.

.. is the law in the UK not that that would be a misdemeanor and subject to a fine, not a custodial sentence. My reading, irrespective of the tragic outcome , is that she was on the road without due care and attention. The law usually is that you try the offense, in accordance with the tariff of penalties.

If her family were to seek damages in a civil action, then the facts of illegal bike and jaywalking would be argued .

.. is the law in the UK not that that would be a misdemeanor and subject to a fine, not a custodial sentence. My reading, irrespective of the tragic outcome , is that she was on the road without due care and attention. The law usually is that you try the offense, in accordance with the tariff of penalties.

If her family were to seek damages in a civil action, then the facts of illegal bike and jaywalking would be argued .

 

I agree on the pedestrian's negligence, but the misdemeanour offence of riding an illegal bike isn't being tried.

 

He's on trial for manslaughter and the use of an illegal and unsafe bike if ruled a contributory factor in causing the death will be grounds enough for a prison sentence for that offence.

 

Even if the charge is reduced to causing death, the same applies, once again not a misdemeanour.

.

Is there any legal definition of what exactly constitutes a brake on a bicycle wheel?

Is there any legal definition of what exactly constitutes a brake on a bicycle wheel?

 

Yes, construction and use regulations for bicycles, contained in the PDF linked to below:

 

C & U. PDF

.

Well, my reading of that and various googlings is that a fixed rear wheel is a brake, except on EAPCs.

But, I am not a lawyer.

Well, my reading of that and various googlings is that a fixed rear wheel is a brake, except on EAPCs.

But, I am not a lawyer.

 

But only if it has the mandatory brake on the front wheel as well, as the law prescribes. We can't choose to comply with only the bits that suit.

 

Accordingly the defence has accepted that he had no brakes, that stated in court today.

.

But only if it has the mandatory brake on the front wheel as well, as the law prescribes. We can't choose to comply with only the bits that suit.

 

Accordingly the defence has accepted that he had no brakes, that stated in court today.

.

I agree with Mike on this one. Of course one cannot pick and mix, but a barrister has a duty to identify not only the law but the intention of the law.

I believe that according to your document from 1983, the defense is incorrect.

The requirement is that there is at least one braking system. The argument that rotation of the rear wheel is dependent on rotation of the pedals , and hench motion of the legs provides a braking system. My understanding, and I have no indepth experience of this is that urban courier cyclists choose fixie's precisely because they are more responsive and reliable for braking.

The exclusion in section 8 was in reference to penny farthing bikes and the Futher reference of pedals attached directly to wheels was relating to those kids trikes

Edited August 15, 20178 yr by Danidl

The requirement is that there is at least one braking system.

 

I'm not sure what you intend to mean by one braking system.

 

He didn't comply with 7i, and if you read fully into the law, he didn't have one braking system. Having a fixie is a legal excuse to have only one braking system. Without it he had none.

.

Edited August 15, 20178 yr by flecc

I'm not sure what you intend to mean by one braking system.

 

He didn't comply with 7i, and if you read fully into the law, he didn't have one braking system. Having a fixie is a legal excuse to have only one braking system. Without it he had none.

.

Apologies,

I have re read the section again and find I must agree with you in part.

The fixie constitutes a braking system, so he can claim to have had a brake.

However the same section requires that where the wheel cannot move independent of the pedals, ie a fixie, that it must be the front wheel, otherwise there must be a front wheel brake. So he will be done for not having fitted a front wheel brake.

However,

I cannot see a manslaughter conviction being returned or surviving an appeal.

But only if it has the mandatory brake on the front wheel as well, as the law prescribes. We can't choose to comply with only the bits that suit.

 

Accordingly the defence has accepted that he had no brakes, that stated in court today.

.

Didn't realise that he did not have a front brake.

The regulation 7. (10 (b) (i) says that fixed wheel bikes must have a brake on the front wheel. None of the exclusions apply. 10.(1) says it's illegal to use a non-compliant bike on the road. That's pretty clear and the guy didn't have a front brake, so he's out.

 

He should be found guilty and punished for that offence. Regarding the punishment, they should take into consideration how much the lack of brake contributed to the collision. If it was clear that it wouldn't have made any difference if he had the best brake in the world, then he should just get a small fine. If on the other hand it's clear that he would have been able to stop or slow down had he had a front brake, then he will have to pay for the consequences.

 

Riding such a bike at 20 mph doesn't to me sound like furious cycling or anything similar. That's perfectly normal for people that ride similar bikes on the road. If they try and say that the accident happened because 20 mph is too fast, then none of those lycra-clad road-bikes can ever go on the road again, except when the road is closed.

 

If he had had a front brake, I'm pretty sure that they would have all come to the conclusion that he didn't do anything wrong. Obviously, if he committed any other offence, like riding on the pavement or jumping a red light, that would be different.

As far as I can tell, he was riding on the road. She was on her phone and stepped in front of him.

 

I'm not saying this is what happened, but you know how it is: They see you, then step one way, and then panic, change their minds and try and step back the other way. You already changed direction once to miss them, but when they step back, you can't get off a collision course. You didn't brake at first because they stepped one way and you steered the other. I've had that loads of times, but I'm always ready for it and able to do an emergency stop. The worse case is when there's to people and they step different ways. maybe it's the herding instinct, but one will always try and reach the other at the last moment.

 

What I find most annoying is that they shouldn't be there in the first place. If they only stuck to the segregated footpath, nobody would have to suffer any stress.

I can report much success with my pet squeaky toy instead of a single ping bell. It has a long duration, is funny, doesn't panic people and they seem pretty predictable. Dogs pay attention too...although some just sit and wait for the toy!! A minor hazard taken into account.

 

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk

I wonder if things would have been different if she had worn a helmet.

 

 

wheeler