https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ggs-court-told

be careful out there people.

Sad indeed.

He wasn't intoxicated. He wasn't high. There was no intent. It was an accident. Don't agree with the manslaughter charge.

Accidental death is what manslaughter means, though, right?

One of my high school teachers was on probation for manslaughter. He lost control of his car on an icy road and hit and killed a girl on the side of the road.

Not drunk or high no. But apparently riding fixed gear 20 mph around pedestrians.

After deliberately removing his brakes..

Lots of people are killed in auto collisions and no criminal charges. Element of negligence, perhaps? I suppose not having brakes on your bike could be construed as negligence.

Not enough details in article about the circumstances. Where was he riding? On the road? MUP? Crowded piazza?

I don't think that's a fair definition of fixie - it makes everyone else riding fixies look bad when many have brakes and are doing nothing wrong at all.

The kid's attitude was the problem. Unwilling to accept responsibility for his own recklessness. He'd have been a hazard riding or driving anything.

Maybe the laws are different in your area, but that's manslaughter here, and people do get charged.

Yes, when driver is intoxicated, breaking traffic laws, negligent. Operating a fixie without brakes would do it too.

I wasn't there and haven't seen the video, so am unable to form an opinion. Just saying the lack of a brake means the cyclist is automatically at fault is leaping to a conclusion that may or may not be warranted. I'd like to see what happened.

From what I gather the bicycle wasn't road worthy (by UK law) and thus the cyclist was at fault by default (as would be the case in a car without brakes.)

More info here:

https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/police-investigate-fatal-old-street-collision-between-cyclist-and-pedestrian-1-4449306

on the cover of the UK-version of the Metro today (free UK newspaper for commuters).

Metro article ... also spells "brakes" as "breaks."

Cover, when one scrolls downward

All UK newspaper covers for the day

interesting court result:

"In a legal first, Alliston is on trial at the Old Bailey for her manslaughter, as well as charged under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act of causing bodily harm to Mrs Briggs by ‘wanton or furious driving’."

Section 35 here.

Not able to charge for dangerous cylcing .... more info here:

click for info

Seems to be an unusual result, possibly exacerbated by the cyclist's attitude and swaying public opinion.

Agreed. Similar unequal prosecution appears to exist in the US. In the time that I've lived in the SF area there have been hundreds of pedestrians killed in SF by motorists and two killed by cyclists. The only prosecutions for vehicular manslaughter that I am aware of for motorists were when they were intoxicated or left the scene of the crash. But both cyclists were so charged despite staying at the scene and being sober.

new information

from the trial today

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5267...2!8i6656?hl=en

Sad situation indeed. And why do they keep saying, "front brake?" Seems like a back brake would work on that bike too. Regardless, riding a bike outside with no brakes seems pretty stupid. You may have the right of way, but too much can happen suddenly. He should be very thankful that the pedestrian was not a truck.

It's a good idea to have two brakes. When you have two caliper brakes, the front one is about twice as effective as the rear. If you have a fixed gear, your legs are as good as a rear caliper brake, so it suffices to have a fixed gear with a front brake. This is true whether you slow with your legs or not. I know a track racer who is also a bike courier, and he recommends using your front brake for braking solely and not using legs. This is a good strategy except in a few emergencies where you should use both.

In the UK it is illegal for a bike not to be fitted with a front brake if it is to be used on the road, cycle path, shared path, etc. This includes children's bikes as well.

I like that law. I wish we had it here. There is a fashion trend of a rear caliper only. I find it to be really dumb.

In NYS reckless manslaughter must involve a suspect who saw a risk of serious physical injury or death as a result of his/her actions then chose to disregard the risk and consequently someone was killed (ie. speeding 75 mph past a school at dismissal time, driving plastered etc.) This COULD fly in NYS IF the cyclist was going at a high rate of speed in a crowded area where the risk was great and he/she disregarded the risk. The onus would be on the People to prove it... The law may be very different in the UK.

The cyclist more or less admitted that this could have been avoided or occurred with much less force if he had had a front brake. He says that he saw the woman and 2x shouted for her to get out of the way. With a front brake, he likely could have slowed the bike down considerably before the impact.

He actually testified to the opposite.

here