raqball

Not sure what exactly the point of that video is? It proves absolutely nothing unless it recreates the incident exactly as it happened which I assume, it does not..

Cute Boy Horse

You have it exactly the opposite way. Since the invention of roads, people have walked in them. They're places for people and always have been. Now, if you've gone and invented some high speed contraption and decided to drive it through where people are, that's your poor judgement and the grim consequences are your fault.

It's really interesting actually to study the propaganda campaign which made people forget this fact. When cars started to become common, there was a crisis. Lots innocent people getting mowed down, everywhere, all the time. It was a public outrage, and it became common that when someone was ran over, a crowd of people would pull the car driver off and beat them to a pulp. Because only a maniac would go speeding thirty miles an hour in a busy street, where children are going to be playing.

This damaged the reputation of the car, so the industry responded. They didn't bother to, you know, make sure car drivers were more careful and stopped killing so many people. Instead they decided to push the idea that crossing the street is old fashioned, stupid and dangerous. The concept of "jaywalking" and the idea that it's your fault you were ran over, this was invented by marketing men.

They spent millions getting the message out, and you can see how the idea only ever caught on in capitalist-extremist societies, like America. In Europe we simply removed cars from areas it's dangerous to put them.

Because remember, more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette!

Daves_Not_Here

Agreed. The cyclist who posted the video up to YouTube was apparently trying to show that Alliston could not have avoided hitting the pedestrian even with front brakes, but unwittingly showed that some cyclists (and likely Alliston) ride recklessly.

I see this happen occasionally on our bike paths (MUP's ?) at the beach. The path will be crowded with pedestrians, roller-bladers, strollers, children, dogs, and cyclists at maybe 5 to 8 mph, all loving life. And then along comes a cyclist at 20 mph, weaving and buzzing the pedestrians, and cursing every time a "clueless idiot" causes him to almost hit them. I assume this guy then gets into his car and curses at the clueless cyclists he nearly hits.

JonnyHK 

Something interesting that popped up on a UK based forum (a friend mentioned it)...exert:

"He's been even more unlucky because Mr Briggs who is wealthy, owns his own PR company in the City and is extremely very well connected, had the resources and the contacts to bring the case to the highest court in the land. The hapless Alliston who has been painted as another dangerous out of control cycling dick, had no resources or privileges or access to experts behind him for his defence."

Husband of the woman killed was well connected and pushed hard.

1989Pre 

Because the prisoner is in such a state of denial, perhaps the judge will order a period of psychological evaluation after the prisoner's sentence is finished.

I believe his choice of incomplete brake apparatus is secondary to the fact that he rode at a speed that could kill in a situation where a pedestrian could appear abruptly. This makes him dangerously negligent and in need of correction.

FBinNY 

By this logic we all need to put away our road bikes for good.

We all ride at speeds that can kill, and a pedestrian may step out in front of us without warning at any time. It takes very little speed to cause a fatal head injury to a pedestrian, simply knocking a person off his feet is enough, and fatal injuries have happened from simply slipping on a wet floor.

Simply colliding with a pedestrian isn't necessarily evidence of negligence, regardless of the outcome. The issue in this case, was the negligence involved in riding an illegal and unsafe bicycle in the first place. The fatality was a consequence which changed negligence to negligent homicide. (or the UK equivalent).

Riding in NYC for years I've had numerous close calls with pedestrians (no collisions), and IMO they represent a greater hazard to those riding in the "door zone" than the doors people worry about.

1989Pre 

Wrong. A somewhat ridiculous exaggeration.


[/QUOTE]We all ride at speeds that can kill, and a pedestrian may step out in front of us without warning at any time. [/QUOTE]

Wrong. If you ride at a reckless speed in situations where pedestrians can appear abruptly, you need to step back and re-assess your riding technique.

I rode in Boston for 34 years and did not have any "close calls" with pedestrians.

FBinNY 

I ride in NYc and the area. Stepping out between parked cars is SOP in the city, though less common in the burbs where folks are pedestrians only between cars and stores (yes, hyperbole, but not a mile off).

As for speed, anything over 2mph can lead to a fatality. It's not the energy of impact that kills pedestrians, it's the fall and head impact with the pavement. Your statement implying that a cyclist riding at typical speeps of 13-17mph in urban environments is somehow negligent is patently ridiculous. It's wrong both in fact and in law.

As for close call, it's a question of definition. To me, a pedestrian close call is anytime I need to do an abrupt maneuver, either by steering or braking, to avoid a collision. As I said, in NYC pedestrian encounters are more common than dooringsome.

jefnvk

Of course, the converse of that is that if he wasn't, the kid might have gotten away with it. One could take the view that it is not good that one must be rich and connected to actually hold someone responsible for a negligent/reckless death.

And I doubt the best PR firm and lawyers in the world could keep him from coming across as anything but a "cycling dick".

JonnyHK 

Being a 'cycling dick' isn't a crime though...

Some of this kids early social media posts indicate that the witnesses at the scene AND the attending police didn't think he was at fault (or criminally so).

Would be interesting to know how much behind the scenes goings on there were.

1989Pre 

If one is riding at a pace that is slow enough for the rider to easily and gracefully apply the brakes or steer in case of emergency, I consider that reasonable. This is achieved by staying in the single digits in an urban environment (1-9mph). Maybe some riders can "stop on a dime" at faster paces, but I think they are taking an un-necessary chance.

FBinNY 

If you limit urban street riding to speed limits below 10mph, or define recklessness the way you have, and I'll venture that the vast bulk of urban riders will simply give it up. Keep in mind that motor traffic on those same streets is moving at 25mph (or more).

