Fixie rider in court following pedestrian fatality (London, UK, 2015)

[fat and old]

Just say no.

There ya go

[biker jk]

Surely riding on the road without a front brake qualifies this guy as an A grade moron. Fixies are for the velodrome not for commuting.

[BJL]

Surely riding on the road without a front brake qualifies this guy as an A grade moron. Fixes are for the velodrome not for commuting.

No one said he isn't. But laying ALL of the blame on the rider is equally moronic.

And walking out onto a road without paying attention is also moronic.

Whilst riding around without a front brake may have contributed, it was the actions of the victim that directly resulted in her death. This guy should face nothing more than a couple of traffic infringements.

And I can't make out all the fuss over what the guy said after the incident. What he said was factually correct. Whenever a motorist kills or injures a cyclist, we cop plenty of 'he shouldn't have been on the roads anyway' and 'one less cyclist on the roads' and that's apparently completely acceptable yet they don't like it when given a dose of their own medicine.

[warthog1]

Surely riding on the road without a front brake qualifies this guy as an A grade moron. Fixes are for the velodrome not for commuting.

About time you put in, blister.
Most of the hard work has been done already.
I don't know, you issue a challenge and then make no contribution to achieving it.
Stiil, better late than never

[biker jk]

Surely riding on the road without a front brake qualifies this guy as an A grade moron. Fixes are for the velodrome not for commuting.

No one said he isn't. But laying ALL of the blame on the rider is equally moronic.

And walking out onto a road without paying attention is also moronic.

Whilst riding around without a front brake may have contributed, it was the actions of the victim that directly resulted in her death. This guy should face nothing more than a couple of traffic infringements.

And I can't make out all the fuss over what the guy said after the incident. What he said was factually correct. Whenever a motorist kills or injures a cyclist, we cop plenty of 'he shouldn't have been on the roads anyway' and 'one less cyclist on the roads' and that's apparently completely acceptable yet they don't like it when given a dose of their own medicine.

Perhaps if this guy had a front brake he would have used it rather than yell a warning? If he had time to yell a warning then he had time to brake.

[P!N20]

Surely riding on the road without a front brake qualifies this guy as an A grade moron.

No, riding fast down a street where there's a high chance of a pedestrian stepping out and then yelling "get out of the way" with no attempt to stop, slow down or swerve qualifies this guy as an A grade moron.

[BJL]

Surely riding on the road without a front brake qualifies this guy as an A grade moron. Fixes are for the velodrome not for commuting.

No one said he isn't. But laying ALL of the blame on the rider is equally moronic.

And walking out onto a road without paying attention is also moronic.

Whilst riding around without a front brake may have contributed, it was the actions of the victim that directly resulted in her death. This guy should face nothing more than a couple of traffic infringements.

And I can't make out all the fuss over what the guy said after the incident. What he said was factually correct. Whenever a motorist kills or injures a cyclist, we cop plenty of 'he shouldn't have been on the roads anyway' and 'one less cyclist on the roads' and that's apparently completely acceptable yet they don't like it when given a dose of their own medicine.

Perhaps if this guy had a front brake he would have used it rather than yell a warning? If he had time to yell a warning then he had time to brake.

Perhaps if the pedestrian was PAYING ATTENTION, she wouldn't have walked out onto the road in front of a vehicle and got herself killed.

THAT was the PRIMARY cause of the collision. At least in this case, she only got herself killed. Unlike MOTORISTS who don't pay attention.

[P!N20]

Perhaps if the pedestrian was PAYING ATTENTION, she wouldn't have walked out onto the road in front of a vehicle and got herself killed.

THAT was the PRIMARY cause of the collision. At least in this case, she only got herself killed. Unlike MOTORISTS who don't pay attention.

Oh the irony that you are using the same argument that motoring organisations used all those years ago to absolve drivers of any blame.

[warthog1]

Nice work fellas nearly there

[warthog1]

Perhaps if the pedestrian was PAYING ATTENTION, she wouldn't have walked out onto the road in front of a vehicle and got herself killed.

THAT was the PRIMARY cause of the collision. At least in this case, she only got herself killed. Unlike MOTORISTS who don't pay attention.

Oh the irony that you are using the same argument that motoring organisations used all those years ago to absolve drivers of any blame.

I guess I better contribute too

For the purposes of the argument would you apportion any blame to her if she izombied into the path of a train?

[P!N20]

^ Does the train have a front brake?

[warthog1]

^ Does the train have a front brake?

In the same way as the fixie rider it doesn't matter.
Very unlikely to stop in time anyway certainly not proved to be the case so apparently he is guilty until proven innocent.
It will be the head strike on the paved surface that killed her.

[biker jk]

^ Does the train have a front brake?

