It tells me it was an accident / wasnt intentional
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Cyclist on illegal bike who killed a pedestrian on manslaughter charged 'blamed victim'
- Thread starter Garage_Doors
- Start date
It tells me it was an accident / wasnt intentional
Agreed.
Some people think he's a cold blooded killer deserving of having the book thrown at him.
#lookwhereyouaregoingpeople
Creaky
Well-known member
I presume that is the crux of the matter - would having a front brake have made any difference to the outcome. To prove manslaughter won't the prosecution have to prove this first?
What are you serious?
He didn't need a front brake because it wouldn't have saved her, so therefore why have a front brake?
Accidents happen, accidents happen all the time, victims can be the instigators.
Charlie Alliston had enough time to call out to her, perhaps he would have been better off using that time to perform an emergency stop.
That might not have been enough to stop this fatality, but he would have done everything possible to prevent it.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,161
Pardon my biking ignorance, but would such a machine have back brakes? Seems that all the talk is of front brakes.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
It's 19 year old kid on a bike, you use your back brake first then your first in an emergency. He said he swerved away from her but she, having not looked in the first place it sounds, walked back into his path. Why you're bringing a car into it I don't know, why not a bus? A tank? A hot air balloon? Those weren't involved either. Come on Stat you're an intelligent guy, accept it as it is, an accident.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
You use back brakes first so you don't go flying over your handlebars should someone walk out in front of you.
drew
Drew
He can't, he hates cyclists. Difficult to back down!
I have no idea of the legal ramifications, his team will do their job in court.
They might do it so well he 'gets off', that's fine due process has been served.
The 'win' from this case could be hipsters up and down the country are currently having front brakes fitted to their fixies.
There certainly isn't a win for anyone involved.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,161
That's what I always thought from my dimly-remembered boyhood cycling days. Presumably having back brakes only would slow you down more slowly?
The drivetrain is 'fixed'.
The bike can't move without the pedals moving.
(You don't want to be going down Coldean Lane on a fixie)
So to 'brake' you modify your pedaling, or push back hard.
Rear wheel braking doesn't stop a bike, certainly not one at speed, it just slows it down.
You stop almost instantly by pulling the front.
Obviously ideally, you use the 2 in tandem, slowing the back wheel while feathering the front.
LU7 RED
Active member
The media absolutely love it when a cyclist kills a pedestrian...all the car drivers pile in too trying to deflect the amount of death and destruction cars have caused to cyclists and pedestrians over the years.
No doubt the cyclist is a bit of a dick though.
No doubt the cyclist is a bit of a dick though.
I do accept it as an accident.
I don't accept the rider did enough to prevent it.
I'd also be very surprised if he hasn't had a few near misses in the past.
Last edited:
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,161
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
An elderly gentleman stepped off the pavement straight in front of my husband, who was on a motorbike. He was doing 40 mph, which was the speed limit for that road. The old man was dead on arrival at hospital.
He was interviewed by the police, & had his bike checked, which was mechanically sound. There were two motorists who were behind him as witnesses. He wasn't arrested, and the only court appearance was at the coroner's court. The medical report said the victim was deaf & had a cataract in his right eye, so just hadn't looked when he stepped into the road.
The cyclist should have had front brakes to be able to go on the road, so was illegal before any accident.
He was interviewed by the police, & had his bike checked, which was mechanically sound. There were two motorists who were behind him as witnesses. He wasn't arrested, and the only court appearance was at the coroner's court. The medical report said the victim was deaf & had a cataract in his right eye, so just hadn't looked when he stepped into the road.
The cyclist should have had front brakes to be able to go on the road, so was illegal before any accident.
Last edited:
drew
Drew
That is probably the only thing you have said upon which everyone would agree.
The Camel
Well-known member
Seems like a great deal of sub judice going on in this thread.
jameswestport
New member
- Sep 7, 2011
- 927
He shouldn't of been cycling the illegal bike.
Sometimes pedestrians don't notice bikes.
Sometimes pedestrians don't notice bikes.
Albion in the north
Well-known member
It's not really about a cyclist and a poor woman who has lost her life. It's about a twunt who thinks he is above the law and can do what he wants and a woman who will not be waking up this morning because of his actions. There must be a reason that "fixies" are illegal on the road.
Disclaimer- The word twunt can also be applied to car drivers/lorry drivers/ van drivers or pedestrians when the situation dictates.
Disclaimer- The word twunt can also be applied to car drivers/lorry drivers/ van drivers or pedestrians when the situation dictates.
Fixies aren't illegal on the road.
Riding a bike without a front brake is.
A proper fixie is a track bike and doesn't have a front brake, one would need to be retrofitted to be road legal.
Those of you remembering the Olympic velodrome, will remember the likes of Chris Hoy screaming to the finish line, then having to do a couple of laps, all the while turning the pedals, before being helped off the bike.
Them be fixies, the same style ridden by the bloke here.