I don’t respect you, you irresponsible cunt.
A “dangerous” cyclist knocked down and killed a pedestrian on a busy London street and then blamed his victim, saying people have “zero respect”, a court heard.
This was no ordinary Lycra lout, mind…
Alliston was riding a “fixie”, a fixed-gear track bicycle with no front break, which is not legal on the road without modification.
He was riding a dangerous and illegal vehicle on the public highway and having killed someone as a direct consequence of his irresponsible negligence and recklessness, expects respect? What!?!
He wrote: “I feel bad due to the seriousness of her injuries but I can put my hand up and say this is not my fault.”
Yes, it was your fault. It was entirely your fault – you hit a pedestrian because you were riding a bike that didn’t have a front brake you vile little monster.
On an internet forum he described how their heads collided and hers “ricocheted” into his. He wrote: “It is a pretty serious incident so I won’t bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault but she did not deserve it.”
No, she didn’t deserve it and it wasn’t her fault. You were on the vehicle, you are charged with exercising due diligence for others, especially pedestrians.
He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone. He complained: “Everyone is quick to judge and help the so-called victim but not the other person in the situation.
“It all happened so fast and even at a slow speed there was nothing I could do. I just wish people would stop making judgments. People either think they are invincible or have zero respect for cyclists.”
Jesus H Christ on a bike! You were riding an illegal and dangerous bike on the public highway, so that’s damned right, we should have zero respect for you. Respect is earned not granted as of a right. Still, it’s for the jury to make a judgement now.
Lock him up and throw away the key.
This one is probably more up Julia’s street…
I wonder if cyclists that ‘speed’ have any idea about stopping distances? I have watched cyclist following panel vans only three foot in front of them so they have no chance of observing traffic ahead, just the back of the van moving towards them rapidly far faster than their reaction time let alone braking distance.
Around here there are a lot of steep hills and I often see cyclists doing more than 40 mph, (I ‘chased’ one once in the car and gave up at 40 mph because I didn’t feel safe in my stable, four-wheeled, ABS equipped vehicle). Do they not realise that going downhill braking power is lost as the grip on the road reduces and part of the bike/rider mass acts to pull the bike forward.
And now we find that some cyclists think it is smart to have no brakes at all.
Only a complete moron would ride a track bike on public roads. That said, if the pedestrian walked out in front of him without looking then I would say that she shared some of the blame. While cycling I have had a few near misses with people either walking or cycling while staring at their phone.
Common law duty of care applies. A vehicle user cannot assume roadcraft on the part of pedestrians. In this case, using an unroadworthy vehicle was the height of recklessness. Manslaughter is the right charge here and he deserves to go down for a long time.
I think that’s why to pass a driving/riding test now they have the hazard perception part. I’ve never understood why the cycling proficiency test I did as a child hasn’t been revamped and wheeled out to cyclists before being allowed on the road.
Seriously??? Is this the level of “Journalism” we have now?
Yeah, I did notice.
It passed the spellchecker and no-one employs sub-editors any longer.
I’m a London cycle commuter and it is fair to say that quite a number of pedestrians do step off of the kerb without looking. The more experienced you are, the more the you learn to recognise the signs and trust your instincts as to who might do so and be able to alert them to the danger. That said, you can’t always predict when someone is going to put themselves in to your path so brakes are very handy!
The last pedestrian I failed to predict the intentions of walked away scot free whereas I picked up some scrapes having slammed on my brakes and ended up in a tangle on the floor. If he’d stepped out a second later he wouldn’t have been so lucky.
This being the nub of the matter.
I wonder how many more of these bikes are on the road?
And, even if pedestrians behave in a foolish manner, that does not absolve vehicle users of a duty of care towards them.
@LR, you need to calm down or the Groan will be offering you a job.
Which is rather similar to many Swedish, German etc bicycles – fixed-gear: stop pedals rotating = bike stops very fast.
Yep, he’s an oaf, but “riding a dangerous and illegal
vehiclebicycle on the public highway” is a non-issue. How many bicycles on road are illegal as no rear reflector?@LR, you need to calm down or the Groan will be offering you a job.
Which is rather similar to many Swedish, German etc bicycles – fixed-gear: stop pedals rotating = bike stops very fast.
