bikemig 

He can argue whatever he wants but he allegedly shouted her in time to shout out 2x. My bad as that was not an admission but apparently that is what a witness heard. From that a jury could infer that he had the time to slow down if his bike had brakes.

It appears that that allegation--that he shouted out 2x--can't be too far off the mark given his online comments after the incident:

"He allegedly shouted at Briggs to “get out of the way” twice before their heads smashed together. Briggs suffered brain injuries including two skull fractures and died a week later.

After seeing a newspaper report about the incident, Alliston posted a comment online claiming he tried to warn her but she had “ignored” him and “stopped dead” in his path."

ItsJustMe

I agree completely that if I had only one brake I'd want it to be the front brake.

But at the same time for decades there have been single speed bikes with just coaster brakes on the back. Are those illegal now or is there a specific exception? I think I HAVE seen a bike with coaster brakes that also have a front caliper, but as I'm not generally shopping for bikes with coaster brakes, I don't know if that's rare, common or mandatory these days.

noglider 

A coaster brake alone often suffices because you shift your weight back when you apply it. That's the theory anyway. I'm not sure if it's true because I haven't used one in years. And they usually come on upright bikes, so that helps a bit.

On the other hand, a neighbor of mine brought me his cruiser that had only a coaster brake. He said his chain fell off as he was going down a big hill, leaving him no brake. I said I could make losing the chain less likely and could put a front brake on, but he refused. He insisted I just take the bike, because I was acting as the local bike exchange at the time. I gave the bike to a needy guy. So having two brakes is a good thing, since things can go wrong with one.

rhm

Some people think a front brake is dangerous because you can flip the bike. And it's perfectly true. But it's a stupid argument, basically amounting to "it's dangerous because it works."

When you apply the brake(s), either front or back, all the bike's weight, including rider, shifts forward. By shifting your weight to the back, you can at best compensate for a small portion of this effect, certainly not enough to make a back brake as effective as a front brake. For best results, shift your weight back and apply the front brake.

A bike without a front brake simply cannot stop as well as a bike with one. Riding a bike without a front brake is probably okay for some riders, but certainly not for anyone who's riding in an aggressive manner. I have no problem with this kid riding 20 mph on a city street; but riding 20 mph on a city street without a front brake, that's reckless.

Staypuft1652

Maybe it's just me, and I haven't ridden a nice bike with a coaster brake (do they exist?) but I distinctly remember coaster brakes working alot better when I was younger. I'm not sure how much weight of rider has hindered it's effectiveness either.

KD5NRH

TX, manslaughter requires the "reckless" culpable mental state, which is defined as "he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint."
Thus, it would come down to whether riding brakeless is a "gross deviation."

acidfast7

update

noglider 

@KD5NRH, if the norm changes, does make the deviation more reasonable? I really don't know. There is a fair amount of brakeless riding in NYC, though I think it might be diminishing now.

Archwhorides 

Justice done, albeit perhaps over-harsh, given that an auto in that situation would have been given a lesser citation. The cyclist didn't do anyone a favor with his behavior, including the larger cycling community.

Archwhorides 

I commuted for years on a coaster brake Phillips. It was fine until the road got slick (which in the city can happen in many ways); good thing I thought skidding was fun in those days.

Staypuft1652

Yeah I kinda miss those days myself.

acidfast7

conclusion:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...-of-pedestrian

chas58

Are you guys nuts about front brake only?

1) Have you ever ridden a bike with only the front brake?
2) Have you ever ridden a bike with only a rear brake?

2 is often yes, because it is safe
1 is no, because it is very unsafe and unstable. No one would manufacture a bike like that because of the liability.

I road a bike with the brakes switched left to right. It was a nightmare. You screw up the front brake, and you are going down hard. If you are going fast, you are going to the hospital.

acidfast7

UK laws: The Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 2010

German laws: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvzo_2012/

In short, both countries have two-brake requirements and reflectors. The German law requires lights (white/red) with certain specifications (dynamos of certain wattage, etc...)

The HANDS employed for brakes for front/rear are reversed between the UK/Germany and the fault would automatically pass to the cyclist.

Interesting times.

Harhir

Yes German laws are very strict. You have to have lights, reflectors, a bell, two independent brakes....

Even at daylight a front and tail light have to be installed. And there are laws how they have to be installed. Min, max height, color, width and brightness.... and yes blinking lights are illegal. Pedals have to have reflectors. And, and , and, ....
One whole page of legal verbiage just about lights on bicycles...
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvzo_2012/__67.html

And yes you will get a ticket if cops find something illegal on your bike.

prathmann

My road bikes have both front and rear brakes, but the rear brakes only get used in two conditions: 1) long and steep mountain descents where the front rim&brake might overheat, and 2) if the front brake cable snaps.
Nothing wrong with just using the front brake to stop and in a hard, maximum deceleration stop the front brake will be the one doing essentially all the work.

noglider 

@chas58, I disagree strongly. The front brake is more important and more effective by far. I hardly ever use my rear brake. There is a danger of flipping over using the front brake, but that danger is small. It is mitigated by using it correctly, which mostly involves bracing your weight with your arms. Just don't slam the brake on in a panic stop. I think it's irresponsible to ride a bike with only a rear brake. Lawyers who don't understand physics designed them.

Abe_Froman

Personally, I think the guy got off easy, avoiding the manslaughter charge. Rear coaster brakes are safe for toddlers and other young children because it's pretty much inconceivable they're going to be doing more than 10mph. And hell, even if they manage to somehow do 30, a 40lb kid is unlikely to kill someone.

Riding a bike, at speed, without a front brake (or 2 brakes of some sort period), is just grossly negligent. You're sacrificing over 50% of your stopping power. Poodling along on a cruiser at 8mph on a beach..maybe it doesnt really matter. But he was doing 20mph. In the city. With pedestrians around (obviously...one of whom is dead). Refusing to obey the law, thereby more than doubling best case scenario stopping distance, is just grossly irresponsible. The only way I can conceive of giving him a break is if he really is stupid enough to believe he can stop as quickly with just a rear brake.