In the news

It's quite a challenge to skid at 20mph without getting up honestly

You'd never hit 20 mph tho

ooooffff!

In a police interview, Alliston insisted he thought Mrs Briggs would stop after he shouted out to her.
In transcripts read in court, he said: "I have warned her to stop. I thought she would stop but she didn't. That's all I can say. That's all I can remember."
The defendant said he was on his way to buy food for him and his girlfriend and was wearing a pair of shorts and a top with "Anti Social" emblazoned on it.
He was not wearing a helmet or a high visibility jacket, he said.
Alliston said he was riding a "fixed gear track bike" which had "no free wheel".
Asked why he did not have front brakes fitted, he said: "I feel safe. I feel comfortable controlling my own speed."
He told Detective Constable Darren Case he had planned to use the bike on tracks but he never got around to it.
Mr Case said: "Surely somebody must have said, when you take it out on the road you need a brake?"
The defendant said he never came across anything like that.
On how fast he was going, Alliston said: "I was not racing, in a rush."

how would this be different if he'd had a brake and didn't use it? - Is the question I'm asking

Another point: Many people ride without covering brakes with fingers. Their braking reaction time would be significantly slower. Too many people ride gripping the bars rather than covering brakes.

About 3 quarters of a second if the rate of deceleration is constant.

More interestingly, that works out at an average of 10G.

Alliston went on to say he did not stand by an internet post under his username CharlieF***ingA that he made shortly after the crash.
In a post on a news website, Alliston said the crash was not his fault as he had shouted out to warn the pedestrian, but she acknowledged his presence then "proceeded into the road and looked back at her phone".
He originally thought Mrs Briggs was on the phone because he saw the handset after the collision, the court heard.
He told police: "At the time I was still in pain and barely recovered."
Alliston denied he was riding dangerously, saying: "I would not say it was dangerous if they were looking.
"I wasn't messing around. I was not on the phone day-dreaming.
"I was paying attention to what was going on around me."
The trial was adjourned until 2pm on Wednesday.

You in the court room?

possibly has a "court news" feed

Yep just a feed

10G!?

That reminds me of when I was a witness in court, the defendant claimed that he'd merely slowed down lightly to let a car out of a side road, his speed had never dropped below 20mph, and myself and @sasmon had been quite a way behind him. One of the judges quite rightly asked, "how then did @sasmon manage to hit the back of your van with such force to break his bike and to leave a person sized dent in the boot, unless he was cycling at impossible speeds?"

He and his lawyer clearly hadn't thought that one through.

More interestingly, that works out at an average of 10G.

No. For 8m/s to 0m/s in 3.2m the rate of deceleration would be 10m/s^2, so ~1G (=9.8m/s^2).

Your a 10m/s^2, so ~1G (=9.8m/s^2)...

Interesting how pivotal the pre-meditated aspect of brklss appears to be. This suggests that if he'd been on a perfectly maintained "normal" bike but still hit the victim through incompetent riding he'd have been charged with a less serious crime.

Going back and reading opening comments from the prosecution they had a heavy focus on the comments on social media. which to an extent have no bearing on the facts of the case or his guilt / innocence it sounds like there were just there to make the jury hate the defendant before the trial had even begun and to play into the mass media negertive sterotype of cyclists.

This some sort of journalist paid feed or open to anyone?

y u like dis doe?

hashtagyourenotwrong

I think the manslaughter charge, so far as I can interpret, is entirely based on the brakeless element.

Yes, they're trying to establish a principle that brakeless is prima facie reckless

Cat/pigeons, walking into a road not at the crossing and without due care and attention for traffic is also reckless, no?

Cats and pigeons have a better road sense - not like the squirrelly road sense of say e.g.
squirrels.

2 kids lost their mum because of some self-entitled prick who could not keep his mouth shut afterwards.

An 18 year old idiot screwed up his life before it has even started.

Only good thing that can come out of this is deterrence.

Whole thing is a clusterfuck.

2 kids lost their mum because of some self-entitled prick who could not keep his mouth shut afterwards

2 kids lost their mum because of some guy on a bike. He believes he was not in the wrong and this is for a court of law to decide. Don't get me wrong - he's shouldn't have said anything afterwards. But it's for a court of law to decide if the lack of brakes affected the accident.
He was only 18 when this happened, and he responded like a child would. I'm running through how I would have acted if this had happened to me aged 18 and I'd probably be furious and have blamed the woman too.

Only good thing that can come out of this is deterrence.

Or a change in the law, public awareness. Perhaps even members of the public looking before crossing the road.

EDIT: I'm not on either side, but you can't just whitewash it like you (or most mainstream papers) have done

"how then did @sasmon manage to hit the back of your van with such force to break his bike and to leave a person sized dent in the boot, unless he was cycling at impossible speeds?"

This one?

https://twitter.com/cyclingweekly/status/897505784883531776

We nearly made it a day without emotive language.