Crazy cyclist?

[Matchstix]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4295825/cyclist-charlie-alliston-kim-briggs/amp/

 

What would be a hubbers perspective?

[bikebloke]

wow you wonder if the media gets this worked up (even if it is  the Sun)

 

"Death Cyclist, mowed down ,wanton furious driving ,senseless carnage etc"

 

when a car hits a pedestrian?

 

but still track bikes without brakes don't really belong on the road so he is an idiot anyway.

[Andrew Steer]

Headline - Killer cyclist... sensationalist or what! Sounds like Jack the Ripper riding around on a fixie slitting pedestrians throats.

 

Apart from the kid looking like a smug little twat, it seems like a freak accident... the bike was going 20 odd km an hour - hardly earth shattering. Far more dangerous Stravasoles racing around the botanical gardens in among kids and dogs. A collision like this the cyclist normally comes off worse. Seriously must have just been very unlucky.

 

Accidents happen, I can only feel terrible for the family.

[bertusras]

What would be a hubbers perspective?

 

That The Sun is a piece of crap tabloid.

[marko35s]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4295825/cyclist-charlie-alliston-kim-briggs/amp/

 

What would be a hubbers perspective?

You just made me click a link to The Sun, please don't do that again.

Luckily I caught it before the page loaded but it was a close call...

[Eldron]

Fixies are cool but a little silly smashing them through traffic.

 

The "bicycle courier" culture has gone a little too much to some people's heads I reckon.

[Eldron]

Here is a more balanced report: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told

[NickGM]

wow you wonder if the media gets this worked up (even if it is  the Sun)

 

"Death Cyclist, mowed down ,wanton furious driving ,senseless carnage etc"

 

when a car hits a pedestrian?

 

but still track bikes without brakes don't really belong on the road so he is an idiot anyway.

 

He did have brakes, just not in the front. But I agree with your sentiment, track bikes should still require brakes if they are to be used on the road. The point of track bikes NOT having brakes was to avoid sudden stopping on a track which would have resulted in a pile up. ie: The point was to stop gradually, which is not the outcome you want in a busy city.

 

The thing is, in London, couriers used track bikes because they were practical. ie: very easy to maintain, and the city is fairly flat. But then they became cool, and everybody started riding around on fixies, and very few of them had/have brakes. So this kid, having at least 1 set of brakes, was actually one of the more responsible people out there. 

 

My opinion: this was a freak accident. Most people would not have died if they were hit by a car at that speed. He has not endeared himself to the public with his comments and in Britain this inevitably becomes a trial by media. I think on a technical level he has broken the law by not having front brake though. So to be charged with "wanton or furious driving/riding" is probably correct.  

[Eldron]

He did have brakes, just not in the front. But I agree with your sentiment, track bikes should still require brakes if they are to be used on the road. The point of track bikes NOT having brakes was to avoid sudden stopping on a track which would have resulted in a pile up. ie: The point was to stop gradually, which is not the outcome you want in a busy city.

 

The thing is, in London, couriers used track bikes because they were practical. ie: very easy to maintain, and the city is fairly flat. But then they became cool, and everybody started riding around on fixies, and very few of them had/have brakes. So this kid, having at least 1 set of brakes, was actually one of the more responsible people out there. 

 

My opinion: this was a freak accident. Most people would not have died if they were hit by a car at that speed. He has not endeared himself to the public with his comments and in Britain this inevitably becomes a trial by media. I think on a technical level he has broken the law by not having front brake though. So to be charged with "wanton or furious driving/riding" is probably correct.  

 

Perhaps I'm being pedantic but he had no brakes other than the fixed rear wheel.

 

[Patchelicious]

Track bikes as a commuter = stupid, track bike as commuter in city like London = moronic.

 

This has little to do with The Sun, here is a link to BBC if it will make you take this more seriously.

 

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

 

Yes freak accidents do happen, but would we be so accepting if it was a car that killed a cyclists and the driver said "well I had a hand brake".

