In the news

I kind of wonder what we'd be looking at if the tables were turned and it was A who died rather than B.

Also police issue mountain bike. Wtf

Police issue mountainbike has a limiter, never travels faster than towpath 5mph.

Source: Premium Rush (2012)

Wonder how this trial compares to cases where someone has been killed due to the driver of a car with knowingly faulty brakes (failed MOT or whatever) not being able to stop in time. Less news coverage, for sure.

Genuine question arising from this - are those dutch style bikes with back pedal 'brakes' not lawful then?

Pedestrian being killed by a cyclist is incredibly rare which is part of the reason why it's getting so much coverage.
It's also a youth on a fixie v mother of 2 and Sun prob reckon their readers hate cyclists too

That is more what I was wondering re: stopping distances, whether the statement from the first day (that he would have had time to stop with a front brake) had actually been tested rather than assumption.

It sounds like it has (although no idea what a random mountain bike was doing in the test) although I would guess each side will have their own expert.

Not brake related but a modified vehicle with illegal (as I understand it) tinted windows. Door opened, cyclist killed, offender charged with Manslaughter, take a guess at the outcome ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496

Yes, they're legal (as long as you have a front brake): http://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/construction-use

Correct. Specifically mentioned here as being in same class as brakless legally if no front brake present.
https://ukcyclerules.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/the-rules-of-bike-brakes/

"Reaction times vary greatly with situation and from person to person between about 0.7 to 3 seconds (sec or s) or more. Some accident reconstruction specialists use 1.5 seconds. A controlled study in 2000 (IEA2000_ABS51.pdf) found average driver reaction brake time to be 2.3 seconds."

Top result on the big 'G'. http://copradar.com/redlight/factors/

I would like to see that the bike test quoted in the case was conducted without a known point to stop. Like a car test emergency stop, if they know they need to stop during the test then the exercise is biased. I doubt the results would be as conclusive as the investigator makes out.

Were conditions such as road, weather, weight considered, was the wind velocity accurate to accomodate balance for the rider?

The death of anyone is incredibly sad, and this was rare and tragic, and the kid failed at composure following the event. But, with a cynical perspective of the public view and knowledge of cycling, this case cannot end well for anyone.

There was the case of a very poorly maintained truck killing a few people a couple of years ago, where the mechanic and company owner were all charged with manslaughter. That got at least as much publicity.

Edit: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/27/bath-tipper-truck-crash-haulage-boss-and-mechanic-jailed

I wonder how many people will continue to ride brake less, after this case?

I wonder how many people text while driving their lorry, or drink and drive. Etc...

They could of kept the UOM's metric for comparison.

6.65M and 9.65M is broad range of difference at an average speed of 18mph or 8M per second.
Not sure how that equates to the 3.8 seconds.

I'm curious to know. Of all the brakeless bikes on here, how many people's minds may have changed, if any.

Mrs Briggs stepped into the road 3.8 seconds before the crash, Mr Small said.

So perhaps 1.1 second of braking time before impact. This doesn't sound like an exact sciences, I would think any defence solicitor could create some reasonable doubts

Who will now admit to brakeless?

i will.

One of the first times I'd rolled from Rodney Rd to Herne Hill on the Condor lopro, I chat to someone (probably on-here) and I get a serious dirty look and lecture as he removes his front brake, because I'd come brakeless.

It was an earful, but enough to have me change to riding with the brake and suffer the inconvenience of removal.

Maybe whipskidders have more soul than drink drivers, and may now put the brake on. After all...Doesn't mean you gotta use it.

Next you'll say you have converted to square plates too.

you wash your dirty whore mouth out so help me GAAAAHD

Some more copy on stopping distances:

Tests on a conventional mountain bike found a stopping distance of around three metres but Alliston's model was four times longer, at some 12 metres, the court heard.
Cross-examining, Mark Wyeth QC asked Mr Small if there could be a margin of error in his calculations of the average speed Alliston was going before he saw Mrs Briggs.
The expert replied that any difference would only have been a "fraction of a mile per hour".

I wonder how many people will continue to walk out into the road whilst preoccupied with their mobile devices during and after this case.

I've only ridden the heavy Dutch back-pedalers but even at 20 I could stop a lot before 36 feet.

What's with all the replies asking another theoretical question? Like I said in the following post, I am actually curious to know how many people on here will change their minds.