AlexanderLS

Opinions on this story?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ggs-court-told

To summarize, a young adult was riding his fixie and a pedestrian decided to cross illegally ignoring the indicators/traffic control devices. He yelled out at her to alert but she was more concerned with her smartphone then the law or her safety. He was unable to come to a complete stop and ran into her causing her eventual death.

They are trying to blame the lack of front brakes. I'm not convinced it would've made any difference. If he had skid braked and front braked he likely would've been thrown off his bike into her. If it was my choice, I'd throw the case out as he was following the law and he made every effort to prevent the situation, the lady was suicidal crossing illegally while having head buried in phone.

What do you guys think?

atbman

To summarise:

1. There are no laws preventing pedestrians from crossing the road in the UK with the exception of motorways (freeways), so she wasn't acting illegally
2. The law requires a front brake on a fixie in the UK. He was therefore riding a bike which was illegal, since there was no such brake on his bike. Your assumption that such a brake would have made no difference flies in the face of the laws of physics, since slowing down on a bike transfers the majority of the weight towards the front wheel and, since the front wheel could not be slowed down, the distance he would travel using rear wheel braking only would be greater, even more so if he skidded said rear wheel, which would reduce the braking effect.
3. In his testimony he said he called out twice to warn her - he therefore had ample time in which to stop. In other words, he did not make "every effort to prevent the situation".

What the court will find remains to be seen, but you make too many assumptions about the laws of the UK and physics.

njkayaker

Collisions are often the result of mistakes both parties make.

* Pedestrians are required (by practicality, at least) to look before they enter the roadway.

* Was it a street that made sense to ride at 20 mph?

* If she didn't react to the first call to "watch out", a defensive rider would probably start slowing down.

* Seeing the need to call out in the first place might indicate to a defensive rider to start slowing down.

It seems the rider might not have taken any (or enough) defensive riding action (we don't know, though).

In the US (at least), the defense is always going to present an argument that makes them "blameless". That's the way it works (so, being upset that the defendant doesn't admit "guilt" isn't reasonable). The plaintiff is going to do the same thing.

mtb_addict

I think he acted recklessly.

tyrion

Of course it would make a difference.

No he wasn't:

AlexanderLS

Glad I'm not from/in the UK.
So you saying that in the UK, people can cross a red light as a pedestrian.
J walk whenever and wherever they want? Seems pretty stupid to me but again I don't live in the UK maybe down there you guys have some miracle that causes j walkers to not die. But this article seems to prove j-walking has the same net result in the U.K. as it does in the U.S.

I don't appreciate being personally attacked and insulted.
I expressed my opinion of the situation and asked for your opinions of the situation.
I did not ask for a critique of my opinions, it was un asked for and unwanted.

You are rude people who hopefully will get hit very soon by a car.
Also you are both now ignored.

SylvainG

I only saw one edited post so not sure if that's what you're referring to but from what I read, the only offending remark is from you hoping someone will get hit by a car soon.

tyrion

Lol!

mr_bill

"Get the [explicative deleted] outta my way! Get the [explicative deleted] outta my way." Count it off. Three seconds. And yet he did not stop. From "less than 20 mph". Then he blamed her FOR getting out of the way, and for bouncing her head off the road.

"Green cross code." Google it.

Geography, unless you are in Alaska, not "down there."

Finally, in English we ought to write: "Cyclist on fixie who killed 44 year-old woman...."

-mr. bill

canklecat

I think you should sell your bikes, computers and phones.

njkayaker

This is silly. It might be that pedestrians are legally allowed in the UK to leap in front of crossing traffic but it doesn't mean that pedestrians don't have any responsibility if they get hit.

1989Pre 

I would tend to agree with this, as I have never seen a pedestrian that I couldn't avoid hitting.
I can't even imagine a scenario where the pedestrian appears in such a short order.

FBinNY 

I'm fond of saying "the devil is in the details", but this is a perfect example, so assume I've said it. It's a complex case, and I'd hate to be a juror.

