In the news

Is he even wearing foot retention?

IF the physical evidence indeed shows a front brake would have resulted in no collision (let's assume it did) I guess there's nothing else that could and should happen, as there is no ban from cycling or points system for cyclists. Somebody did die.

The UK doesn't have a system where the "stronger" road user is automatically at fault, so many motorists get sentenced with relaxed punishments because their vehicle is road worthy.

If cyclists that end up in an rtc and fatally wound a pedestrian have two working brakes don't get convicted, I guess it's sort of parity with motorists? But there are so few cases.

Now it's yet another opportunity to have people in a tonne of steel with quite often bit of wattage and momentum that regularly break road rules (I have one and witnesses the moronic behaviour when driving every day) to have a go at somebody in a tiny bit of steel with low wattage and no comfy roof cos "it's unfair cyclists break rules"...

Does seem faintly ridiculous, but the fact that sick whip skidz allow you to stop in about 1/4 of that 20m shown in the video is pretty important and should've been mentioned in court, if those figures influence the verdict/sentencing based on how wanton/dangerous riding brakeless is.

He shoulda paid road tax = instant slapped wrist and case closed.

I've found it pretty weird that there seems to have been zero mention of foot retention in the coverage of this.

did he not have any?

what gear ratio was he using?

pretty sure having fuck all FR is a far more egregious sin than no brak.

The really low resolution pictures of the bike on the news this morning showed plastic pedals with straps. Like you'd get with a new bike from a shop. Not sure if these were put on by the police when they did the tests.

The UK doesn't have a system where the "stronger" road user is automatically at fault,

This is so true and so responsible for the inverse hierarchy we have on UK roads.

Due to the fear of some riders of impeding a drivers passage, due to intimidating behaviour from some drivers, riders ride near the kerb. So are more in conflict wth walkers. Leading to some riders intimidating pedestrians.

Upside down world

If she'd crossed at a crossing she's be alive today

Drivers kill peds on crossing. Many

^^ This line of thinking ends in jaywalking laws. Fuck that.

via way of victim-blaming. A simple system can be devised where at all times a driver/rider/etc must give way to other drivers/riders/etcs that are in a more vulnerable category.

Ped<Cyclist<Motorcyclist<Car<Van<Lorry, where < = 'has priority over'

It has its drawbacks of course, but I think the merits outweigh those.

I'm aware that it was a bit of an impact post and I'm very much pro the idea that peds being the most vulnerable road users need to be protected, HOWEVER it sticks in the craw that the widow's sentiment seems to be that the rider risked the life of a pedestrian by using a bike that was inadequate for the roads, but doesn't counter that with the fact that the pedestrian risked her own life by jaywalking. Both made fateful decisions that day but it's only the brake that's being demonised.

I can understand why. She may have been negligent in not looking/using a crossing (potentially, I don't know for sure). But Alliston's choice to ride brakeless was more than negligent imo.

I agree. I think the brake is a contributing factor rather than a defining one, but the reporting on the story is really going for it on the brake, so we end up with another trial by media that has no nuance.

It seems to be generally accepted that no cyclist or driver can stop in 7m at 20mph. The police skid reconstruction is daft. It's on a wet road where the copper rides up to a line and brakes suddenly. Not terribly scientific.

jaywalking

... but that means illegally crossing other than at a defined crossing point. You can cross anywhere on a UK road, other than on motorways/DCs.

She didn't jaywalk. There is no such concept in the UK. She exercised her legal right to cross where she needed to.

She may have been negligent in not looking/using a crossing (potentially, I don't know for sure).

No pedestrian is negligent for not using a crossing.

Don't go down the route of imagining that things would be better if only we restricted pedestrians more. It's to the same approach to individual liberty that we owe the various cycling freedoms we have.

Comparable.

Tiers in a system.

I read the following between the lines of various reports (and obviously haven't seen any video). Charlie claims that she stepped back into his path as he tried to go around her back. Perhaps he thought that she would carry on walking and changed direction. It makes it all the more unfortunate that there seems to have been this misunderstanding in the confusion and alarm.

Obviously, it's all speculation.

Looking forward to the increasingly fash press whipping up some hate over this bullshit brake excuse, but ignoring the pile of dead people caused by drivers in cars. Sweet.

It's nonsense. They merely apply the same methods that they would normally apply if they were testing a car. However, with cycling it obviously depends on the individual rider much more strongly than with a car, where you do have some variability of reaction time and driving ability, but where the attributes of the machine are much more important. Some brakeless riders can skid to a stop in very little distance (and the police officer in the video doesn't really skid the way a rider would if faced with an emergency stop situation), others can't.