Metropolitan Police says officer in stopping distance video had experience of riding fixed-wheel bike on the track

nbrus wrote:

[there are no brakes]

Doubling down on the disengenousness?

The pedals are in effect the braking mechanism. Saying it had 'no brakes' is an attempt to falsely imply it's the equivalent of a motorised vehicle with no brakes at all. It isn't. It has insufficient and not-legal braking capability for use on public roads, sure (and for that the guy deserves a punishment of some sort), but it's not akin to a car with 'no brakes'.

You also assume I'm concerned with defending Aliston. Where have I done that? I'm just pissed off at the level of double-standards revealed in the coverage and commentary on this case, am unimpressed by the Police's remarkably non-rigorous attempt at working out the braking distance, and just generally find your highly selective concern with pedestrian safety irritating.

As for the hypothetical lorry case you raise - well, yes, that's the point, such a case would get nothing like the attention this one does, might not even lead ot a prosecution yet alone a conviction, and what commentary there was would be trying to excuse the driver (and I suspect you'd be on here busily trying to do just that).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

[there are no brakes]

Doubling down on the disengenousness?

The pedals are in effect the braking mechanism. Saying it had 'no brakes' is an attempt to falsely imply it's the equivalent of a motorised vehicle with no brakes at all. It isn't. It has insufficient and not-legal braking capability for use on public roads, sure (and for that the guy deserves a punishment of some sort), but it's not akin to a car with 'no brakes'.

You also assume I'm concerned with defending Aliston. Where have I done that? I'm just pissed off at the level of double-standards revealed in the coverage and commentary on this case, am unimpressed by the Police's remarkably non-rigorous attempt at working out the braking distance, and just generally find your highly selective concern with pedestrian safety irritating.

As for the hypothetical lorry case you raise - well, yes, that's the point, such a case would get nothing like the attention this one does, might not even lead ot a prosecution yet alone a conviction, and what commentary there was would be trying to excuse the driver (and I suspect you'd be on here busily trying to do just that).

Have you read the road.cc article to which this thread is attached? ... it says the bike had no brakes (quote: "He had been riding a track bike without brakes...") ... maybe you should take that up with the authors and explain to them that your definition of a brake is quite different to theirs and that they are wrong. Using your definition of a brake, then rubbing your bum on the rear wheel would also constitute having a brake, hence no bike could ever be regarded as not having a brake. And in one of your posts you even quoted me as saying "... using only his leg power (on rear wheel) ...", which would seem to indicate that I did indeed acknowledge that some kind of method for slowing down was available. But those are not brakes. If PlanetX sold their track bikes as having brakes because by their definition the rider was the brake, then they would have a lot of unhappy customers wanting to sue them. If anyone is disengenuous its you.

And please don't get all hysterical on me :=)

My apparently highly selective concern with pedestrian safety would seem to be because a pedestrian was killed, which is related to the topic being discussed here. Maybe I should go off-topic (as you do) and post unrelated material about some motorist that nearly ran down a cyclist last week? Yes, I am concerned about cyclist safety, but that's not the topic here.

And you're right ... this case has attracted far too much media attention, but that's the media for you ... go take it up with them.

And regarding the police's apparent non-rigorous attempts at working out braking distance ... are you suggesting they hire Chris Hoy to do the testing for them and will it make much difference to the case? Maybe they should have gotten Alliston himself to run the tests? Do we even know the exact speeds and distances involved in the incident and do we know exactly when Alliston started to slow down? Everything is estimated and hopefully in favour of the accused. Since the prosecution accepted that Allinston's speed had slowed from 18 mph to 10 mph at impact, then that would suggest that they gave him a lot of leeway with that estimate, so exactly how is it that the Police braking tests have negatively affected the outcome?

And why would you say that I would be sticking up for a lorry driver that killed a cyclist? I am a cyclist, and sticking up for justice and fair play is what matters. If you think I should be a millitant cyclist that always sides against motorists and pedestrians just because I am a cyclist, then I'm glad to disappoint you.

nbrus wrote:

And regarding the police's apparent non-rigorous attempts at working out braking distance ... are you suggesting they hire Chris Hoy to do the testing for them and will it make much difference to the case? Maybe they should have gotten Alliston himself to run the tests? Do we even know the exact speeds and distances involved in the incident and do we know exactly when Alliston started to slow down? Everything is estimated and hopefully in favour of the accused. Since the prosecution accepted that Allinston's speed had slowed from 18 mph to 10 mph at impact, then that would suggest that they gave him a lot of leeway with that estimate, so exactly how is it that the Police braking tests have negatively affected the outcome?