Yep, he’s an oaf, but “riding a dangerous and illegal
vehiclebicycle on the public highway” is a non-issue. How many bicycles on road are illegal as no rear reflector?A fixed gear bike does not stop as efficiently as a bike with front brakes as the weight of the bike and rider is transferred forwards during braking – around 70% of braking is transferred to the front wheel, that’s why the law insists on a front brake for fixed wheel bikes. That’s why it is illegal without and that is why using one without front brakes is dangerous and reckless. Using one on the highway is negligent.
That’s a tu quoque and irrelevant.
What matters is that this individual was riding a dangerous vehicle and in so doing recklessly endangered others.
@LR
On a motorcycle. Not on a bicycle where rear wheel braking is predominent unless one wants to go over handlebars and land on head.
Rear wheel lock-up on motorcycle and bicycle does not mean loss of control. Front wheel lock-up/skid usually does.
The same laws of physics apply – any vehicle under deceleration transfers weight forwards due to inertia and momentum regardless of which brake is applied first or which one is used more firmly, which is why a fixed wheel machine still needs a front brake if used on the roads as back peddling is insufficient to stop it quickly. A fixed wheel bike without brakes will not stop as quickly as a bike with brakes.
Yes it does.
Corrected that for you 😉
Back brrake on first, then front brake on a cycle – if you have time!
Yes and the weight transference will still shift to the front wheel, which is why the bike needs a front brake.
The “weight transference” occurs due to front suspension compressing due to vehicle weight. No suspension = no or minimal “weight transference”.
Other than two wheels, bicycles & MCs are not the same bicycle weighs ~15kg, rider ~70kg; MC ~200kg, rider ~70kg
No, sorry, it doesn’t. The inertia caused by the forward movement of the mass causes the weight transference regardless of suspension – the weight is irrelevant as the same laws of physics apply.
Well go try it then, slam on (aka 70/30) front brake on bicycle and experience the results.
No, it does not. I locked rear wheel in driving test – thought I had failed. Examiner said “no, you remained in control of motorcycle and you reacted properly, you passed”
Nope, correction is incorrect. I have had front wheel lock-ups and skids on MCs (inc on ZZR-11) and retained control with no crash. Perhaps starting riding MCs off-road – MX – at 15 and riding in ice & snow helped.
And the weight will shift forwards. Yes, I know. Laws of physics.
You still need a front brake in order to stop effectively and under control. That’s why it is a legal requirement. You are trying desperately to argue that white is black here.
Because of one of two things – either you released the brake and reapplied it, thereby regaining control or it locked right at the last moment as the weight had shifted to the front and the wheel locked just as the bike came to a stop – you would still pick up a rider fault for this, but it would not be a major one. Yes, I’ve seen this on tests.
My point remains valid. A machine moving forwards with wheels locked is not under control – managing to remain upright and not crashing is not the same thing as being in control of the machine. My correction is correct here. You lock up the front wheel on a bike on test and you will fail and the examiner will, correctly, point out that your machine was not under control. I’ve seen that on tests too. On one occasion, the candidate tried the same nonsense you have just come out with – “I stayed upright, so I was under control”. No, he wasn’t and the examiner was equally dismissive.
Yup, I can give you anecdotes of when I’ve had slides on slippery surfaces and remained upright. I can assure you that the bike was not under control, which was why my heartbeat went up.
Just to add – I think it’s time to call it a day on this one. We have gone way off topic and, frankly, if you won’t acknowledge that all moving objects are subject to the same laws of motion, I’m rather wasting my time.
That’s the diference then, I’ve had so many front wheel lockups/skids it doesn’t worry me and no raised heart beat. Recover from skid/lockup and carry on. Equally, gunfire & bombs/explosions don’t bother me.
tbh you seem a tad snowflakey 😉
Some good background on these bikes.
Indeed. My father used to race them in his youth, so I’m aware of their capabilities. I am also aware that if you don’t have brakes, stopping one quickly means skidding the back wheel, therefore losing control.
What pisses me off here is the reckless endangerment and indifference to life both before and after the event. He then expects respect.
If the pedestrian was looking at the road and not – as alleged – her phone, the accident wouldn’t have happened. The law says you need a front brake which is true enough but if she stepped out in front of the cyclist within the stopping distance of a properly-equipped bike then two brakes would not have avoided a collision .