Seeing the video might offer some hints, but it's still a case of two wrongs.

Yes, the pedestrian was in the wrong (or at least that's claimed), but that alone isn't enough. Likewise the cyclist was wrong, and left the safe harbor that operating within the law offers, by not having the legally mandated brake.

However there's plenty of conflicting factors. First of all, there's public perception. 20mph is considered "dangerously fast" for a bicycle, but nobody would blink if a motorist had the identical accident if driving half again faster (30mph). There's also the public perception that cyclists are obnoxious axeholes, who have no respect for other road users. But having lived in NYC I know that pedestrians are no better.

So, it's really about the precise timing and distances involved, and whether in impartial judge considers the collision "unavoidable or not", or more precisely whether he feels that the lack of the brake was material.

I feel for the cyclist, and in his shoes would probably waive trial by jury, but I have no idea whether I'm on his side or not.


FWIW - the law isn't on his side, or wouldn't be in New York. If the pedestrian had survived he could be charged with "reckless endangerment" for knowingly riding without the front brake. If reckless endangerment results in a death, that's criminally negligent homicide. So it's perfectly logical that he should be facing criminal charges.

njkayaker

* For bicycles with front and rear brakes, it's the front brake doing most of the stopping.

* "Skidding" is a "rear" brake (which suggests it might be less effective).

* The fixie rider was riding an illegal bicycle (lacking the required front brake).

* If the rider braked, the speed of collision would have been lower.

* Having a front brake (and using it) may have reduced the speed more than "skidding".

* Lower speed tends to reduce the severity of collisions.

* The "thrown off his bike into her" is a false dichotomy. That is, you are dismissing the possibility of a third option (slowing down and reducing the severity of the collision).

* How do you know the pedestrian was looking at a phone?

* It appears the fixie rider was going at a fairly high rate of speed and didn't do anything to slow down. Why do you think all of the responsibility for the collision is only on the pedestrian?

njkayaker

Cars are bigger (easier to see) and (possibly) more noisy (easier to see). Cars are probably more expected (less likely to be overlooked).

We don't know the speed limit of the street. It's possible that driving at 20 (or 30) mph was equally unreasonable at the location of the collision.

The rider called out twice. That means he understood the risk. It appears he did anything but call out (but we don't know).

It's possible that fixie riders are more reluctant to skid than use a front brake (legally required but not present).

I doubt that skidding or back-force against the pedals works anywhere near as well as a front brake.

===================

There's a "20" in some places on Old Street. Presumably, that indicates a 20 kpm (12.5 mph) speed limit.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5253...2!8i6656?hl=en

Ninety5rpm

The notion that fixies don't need front brakes is a deadly idea.

andr0id

I would certainly consider a motorist driving at 20 or 30 mph with no reliable method to brake to be dangerously fast.

I guess I'm a bit prejudiced, I ride fixed on the road and I have both a front and rear caliper brake. Yeah, it's not hip by any means, but I can stop as quickly as any other road bike.

BTW: that's so I don't have to have a different thought loop depending on which bike I'm riding.

Need to stop? Squeeze both levers.

vs

Need to stop? (Fixed with no brakes), Think about which bike I'm on, Yell at obstacle to get out of the way, pray, back pedal.

Need to stop, (Fixed with front brake only), Think about which bike I'm on, apply front brake, back pedal, pray

Need to stop, (Road bike), Think about which bike I'm on, squeeze both levers.

FBinNY 

I wasn't arguing the law or reality, I thought I was clear that I was talking about public perception. If I wasn't precise enough, it's that the general public would consider 20mph fast for a bicycle, and slow for a motor vehicle.

Had you read my post to the bottom, you'd have seen I believed the law was against him.