[NickGM]

Perhaps I'm being pedantic but he had no brakes other than the fixed rear wheel.

 

 

My bad! You are probably right. I'd read a separate article that said he relied on "rear braking only" which I guess I assumed to mean he did at least have rear brakes. They were probably just referring to the rear wheel being fixed.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge 

 

 

[Hairy]

Did anyone notice in the one report that the lady walked into traffic while looking on her cell and after he was calling out to her did she try to avoid the incident.

 

Having 2 x brakes on a bike while commuting in a city, is in my mind a must. No debate.

 

I commute daily, and have to put up with people on shared cycle/pedestrian lanes who are staring at their cell phones, not paying attention to where they are walking and then also wandering whilst walking ....... you can ring your bell all day long, and most of them do not respond, not to mention that a good many also have earphones on at the same time.

 

Now tattoos, hair styles, clothing, etc should not be a part of how a person is judged in a court .... this statement coming from some of the comments from people in the one of the articles. But then again, keyboard warriors can say what they want, how they want when they want............just like I am now I suppose.

[bertusras]

Moving past the atrocity that is The Sun, and on the facts of the case.

 

From what I could gather, the accused was illegally on the road by not having a front brake as required by law. That might have led to the accident being avoided or the impact thereof reduced, we don't know. If anything he should be prosecuted on that basis for sure.

 

According to the accused he alerted the victim twice and no action was taken, which is a likely event to occur when someone shouts at you, you freeze.

 

My main concern with this is that apparently the victim stepped into the road by not using a prescribed crossing. Should the accused have been reasonably expected to make a sudden stop at the scene of the accident? If the accused hit the victim at a crossing where the victim had right of way, this would have been a no brainer, but to my mind, if you cross the road you should be the one taking reasonable care, unfortunately.

 

It is a real sad case, it really is. In the articles it states that CCTV footage was viewed, but nowhere does it actually state what happened. How many times have you danced around with someone walking down a passage in your life? The same thing could have happened here. Heck, she might have tried to avoid it, and both veered in the same direction, we just don't know.

 

Should he be judged on his appearance, having tattoos, etc. Absolutely not. He should be judged on his actions during the incident. Yes, he does seem not to show remorse for what occurred, firmly believing that it's not his fault, which could be true. Some compassion however would have gone a long way to change the public's perception about him, and cyclists in general. Looking at the comments section on The Sun website, I fear to be a cyclist in London. His attitude is not helping our case.

 

Edit 2: Also apparently he wasn't wearing a helmet. I literally can't even.

[Odinson]

Did anyone notice in the one report that the lady walked into traffic while looking on her cell and after he was calling out to her did she try to avoid the incident.

 

Having 2 x brakes on a bike while commuting in a city, is in my mind a must. No debate.

 

I commute daily, and have to put up with people on shared cycle/pedestrian lanes who are staring at their cell phones, not paying attention to where they are walking and then also wandering whilst walking ....... you can ring your bell all day long, and most of them do not respond, not to mention that a good many also have earphones on at the same time.

 

Now tattoos, hair styles, clothing, etc should not be a part of how a person is judged in a court .... this statement coming from some of the comments from people in the one of the articles. But then again, keyboard warriors can say what they want, how they want when they want............just like I am now I suppose.

 

[Vetplant]

Only an opinion:

 

First off: Very sad loss for the family involved, losing a mother and a wife is tragic.

 

Secondly: I doubt having a front brake would have changed the outcome of this incident. The cyclist was trying to maintain speed and would most probably have hit her with the same impact force.

 

The cause of the accident sounds to be cellphone usage while crossing the road. This was a bicycle that hit the pedestrian, but could easily have been a motorbike. I fear this is just going to increase with people becoming even more addicted to the screens on their phones.

 

London is pushing the idea of getting people out of their cars and onto bikes, they have some thinking to do to reduce the risk of similar future issues.

[cfcjim]

Report from the Law Review in The Guardian.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge