In the news

I was wondering, and I guess this may come up later in the case, whether there has been any research on stopping distances with just fixed vs fixed & brake. Obviously there's going to be a difference but I wonder what the magnitude of that difference is.

I also wondered about the emphasis of "20mph" on the Sun front page. Is this viewed as excessively fast by the Sun editors? I can't see there being outrage at a 20mph car driver. I just couldn't really work that out.

Go and try it out. Get bike up to a defined speed and then stop using
Front brake only
Back brake only
Front and rear
Front brake and fixie skid
Skid

The distances will vary depending on rider, tyres, pressure, brakes, brake blocks, road surface, weather etc

But
front brake only best, then both brakes, then front and skidand skid

As explained by sheldon below full front brake will actually have the rear lift off the ground at which point your rear brake is not effective.

Am not sure which would be least effective out of skid vs rear brake as this is so subjective due to riders skidding style.

Ask sheldon

I also wondered about the emphasis of "20mph" on the Sun front page. Is this viewed as excessively fast by the Sun editors? I can't see there being outrage at a 20mph car driver. I just couldn't really work that out.

It's there to invoke outrage. The average person won't get up to 20mph on a bike on the flat so, for most people, it moves it from 'everyday speeds' to 'excessive'.

Compare to 30mph in a car in London not being 'excessive' since most people will do that if they can.

Front-brake only will be almost as good as two brakes for many bikes and riders in the dry.

As for discussing it here, I don't see what the problem could be.

The problem was (allegedly) he himself making posts about it on an internet forum very shortly after the incident and those posts being used as evidence.

Since he's not here posting about it any more it doesn't really matter what is said on here now. No-one (except probably random journalists looking for clickbait) will be interested in what some random internet forum says about the case.

As sheldon points out, front brake only will be best!

Edit: tdlr. In two similar experiences on a road bike with two working brakes I couldn't stop in time. I have scars on my leg and a cracked kneecap. They had circumferencial insulation and no injury.

^^I dunno, the extra tiny bit of braking at the back before it lifts might help, although I imagine it'll be pretty much the same if you're yanking the front in both cases.

From this morning (Day2):

A young cyclist accused of killing a mother-of-two by ploughing into her on a racing bike sprang up and began shouting at her as she lay mortally injured in the street, a court heard.
Charlie Alliston was allegedly riding a fixed wheel track bike with no front brakes when he crashed into 44-year-old Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street in east London in February last year.
Alliston, then aged 18, is on trial at the Old Bailey charged with manslaughter and causing grievous harm by wanton and furious driving under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
Prosecutor Duncan Penny QC read out a statement from eyewitness David Callan.
Mr Callan described how he was walking along Old Street at about 12.15pm.
He said: "I had my head down looking at something on my mobile phone when I heard a shout.
"It was a loud shout and seemed like a male voice conveying urgency like a warning or alert.
"It made me look up immediately, just in time to see a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian."
He said HR consultant Mrs Briggs was not using the crossing some 30 feet away.
He went on: "The cyclist flew through the air and the pedestrian fell at the point of impact.
"The cyclist clattered to the ground further down the road but quickly sprang to their feet and shouted something at the pedestrian as they took a step towards the pedestrian who lay on the ground.
"It seemed like the same voice I heard immediately before the collision."
Mr Callan said he saw other people had come to her aid so continued on his way.
Jurors heard Mrs Briggs suffered "non-survivable brain injuries" and died in hospital a week later.
The court has heard Alliston's "fixie" bike had no front brake so was not legal to use on the road.
In January last year, he had bought the #700 Planet X bike second-hand for #470 telling the vendor William Ringwood he used to be a courier and wanted to use it for track cycling.
Jurors have been told that crash investigators had concluded Alliston would have been able to stop and avoid collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake.
Alliston, now 20, of Trothy Road, Bermondsey, south London, denies the charges against him.

I was hit by a taxi when I crossed a lane (on a longboard, observing cycling rules from side road across to side road) a similar distance from a crossing. My upper arm was broken and took 6 months to heal. A similar witness statement gave reason to avoid any prosecution of the driver, and no compensation for injury. The solicitors believed that the proximity to the crossing meant I had no case to take to court. 7 years later it still hurts, physical and ego.

physical and ego.

It can be hard to accept a longboarding past and reconcile it.

My grandfather converted to JW for my grandma, so anything is possible, I suppose.

So from the witness, shout, look up immediately, impact.

But crash investigators had concluded Alliston would have been able to stop and avoid collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake.

It'll be interesting to see how the crash investigators have come to their conclusion, I wonder how often they work on bicycle stopping distances.

They're doing a of work to make it seem like the bike had no means of stopping at all...

That will be for the defence to show.

I hope his defence is not just "it was all her fault"

The idea of a jury being given demonstrations of whip skids as a stopping method is quite entertaining.

Nicked this from the singletrack thread on this subject.

I ride with the Redbridge club which uses the cycling circuit at Hogg Hill and some of the folks from the club recall being at the track last year when the police were testing the bike used in this incident. So it does look like some research has been done on the implications on braking distance and how it relates to this case.

I bet they used Sheldon.

Has to be the first trial involving a tragic death and a cyclist where it's not been made clear if said cyclist was wearing a helmet and not one single mention of high viz so far as i read.

The main thing this trial should highlight to the wider public is that laws concerning cycling are an embarrassment. Dragging out an 1861 Offences against the person act next to manslaughter looks ridiculous.

Brklss on the roads is illegal and stupid but i think it's difficult for a juror to say that it amounts to a reckless disregard for life or not. Doing it is putting ones own life at risk so the prosecution argument for manslaughter to me implies that anyone riding brakless within the "not applicable to non motorised traffic" speed limit is seeking to hurt themselves and others incessantly. In that kind of an argument if he listens to a lot of emo music sounds like it might be relevant.

Jurors see the CCTV and i think if i was in that position i'd know what i'd be looking for in it to help reach a verdict. A sorry tale.

It would be interesting to know who they had riding it, their level of experience with brakeless tarck bieks etc.

implies that anyone riding brakless within the "not applicable to non motorised traffic" speed limit is seeking to hurt themselves and others incessantly

People can do whatever the fuck they like IMO, but the second anything they do puts somebody else, not involved in the original person's decisions or actions, at risk of injury, hurt or death, that makes it reckless. Whether they intended to or not or even if it was legal or illegal.

This is not specifically linked to the current case, I mean this as a general statement and can be applied to a number of scenarios.

^This may give more details.
Update:

Crash investigator Edward Small studied CCTV of the collision which was shown frame-by-frame in court.
He told jurors Alliston was seen in the footage beginning to swerve to take evasive action as he approached the pedestrian.
He was a minimum of between 6.65 and 9.65 metres away from Mrs Briggs and travelling at an average speed of 18mph, jurors were told.
Mrs Briggs stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash, Mr Small said.
The investigator also carried out tests comparing the stopping distances of a police issue mountain bike, Alliston's Planet X bike and a fixed wheel bike adapted with front brakes.

The court heard that Alliston was doing between 10mph and 14mph as he tried to avoid the collision.
Mr Small concluded that if Alliston had front brakes on his bike, he would have been able to stop before the point of impact.
Jurors were also told that, after the crash, the defendant changed the wheels on his bike but the original set was later retrieved by police.

braceyourselves_armchairlawyers.jpg

Highway code (for cars) says:
"The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance."

The front brake vs. brakeless debate seems beside the point IMO. The rider needs to learn the overall stopping distance s/he will need for that particular bike. Then never ride faster than what seems reasonable for that particular weather, road surface, level of congestion, likelihood of peds etc etc etc.