- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Metropolitan Police says officer in stopping distance video had experience of riding fixed-wheel bike on the track
A police officer shown in a Metropolitan Police video showing comparative stopping distances between a bike with front and rear brakes and one without either has experience of riding a fixed-wheel bike on the track, the force has told road.cc.
The video was made public by the Met following the conclusion on Wednesday of the trial of Charlie Alliston, who was found guilty of causing bodily injury through wanton and furious driving of pedestrian Kim Briggs.
> Metropolitan Police stopping distance video in Charlie Alliston trial raises questions
Alliston, aged 20, was acquitted of manslaughter in connection with the 44-year-old’s death following their collision on London’s Old Street in February 2014.
He had been riding a track bike without brakes, meaning it was not legal for use on the public highway, one of the prosecution’s chief arguments and which led to police seeking to assess different stopping distances.
The Met told road.cc that they had been unable to speak with the officer who gave evidence in court, so were unable to confirm whether the footage shown was identical to that shown during the trial at the Old Bailey.
They did say that several runs were carried out on each bike, and that “the footage released on the Met’s website was designed to give an example of the test.”
Also, while many people who watched the video questioned whether the rider shown had experience of riding a bike with no brakes, they confirmed that he is a police officer with experience of riding a fixed-wheel bike on a track, points they said were covered during the trial.
Among those with doubts about the rider’s level of experience in handling a fixed-wheel bike, including Rio 2016 Olympic team sprint track cycling champion and individual sprint silver medallist, Callum Skinner.
Retweeting our story from yesterday, he said: “Very misleading video. Maybe find someone who has ridden a fixie before, not a complete amateur.”
Metropolitan Police stopping distance video in fixed-wheel rider Charlie Alliston trial raises questions https://t.co/Wyxrbkxbyb #cycling pic.twitter.com/EB1kMvYiXa
— road.cc (@roadcc) August 24, 2017
We’ve also asked the Met for clarification on other aspects of the video, specifically:
Was the fixed-wheel bike tested the one that was actually involved in the collision in the case? If not, can you confirm the make and model?
Was the fixed-wheel bike tested with and without a front brake, and if so what were the respective results?
Did you test another rim-braked bike with thinner road tyres? From the video it appears the first bike (a police issue one?) is heavier and has fatter tyres which should help it stop in a shorter distance than a lighter bike with thinner tyres.
We are awaiting their response, and will update this story once it is received.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- RoubaixCube 2 sec ago
I like how youre using a Mojito X to advertise an Mojito 3
- Basemetal 20 min 51 sec ago
The PU dip on the palm and fingers is over the knitted nylon so not chilly in use, and the material is thick enough to provide some cushioning. It...
- hawkinspeter 24 min 48 sec ago
Opinion piece on B24/7. I found it a bit placatory towards the people against LTNs, but then I'm just sick of motornormativity driving city and...
- Geoff H 35 min 17 sec ago
“jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists motorists causing “carnage” and posing a risk to pedestrians everyone else. Fixed it ..........
- chrisonabike 45 min 33 sec ago
Given that - at least in UK- we have a mostly flip-flop political system and parties in power eventually run out of credit with the electorate -...
- OldRidgeback 1 hour 48 min ago
If he'd been able to get hold of one of the rarer five speeds, it would've had a better choice of ratios. You can see it's got proper brakes, a big...
- David9694 1 hour 58 min ago
But whAT aboUT thE disable d? (Foreground left - pretty faded)
- belugabob 2 hours 6 min ago
If that's their bag...
Add new comment
52 comments
Serious skulduggery and the most pathetic stopping distance "test" known to mankind. Do these goons think it meets the government approved tests? Anything less then an actual recreation of the accident does not cut it and should have been thrown out of court.
Q. So what kind of a judge and jury accepts this as valid evidence in a court without questions? A. Anti-cylists lobbyists.
Q. Why are the cops faces blurred? A. Prevent being identified and implicated in this fraudulant "test" - similarly when cops shoot and kill people and end up in court, their force will not reveal their true identy. Poor quality silent video and no graduated distance markers (as there on the road with speed cameras) alone makes it suspect. More incriminating evidence in the 1st test where rider actually has his hand over the left brake lever (see image) and clearly slowing down long before the cone. Maybe we should do our own test and stick them on the road and ride towards them at 18mph and brake 3m before them and see if they jump out of the way. Charlie Alliston was victimised and this was a malicious prosecution and now there's a witch hunt against cyclists. The only thing that can explain why Kim Briggs jumped in front of moving traffic not even considered was suicide.
Screenshot_20170830-085510.png
This so-called bicycle "stopping distance" test defies belief. I mean in a back street and without sound or commentary - since when has silent movies been acceptable? Seriously, this cannot be legit, particularly that the cone is visible to the test rider way back from his long starting point. Presumably, the cone acts a point where he should brake. So is this not cheating, giving him a massive long head start to react and brake? Don’t they know this not how it is in the real world. So where is the hazard that should have sprung up directly into his path 6.53 meters in front of him? Also, in the first test it appears he is cheating again by having his hand already over the left brake lever going alongside the light brown fence and probably braking by as much as 10 meters before the cone. Wearing black gloves and poor video quality, only suggests an attempt to conceal this and other suspect detail.