In the same way as the fixie rider it doesn't matter.
Very unlikely to stop in time anyway certainly not proved to be the case so apparently he is guilty until proven innocent.
It will be the head strike on the paved surface that killed her.

Let's say a cyclist veered sharply to the right and the car behind had no brakes but instead tooted the horn as a warning. Do you think the car driver played a major part in the cyclist being killed as their head struck the road when hit by the car?

[warthog1]

^ Does the train have a front brake?

In the same way as the fixie rider it doesn't matter.
Very unlikely to stop in time anyway certainly not proved to be the case so apparently he is guilty until proven innocent.
It will be the head strike on the paved surface that killed her.

Let's say a cyclist veered sharply to the right and the car behind had no brakes but instead tooted the horn as a warning. Do you think the car driver played a major part in the cyclist being killed as their head struck the road when hit by the car?

The scenario would be far more accurate if the rider plowed through a red light, stop sign or straight off the kerb perpendicular to traffic.
Secondly the fixie rider is able to stop his bicycle with adequately to operate in traffic. Not the case for a motor vehicle as you know.


Nearly there

[BJL]

Perhaps if the pedestrian was PAYING ATTENTION, she wouldn't have walked out onto the road in front of a vehicle and got herself killed.

THAT was the PRIMARY cause of the collision. At least in this case, she only got herself killed. Unlike MOTORISTS who don't pay attention.

Oh the irony that you are using the same argument that motoring organisations used all those years ago to absolve drivers of any blame.

Unlike motoring organizations who believe their members shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, I'm NOT absolving the cyclist of any blame. I quite clearly stated that by not having a front brake, the cyclist CONTRIBUTED to the collision. Unlike you lot who are absolving the pedestrian of any blame and it's ALL the cyclist's fault regardless of the circumstances.

If the cyclist did have a front brake but failed to stop in time, I suppose it'd still be his fault? Wasn't it demonstrated that a motor vehicle wouldn't have been able to stop in identical circumstances? For me, the issue here is the difference in the way cyclists, motorists and pedestrians are held to account for their actions.

[fat and old]

In the same way as the fixie rider it doesn't matter.
Very unlikely to stop in time anyway certainly not proved to be the case so apparently he is guilty until proven innocent.
It will be the head strike on the paved surface that killed her.

Let's say a cyclist veered sharply to the right and the car behind had no brakes but instead tooted the horn as a warning. Do you think the car driver played a major part in the cyclist being killed as their head struck the road when hit by the car?

The scenario would be far more accurate if the rider plowed through a red light, stop sign or straight off the kerb perpendicular to traffic.
Secondly the fixie rider is able to stop his bicycle with adequately to operate in traffic. Not the case for a motor vehicle as you know.


Nearly there

I agree with Gabby Johnson

[warthog1]

Let's say a cyclist veered sharply to the right and the car behind had no brakes but instead tooted the horn as a warning. Do you think the car driver played a major part in the cyclist being killed as their head struck the road when hit by the car?

The scenario would be far more accurate if the rider plowed through a red light, stop sign or straight off the kerb perpendicular to traffic.
Secondly the fixie rider is able to stop his bicycle with adequately to operate in traffic. Not the case for a motor vehicle as you know.


Nearly there

I agree with Gabby Johnson

Who the foxhat?

[antigee]

a well written piece on the topic here:

https://roubaixcycling.cc/2017/08/24/cr ... ixie-case/

[Mulger bill]

Who the foxhat?

[fat and old]

Oops....Howard Johnson.

I agree with Howard Johnson!

[uart]

a well written piece on the topic here:

https://roubaixcycling.cc/2017/08/24/cr ... ixie-case/

Yeah that's quite a well balanced piece.

Also quite interesting that the article links to the actual police video of their stopping distance tests, where they show the mountain bike stopping in only 3 metres. You can view it or download it as an mp4 video. Download it and watch it carefully, and tell me that the guy on the mountain bike doesn't start slowing down a good one or two metres before the arbitrary "start" point!

Vidoe here: http://news.met.police.uk/videos/compar ... cles-30256

[Arbuckle23]

watch it carefully, and tell me that the guy on the mountain bike doesn't start slowing down a good one or two metres before the arbitrary "start" point!

Yep agreed, slows quite significantly

[warthog1]

Oops....Howard Johnson.

I agree with Howard Johnson!

[uart]

Yep agreed, slows quite significantly

Also I just noticed on viewing it one more time that the speeds are not even the same between tests. The mountain bike is measured at a slower speed and at a further distance to the designated stopping point (and then slows down further before that point), whereas the fixie is measured at a slightly higher speed and a little closer to the stopping line.

I know that they are only slight differences, but it's interesting that they're all in favour of the MTB. The noticeable slowing down (which was slightly slower even to begin with) of the MTB prior to the stopping line could be quite a big source of error though.

[warthog1]

Who the foxhat?

Thankyou


Howard too