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.