And why would you say that I would be sticking up for a lorry driver that killed a cyclist? I am a cyclist, and sticking up for justice and fair play is what matters. If you think I should be a millitant cyclist that always sides against motorists and pedestrians just because I am a cyclist, then I'm glad to disappoint you.

I'm sorry, I know you've worked harder on your latest incarnation but the mask has truly slipped.

Calling the police's actions "apparent non-rigorous". Really? When an incident occurs and a road is closed for a crash investigation team to come in, do you anticipate this level of shoddiness? Demonstrating stopping distances with a totally different type of bike (weight, tyres et al), is this OK? Demonstrating how quickly one might stop in a surprise situation by putting out cones and using inconsistent and unrecorded speed, is this OK?

It demonstrates 2 things to me; a worrying desire to prove a point as opposed to produce evidence and if this is how shoddy they are with something quite simple, how can we trust them with dna for example.

"I am a cyclist" I don't believe you. If you think you are sticking up for justice you are a million miles short, or from the METs police test about 18 seconds stopping distance. Justice with what has happened in this case would see hundreds of old cases re-opened. Cases where cyclists or pedestrians have been killed and motorists walk away with small fines and points on their license should all be treated as manslaughter until the motorist can prove otherwise.

alansmurphy wrote:

I'm sorry, I know you've worked harder on your latest incarnation but the mask has truly slipped. Calling the police's actions "apparent non-rigorous". Really? When an incident occurs and a road is closed for a crash investigation team to come in, do you anticipate this level of shoddiness? Demonstrating stopping distances with a totally different type of bike (weight, tyres et al), is this OK? Demonstrating how quickly one might stop in a surprise situation by putting out cones and using inconsistent and unrecorded speed, is this OK? It demonstrates 2 things to me; a worrying desire to prove a point as opposed to produce evidence and if this is how shoddy they are with something quite simple, how can we trust them with dna for example.

"I am a cyclist" I don't believe you. If you think you are sticking up for justice you are a million miles short, or from the METs police test about 18 seconds stopping distance. Justice with what has happened in this case would see hundreds of old cases re-opened. Cases where cyclists or pedestrians have been killed and motorists walk away with small fines and points on their license should all be treated as manslaughter until the motorist can prove otherwise.

You are right as regards the non-rigorous police braking test, but how much difference would a more rigorous approach have made to the outcome? The police testing did show that a bike with normal brakes was able to come to a stop within 3 m whereas Allinson had failed to avoid a collision with 6.53 m stopping distance. If he had had proper brakes then he would still have been guilty for not using them.

I don't trust the Police to gather evidence either, but they aren't all incompetent ... just like in any profession, some are better than others. I'm not sure exactly what their remit is, but if a case involved a cyclist getting killed by a lorry, then I'm sure you'd be hoping that they would be trying to secure a conviction, but without fabricating evidence of course.

The justice system includes a jury made up of people like me and you, so if it seems unfair, then that could be due to loopholes in the law (and a good lawer will help you exploit them), or more likely the general public not having full access to all the details of the case and reasons how/why particular judgments were made. We all know how easy it is to draw incorrect conclusions from insufficient facts. Or maybe the system is simply rigged against cyclists and pedestrians? Do we know this to be the case? The legal system is far from perfect that's for certain, no disagreement there.

I try to keep an open mind and remain open to changing my opinion if new evidence/arguments suggest my current opinion is wrong. Others may have different opinions, that's totally fine.

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

[there are no brakes]

Doubling down on the disengenousness?

The pedals are in effect the braking mechanism. Saying it had 'no brakes' is an attempt to falsely imply it's the equivalent of a motorised vehicle with no brakes at all. It isn't. It has insufficient and not-legal braking capability for use on public roads, sure (and for that the guy deserves a punishment of some sort), but it's not akin to a car with 'no brakes'.

You also assume I'm concerned with defending Aliston. Where have I done that? I'm just pissed off at the level of double-standards revealed in the coverage and commentary on this case, am unimpressed by the Police's remarkably non-rigorous attempt at working out the braking distance, and just generally find your highly selective concern with pedestrian safety irritating.

As for the hypothetical lorry case you raise - well, yes, that's the point, such a case would get nothing like the attention this one does, might not even lead ot a prosecution yet alone a conviction, and what commentary there was would be trying to excuse the driver (and I suspect you'd be on here busily trying to do just that).

Have you read the road.cc article to which this thread is attached? ... it says the bike had no brakes (quote: "He had been riding a track bike without brakes...") ... maybe you should take that up with the authors and explain to them that your definition of a brake is quite different to theirs and that they are wrong. Using your definition of a brake, then rubbing your bum on the rear wheel would also constitute having a brake, hence no bike could ever be regarded as not having a brake. And in one of your posts you even quoted me as saying "... using only his leg power (on rear wheel) ...", which would seem to indicate that I did indeed acknowledge that some kind of method for slowing down was available. But those are not brakes. If PlanetX sold their track bikes as having brakes because by their definition the rider was the brake, then they would have a lot of unhappy customers wanting to sue them. If anyone is disengenuous its you.