CV-6 

4. If he had time to call out twice, he had time to change his course and avoid the collision.

FBinNY 

I also rode fixed in NYC for decades (stopped doing so, only when hipsters declared it cool). My bike is equipped with a front brake, which saw very little use. I'm old school "steer out of trouble" and that's served me well over the years, including where a quick lane change on the highway got me out of a chain reaction collision, while the driver behind me hit the one inn front.

I have no opinion on the actual (not legal) responsibility for this event, because I don't know enough details to form one. However, as I posted, the cyclist left himself vulnerable by leaving the safe harbor that a bike with a brake would have provided. Even if he was 100% in control, his illegal rig changes an "unavoidable accident" to "reckless endangerment", and by extension, manslaughter.

However, I still feel or him, because anyone riding in dense cities could find himself hitting a pedestrian.

moth54

It isn't clear from the article whether the woman was attempting to cross at a crosswalk or mid block. Although this incident took place in the UK, where such a detail may not matter (?) this information would be germane in - for example - Toronto where it is not legal to cross outside of a crosswalk if one is available - the rule of thumb being that one should be 30 metres or more from any crosswalk for the crossing point to be considered as not having a crosswalk available.

"Where there is no crosswalk, it is legal for pedestrians to cross, **so long as one yields to on-coming traffic.**"

Rules for crossing the street - jaywalking - pedestrian traffic signals

There is also the matter of pedestrian right of way. That is, provided she began her crossing legally, i.e yielded to oncoming traffic if crossing mid point or if she began her crossing in a crosswalk with a stop/go signal before the signal flashed to 'stop' - she "may continue the crossing as quickly as reasonably possible."

The next matter is, if she crossed midblock, would she be considered to have yielded to oncoming traffic before stepping out into the road? Twenty miles per hour means one covers (5280 *20) /60 = 1,760 feet in a minute, or 29 feet in a second - assuming the average cross is 7 seconds for the entire width of the road, 3.5 for one lane of same - the oncoming traffic at such a speed should be at least (29 * 3.5) - about 100 feet - again, about 30 meters - away before the pedestrian should attempt such a cross.

It's not clear from the article how far the defendant was from the pedestrian when she stepped into the road, or how far when he first saw her. What the prosecution seems to be pointing out is that even if a pedestrian considers oncoming traffic and attempts a crossing whilst at a safe distance from said traffic, they might still - for example - slip and fall while crossing, thereby taking longer than anticipated to cross and requiring oncoming traffic to brake. This is a moot point if oncoming traffic lacks suitable brakes.

FBinNY 

If she was hit within seconds of entering the road, or caused an vehicle to have to brake or swerve, she "by definition" failed to yield, and is in the wrong.

But crossing illegally, doesn't make someone fair game. The cyclist would still have to make every possible effort to avoid hitting her, and that's the problem for this cyclist. By not having a legally mandated brake, he denied himself the opportunity to meet that standard.

So, he's now facing an uphill fight having to prove that the brake issue is moot, because the timing is such that, brake or no brake, avoiding her simply wasn't possible.

unterhausen

if it was safe for her to cross the road, then there was plenty of room to go around her. Either in front or behind. I recently had a situation like this in a parking lot, a mountain biker's response to me walking into their path (with plenty of time for them to stop or swerve) was to say "woah woah woah woah"

SylvainG

Same here. My closest call was on a MUP where a pedestrian walking away from me decided to leave the MUP by crossing on the left side as I was coming on his left to pass him. I was at about 20 km/h (not mph) and closing on him as he switched lane. Still had time to brake hard and veer (and yell, which made him stops in his track) to avoid a collision with him. Gave him **** for changing lane without looking but no one got even a scratch.

Can't understand why this guy couldn't stop or veer, specially if he had enough time to warn her TWICE. I only had time to yell once as I was braking hard!

wphamilton

A bike with a front brake stops faster. The cyclist with no brake couldn't stop in time, resulting in a pedestrian fatality. UK law evidently requires a front brake. The only thing remaining to prove at least negligence is that there was time to stop, were he on a legal bike.