I hit a pedestrian on my motorbike and there was no way of avoiding a collision.
A fatal accident has occurred and the cyclist was breaking the law by being insufficiently braked and he should be prosecuted but what if the accident was initiated by someone not paying attention to the traffic?
The cyclist may be liable but is he at fault?
We’ll see but I hope it doesn’t set a precedent to put the blame on any driver who hits someone who wanders into the road with thumb up bum and mind in neutral.
(Not saying that’s what happened in this instance, maybe the cyclist is totally at fault.)
Firstly we only have his allegation and that allegation seems to be based on the fact that texts came into her phone after the impact.
Even so, there’s the matter of foreseeable risk. In London, pedestrians stepping out in-front of you is pretty frequent. It is up to vehicle users to minimise that risk as best they can – so a roadworthy machine would be an example. This twat was riding a bike without a front brake, so despite the foreseeable risk, he chose to ignore his common law duty of care and failed to exercise due diligence. From the article, had he had brakes on his machine, he would have been able to stop in time. Therefore, despite any possible contributory negligence, manslaughter is the right charge here.
I’m pretty sure if I stepped under a bus tomorrow, texts would come into my phone but it wouldn’t mean I was using it at the time!
Indeed.
Yes but pedestrians should keep their eyes peeled. Does nobody get held responsible for their lack of self-preservation?
Pavements have people, roads have hurtling metal objects. It’s not a difficult concept.
If you don’t step out in front of knobs on bikes then they can’t harm you, front brake or not.
It’s up to pedestrians to minimise the risk to themselves because they’re the ones who’ll get hurt. Whether the driver is illegal or not won’t matter much if you’re dead – look to see if it’s safe to step out, it’s easy to do. Tufty was right.
I wouldn’t argue with that. However, there are caveats. Not all pedestrians are capable of exercising the level of awareness and anticipation that you would expect – the young and the old are less likely to be able to accurately judge speed and distance. I was taught this when doing my cycling proficiency back in 1969 – the principle still applies and I teach it to new motorcyclists today.
Given this, it is the vehicle user’s responsibility to ensure that they use their vehicle appropriately – and that means keeping it road legal. The requirement for brakes is so that the vehicle can be stopped promptly in the event of an emergency. Failure to have this basic fitting is gross negligence. To take an unroadworthy vehicle on the public highway is wilful endangerment. Sure, he could have been killed himself, which, frankly, would be no less than he deserved (Darwin in action). However, having done so, knowing what he was doing, the resultant death was manslaughter, regardless of any contributory negligence. The law, here, is clear. You mentioned precedent earlier in the discussion.
That precedent was set a long time ago. Alliston did not set out to kill, however, the likelihood of a collision was foreseeable and he did not exercise due diligence.
Two things – yes, he was and like me, you are showing your age.
Yes, it does indeed boil down to an unroadwothy machine being used on the public highway. There’s no excuse for that whether or not the pedestrian was incautious to the point of stupidity and initiated the accident.
I had Tufty pajamas and a Tufty hot water bottle cover.
When we’ve reached the level of stupidity that lampposts need to be padded then we’ve absolved pedestrians of all responsibility and vehicle users should treat all of them as complete prats:
http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/03/padded_lamppost.html
(I met a Mr Big from Living Streets and he was as underwhelming and overpaid as you’d expect)
Personally I’d let them knock themselves unconscious in the expectation that even the thickest couldn’t fail to make the association between texting and lamppost encounters.
I forgot to add that I called the cops to the scene after I knocked down a pedestrian and the constable tore into the guy for stupidly stepping in front of me and said that motorcyclists are very vulnerable and he could have caused my death (instead of damage to my bike and his arm which was bashed by the handlebar.)
I totally agree with you. That bike is a trail bike and not adapted for riding on the road. Little shit should have the book hurled at him with extreme prejudice.
According to the article, he had plenty of time to stop. Fair dos.
It certainly is more up my street! ?
😀
As (just, still) an actual cyclist & not a lyra-lut, this fuckwit was breaking the “construction-&-use-regulations” equivalent AS WELL AS being an arrogant fuckwit.
I hope they send him down for manslaughter