And please don't get all hysterical on me :=)

My apparently highly selective concern with pedestrian safety would seem to be because a pedestrian was killed, which is related to the topic being discussed here. Maybe I should go off-topic (as you do) and post unrelated material about some motorist that nearly ran down a cyclist last week? Yes, I am concerned about cyclist safety, but that's not the topic here.

And you're right ... this case has attracted far too much media attention, but that's the media for you ... go take it up with them.

And regarding the police's apparent non-rigorous attempts at working out braking distance ... are you suggesting they hire Chris Hoy to do the testing for them and will it make much difference to the case? Maybe they should have gotten Alliston himself to run the tests? Do we even know the exact speeds and distances involved in the incident and do we know exactly when Alliston started to slow down? Everything is estimated and hopefully in favour of the accused. Since the prosecution accepted that Allinston's speed had slowed from 18 mph to 10 mph at impact, then that would suggest that they gave him a lot of leeway with that estimate, so exactly how is it that the Police braking tests have negatively affected the outcome?

And why would you say that I would be sticking up for a lorry driver that killed a cyclist? I am a cyclist, and sticking up for justice and fair play is what matters. If you think I should be a millitant cyclist that always sides against motorists and pedestrians just because I am a cyclist, then I'm glad to disappoint you.

Don't know where you get 'Chris Hoy' from - I am suggesting they involve someone who knows something about how to conduct tests in a scientific manner. Otherwise what they produce is worthless.

As for the "I'm a cyclist myself" cliche - I don't care. Don't know why you think that matters.

I actually suspect you are first-and-foremost a motorist (and for a regular driver to use a claim to be a cyclist in this sort of debate is a bit like a meat-eater claiming to be a vegetarian because they sometimes eat vegetables). But that's just an aside.

Your mode-of-travel isn't relevant anyway, the important point is that you are clearly instinctively very conservative. Hence your determination to always defend the status-quo.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

...the important point is that you are clearly instinctively very conservative. Hence your determination to always defend the status-quo.

I'd like to think I was balanced and open minded. I try to look at the evidence without picking sides. It is always wrong to start with an opinion and then look at ways to make the evidence fit, because you will always find a way to make it fit.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Why has the defence team not done their own test of track bike with front brake v track bike without?

1) Because they wouldn't get away with such a unscientific test as the police.

2) Perhaps because its ££££££ and cant afford it.

We need to fight this, the hysteria is incredible in the media and the law does not need changed.

Im all for the manslaughter charges, if someone knocks down and kills a pedestrian riding fast on a pavement for example, but this one was a collision at right angles on a road, the pedestrian (I understand, correct me if I am wrong) effectively 'pulled out' in front of the bike without regard to allowing a reasonable space for it to stop or go around.

Also, is it buried in the news somewhere as the man on the street seems to think that the lady was knocked over on a pedestrian crossing where the cycle should have stopped - is this correct ? - I know Old St. But only for walking along.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Why has the defence team not done their own test of track bike with front brake v track bike without?

This is the important question. From our limited knowledge of the evidence presented in the trial, it does look like the defence team didn't try very hard at all.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Why has the defence team not done their own test of track bike with front brake v track bike without?

Is there a truly expert analysis of this 'experiment'? From an actual scientist?

Because I hesitate to slate it the way I'm tempted to in case I've misunderstood something about it, particularly the question of what it was actually intended to establish.

My first thought in constructing such an experiment is that you'd have to recreate the randomness of the actual event. First you'd have to give the bike rider a real incentive to ride at a consistent 18mph (i.e. set them a time target for completing a course), so they are concentrating on that and not on their foreknowledge of what is going to happen. And then repeat the test a great many times, with only in a small number of randomly-selected instances of rriding the course, have someone unexpectedly step out 6m ahead of them.

On most run-throughs the people (and there would have to be multiple people next to the course) would not step out, and then you see what happens on the few occasions when they do.

Having the rider aim to stop at a clearly marked point they already are aware off well in advance of stopping doesn't seem to replicate the actual event in any way. I don't think there were markings on that road telling the cyclist where the pedestrian was going to step out.

One thought I have is maybe it should be compulsory for every citizen to do a science degree, so whether they end up in the police or on a jury, they have some clue how to reason about such things.

(Actually having real people step out might not get past the ethics-committte, but some sort of virtual equivalent could be thought of I'm sure)