In the news

Fact is, it's in the law that you need on

It's the law that you need two brakes

and this case would would have been a lot different if he had one.

In the sense that there would have been no opportunity for a manslaughter charge, possibly yes.

Whether there would still have been a collision and tragic outcome - who knows.

I worry that if he gets off on just the wanton driving charge there is gonna be even more hate towards cyclists and the way some people have tried to justify his actions means that our attitude does have to change a little bit.

I'm kind of worried if he's found Not Guilty is will reinforce the notion that if someone steps into the road they're at fault for anything that happens. I can see some jurors being anxious on that issue.

It's the law that you need two brakes

I meant 'one' , as in, you need a front brake on a fixed gear bike.

Whether there would still have been a collision and tragic outcome - who knows.

Sure, but that's my point. The fact that there wasn't one only works against you as the prosecution and media have proven.

Would you rather just put one on your bike, or risk that you have to try and explain to a jury that you were in control and didn't need one?

This is on the homepage of the Evening Standard's Website.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/photographer-captures-amazing-pictures-showing-reality-of-life-for-london-s-cycle-couriers-a3614231.html

Three of them are brklss, no?

Such dull portraits...

Only one running a front brake.

I hope the cyclist is judge to the same standards a motorists. Perhaps this motorist.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-leicestershire-40163576

drunk at the wheel, didn't stop and guess what, suspended sentence. Somebody die, the driver was in violation of two laws but doesn't go to prison, will the judge be that leant in this case if it comes to it, unlikely.

I hope all road users are held to a higher standard.

Forget your own interests, the dude killed someone and broke multiple laws. He should be charged accordingly.

Multiple laws?

To all the 'but this motorist got off' its probably the lawyers understanding of law that 'gets the off' not the attitude of 'ooo cars! fuck bikes'.

Haven't seen anyone use that as a reason he should not be charged and face trial. There has also been some work done on assessing verdicts on motoring cases resulting in indications that indeed drivers are treated more leniently as the jurors can identify with the 'moment of madness' or smidsy.

This is a discussion forum, of course there is speculation and comment on the circumstances and technicalities of the case. Not sure why you think the fatal nature of this case should prevent that.

I don't think we should prejudge the jury's decision here (re whether or not he has 'broken multiple laws').

Hi I've got a procedural question I think you may be able to answer. A few pages back you wrote:

For involuntary act manslaughter, four points need to be established:

1. that the accused has committed an unlawful act;
   
2. that the act was the cause of death;
   
3. that the accused intended to commit the act;
   
4. that a sober and reasonable person would recognise that the act carried some risk of harm, however slight
   

Do you think the jury will be asked to find on these points individually or just deliver an overall verdict?

As it seems that the case hinges on the interpretation of point 2 (brakeless = cause of death), I'd feel more comfortable if I knew the jury were focusing on it.

After the closing arguments the judge will give a summing up explaining the law involved, summarising the prosecution and defence, and direct the jury as to what questions must be answered to establish if the prosecution has proven its case. So my expectation is that the judge will direct the jury to consider those four points, and to make a decision on each point that is disputed by the defence (so probably not point 1 about brakelessness being illegal).

Caveat - I never practiced, just did the degree, so a practicing barrister would know much better than I.

Cheers, that seems like a fair procedure to me. I think there's a lot of interesting questions to be asked about this case that are probably best left until after a verdict is delivered.

Does it not count that the cyclist was 12mph below the speed limit and had right of way? Also the lady walked out on to moving traffic. If this had happened but with a car that had failed an MOT would there be a trial?

Does it not count that the cyclist was 12mph below the speed limit and had right of way?

I think that's one thing the jury might be asked to decide on.

Also the lady walked out on to moving traffic.

Ditto.

If this had happened but with a car that had failed an MOT would there be a trial?

I'm curious why the DPP doesn't use this charge more in cases involving cars, and whether it opens up an alternative route to bringing a successful private prosecution of a driver who has caused death on the road. You'd need quite specific circumstances for it to apply, so it wouldn't be as easy a prosecution as for one of the causing death by X driving offences. But the penalty can be much higher, which may make it worth investigating - up to life imprisonment, vs 14 yrs for dangerous driving and 5yrs for careless driving.

There was a charge of manslaughter against the motorist that had illegal tinted windows and opened his car door and killed a cyclist, the jury spent nearly an hour to return a not guilty verdict. I posted the link a couple of pages back.

Yeah. I didn't follow that one closely enough to know exactly why the jury acquitted him, but I think in general it's a hard charge to make stick. In that instance I guess one key question is whether it was the tinted windows that caused the death, or the bus driver failing to keep an adequate distance from the cyclist.

Does it not count that the cyclist was 12mph below the speed limit

No such thing as a speed limit for cycles on the public highway. Except, possibly, in the royal parks.

Yeah. I didn't follow that one closely enough to know exactly why the jury acquitted him

I am going to make a totally unsubstantiated assertion that a jury made up of cyclists (as opposed to motorists) would not have acquitted him.

Has anyone else pondered what the outcome and current attention would be if the bike had been a sit-up-and-beg with only a coaster brake?

Presumably the same legal arguments would apply but I feel like the media interest would be different.

Has anyone else pondered what the outcome and current attention would be if the bike had been a sit-up-and-beg with only a coaster brake?

and say the gender / age of the cyclist and the road worthiness of the bike because there are a lot of cyclists out there with out the skills to stop suddenly on hardly road worthy bikes.
I didn't use the 'nodder' word.

The STW thread has good info on why cases like this don't stick but Bath tipper did.

I can't read that forum, I won't ride my bike wearing pyjamas

I dunno, it seems to be full of people congratulating themselves for having done a bunch of maths on stopping distances and talking about gross negligence manslaughter when that's not the charge on file.

It does point to this Wikipedia link, though, which is useful:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law#Death_by_dangerous_driving

This is also useful on causation, if anyone is interested:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law)#Establishing_factual_causation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092874/Car-crash-father-killed-children-converted-death-trap.html

I remember this from what I now realise is 9 years ago as the guy killed his own children through his own cack handed landrover modifications, but still denied the charges against him. Mental.