So to imply that a bicyclist moving at less than the speed of the motor traffic with which he's sharing the road is reckless is nonsense. As I said earlier, you're wrong both in fact and in law.

1989Pre 

I don't even know where you're coming from with this. Of course the cyclist travels at a pace less than a car (at most times).
Comparing the two is erroneous, though: The car has superior braking power and is farther from the curb (and pedestrians) so has more time to react. The cyclist must keep it slow because she is mere inches from parked (or idling) cars and trucks in the city. If you are riding the pace (13-17mph) you have indicated, in the city, then yes, I'd say that is generally unwarranted. Slow down, thereby cuttting down on your number of near-misses.

prathmann

Maybe that's where you ride, but I consider riding only inches from parked cars to be almost suicidal. I'm riding out of the door zone and farther from pedestrians stepping off a curb than the curbside fender and mirror of cars. Yes, due to the geometry of a bicycle my deceleration rate is a bit less than that of cars, but that's more than compensated by my lower speed (say 20 mph vs. 25+) so my stopping distance is generally less than that of motor vehicles. I also have a less obstructed view with no windshield pillars etc.

FBinNY 

I'm not going to argue with you. You have your opinion and I have mine, though I suspect that mine is more in the mainstream. Everyone else is likewise free to have his own and ride accordingly.

Fortunately the law provides a safe harbor and a bicyclist riding with the flow of traffic and within the legal speed limit, will not be charged with negligence based on speed alone. Of course, other factors, ie. a lack of legally mandated brakes, can change (legal) poor judgement to criminal negligence.

1989Pre 

I consider "out of 'door-zone" to be mere inches (17-25", app.), compared to a number of feet for cars.

coominya

Which is how car drivers feel about cyclists I'm sure.

prathmann

Unless the only parked cars are DeLoreans and other gull-wing door models, that would be right in the middle of the door zone. As I wrote before, where I ride on typical urban streets I am farther from the edge than the fender/mirror of most cars.

jefnvk

Being a cycling dick isn't a crime. Killing someone through reckless or negligent operation of a vehicle is. Being a cycling dick is certainly a negative when it comes into sentencing, in which personal character is often taken into account.

Yep. She had a right to be in that road, just like a cyclist has a right to be in the road. She has the right to have traffic avoid her, just like a cyclist has a right to not be hit because a car can't be bothered to operate safely. Replace "pedestrian" with "bike", and "cyclist" with "motorist", and this forum would be calling for the death penalty.

elocs

"It is not everyone else's responsibility to babysit pedestrians."
That is EXACTLY true. As cyclists, sometimes our hypocrisy knows no bounds.

raqball

Very true.

Yes they would be..

Yup.. Add in some of the ego's are the worse I've ever seen and it's a recipe for disaster.

elocs

Yeah, some of these guys' heads are so big I wonder how they get them through the doorways without knocking the chips off their shoulders.

phoebeisis

22 feet away-
18mph=27 fps

With a great front brake-plus the braking from his legs-
figure .7 Gs-which would be excellent-dropping about 20fps every second

after 1 second of braking he would be down to 7fps-
he would have traveled 17 feet-so he would be five feet away and traveling 7 fps
by 1.3 seconds he would be stopped
In the last .3 seconds he would travel about 3.5x .3=1 foot more

So yeah he could stop in 18-19 feet if he could brake at .7 g(awfully good braking for a bike)

Bikes killing pedestrians-not common-
Anyone have any idea how many pedestrians are killed by bike-per year-USA

Anyway he should have been able to bleed off LOTS of speed-
even .5g-dropping 16 fps-he would be down to 11 fps-7 mph in one second
he would have traveled 19 feet in that second -
now he would be going 11fps 3 feet from impact
.4 seconds more-speed now 5 fps-traveled 3 feet
So .5 g he would hit her at 5 fps-3.3mph
so yeah 5 fps 3.3 mph head to head shouldn't kill her-hard hit but shoudn't be lethal

He should have had a brake and should have braked HARD as soon as he saw she was going to cross his path
5fps a .5g brake effort-shouldn't be lethal-
and why in heck didn't he move his head??
Avoid head to head contact??
Apparently his impulse was to NOT lose speed(just his legs should provide "a lot" of braking
he wanted to maintain his speed(my guess since he was a racer boy)so he swerved instead of leg braked

What was the claimed impact speed??
Those track racers-they seem to be able to "brake" decently-just by leg drag-maybe .5g but that is a guess

This guy probably deserved to be convicted-but a careless 18 yo-very common-safe bet he didn't intend to kill someone

Guessing in London as in many "walking cities" in USA-
there is PLENTY of anti bicycle feeling from pedestrians
Yeah the problem with people friendly walking friendly cities
1) they are expensive- po folks priced out-so they are for elites only
2) they aren't always bike friendly

JoeyBike

Which is why I do my best to stay out of their way AND look both ways before crossing any street, even a one-way street. The odds of me cycling out in front of a moving vehicle and depending on them to save me is ZERO. So motorists have one less thing to worry about with me.

atbman

He didn't bring the case. The police investigated and the Crown Prosecution Service (equiv. your DA) thought they had found sufficient evidence to bring a case against him. It's difficult to know what would have happened had he had a front brake - he would possibly have slowed down sufficiently for the admittedly freak effect of the collision to have not caused her death. Without the front brake the recklessness was something of a slam dunk.

I suspect that the rarety of the death also had some effect on the status of the investigation.