If this test rider is to be believed that he managed stop from 18mph in "3 meters", why does the rear wheel not lift off the ground? As a teenager, I have actually somersaulted when I suddenly braked in a panic and, as an adult, experienced the back wheel lifting during heavy braking. Also its odd that the goon in the green coat is only present in the second test and, also having their faces blurred, makes them look guilty as hell.
To react and brake to a stop safely in 6.53m whilst travelling at 8m per sec, could any human have done so in that split second? Only last week, I was put to the test having just turned a corner and forced into a left to right dance motion with a pedestrian who suddenly appeared in my path, despite a lit zebra crossing only a few meters ahead that he could have used. I had no time to flick my fingers over the brake levers and only the swift actions of stirring, changing directions opposite to his, I was able to avoid a collision. What helped here was that i was central in the lane, which gave me room to manoeuvre safely. May be its time all cyclists ride in the middle of the lane to help guard against going through this hell.
With my experience, I believe Alliston was correct, “front brakes would not have made any difference.” Brakes are not be all and end all as accidents still occur even with the best all round brakes. I myself and a family member have been hit by a car and drivers were not blamed because we did not look before crossing. So, equally, this case is no different here, Alliston is not to blame for the accident apart from the offence of no front brakes.
This test is a cheat and an insult to experienced cyclists. Obviously, bad cyclists need dealing with, but only properly. I hope this is not the benchmark that cops and cps will now use and frame cyclists with much harsher offences than they deserve. Allistin, incidentally, has no reports of prior crashes so I believe they used this dubious test to frame him.
Reports of speeding were false and the media used this to demonise and gang up on him when he was only 18. Had the victim been a male and non-white, would this media have gone into such frenzy when they don't with drivers who kill? The irony is, if only Alliston was cycling a little faster, then he would have passed Kim Briggs safely before she stepped into the road. No one has explained why Kim Briggs did not jump out of the way and save herself from the accident which all pedestrians i have witnessed do.
Shame on the judge and jury for not considering the life saving green cross code. Failing this, they failed to promote its value and, effectively, demoted it out of existence, giving green light for pedestrians to cross roads unsafely and willy-nilly.
Are you saying that Track bikes should be made road legal? You seem to be suggesting that any pedestrian killed by a cyclist is always the pedestrians fault because they should have been looking where they are going.
I'd say the reverse - that maybe the ban on front-brakeless track-bikes on the road should actually be enforced. If Aliston had been told, even with just a caution or something, to fit front brake before this point, everyone would have been far better off.
But then it seems no road rules are enforced these days, for motorists or anyone else.
Having mentioned the crash-strewn road the other day, the very next day passed the aftermath of a nasty motorcycle crash on it (groups of motorcyclists and even quad-bikers regularly zoom up and down that road, sometimes doing wheelies - on one past occasion one came off his steed and flew across the pavement in front of me).
Loads of cops and an ambulance were all in attendance...then a big crowd of kids on bikes came along the road, without a single light or reflector between them, to stop and gawp. Needless to say the cops didn't seem to even notice the lack of lights on the bikes. (Pretty sure it was after lighting up time)
The authorities appear to have entirely given up on enforcing the rules of the road.
Its difficult to prosecute children for having no lights on their bikes ... there are just too many of them for a start. I think in general the police will ignore minor infringments unless there is an accident. They don't have the manpower to deal with it. They will also tend to focus on the event for which they were called out.
Maybe manufacturers like PlanetX should put warning stickers on their track bikes to say that they are not road legal without the addition of a front brake?
On another thought ... shouldn't the Police have been comparing the stopping distance on a bike with the worst available road legal brakes to see if having proper brakes would have made a difference? Would that speed reduction have been sufficient to avoid killing Mrs Briggs? In their favour (normal brakes test) they did do their testing in the wet. They also claimed a 'butchers bike' would have been able to stop ... where is the evidence of that test?
Donor registration.
http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk
Make sure your next of kin are aware of your wish to be a donor.
nbrus, a fixed-gear is considered to be a braking system, can you just accept that and make some sort of useful point?
Learning to be a good motorcyclist
Good riding isn’t just about learning the rules of the road: your skill and your attitude as a rider are vital too, and you’ll keep learning and developing these over the years.
A good rider:
Carries a donor card.
Fixed that for you x
Does that also apply to pedestrians? ... no need to answer that.
I will answer that. It would be good, and thanks munge for the link.
Yes I was being facetious but you want to bob around between responsibilities and vehicles et al, whilst claiming below that you do not.
Nobody has suggested that the accused (or convicted in this case) couldn't have done more in terms of the bike. However, you keep taking things to the n'th degree which can only ever lead to staying indoors in bubble wrap. At a very simple level; cars are 400 times more likely to kill a pedestrian, crossing a road whilst distracted is stupid and riding with less than adequate brakes is negligence.
I'm thinking a fine and some community service would be about right.
It was an accident after all, but he was riding a bike which he knew couldn't stop quickly although he didn't know it was illegal. He should have been going slower around pedestrians given his inability to stop quickly in response to a hazard. Someone died. He has to take some responsibility for this.
This might be useful, although it is refering to motorbikes, but seems like general good practice...
https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/learners/i-want-ride/starting-ride
Does that also apply to pedestrians, or only wheeled vehicles?
If so, looking at your mobile phone and walking out into the road without looking are probably not covered by this.
Probably at my most cynical this morning but you would think that Defense Counsel would have got used to the Met falsifying evidence by now and challenged this. Looks like the plan is to take the sentence & get it reduced on appeal , some behind the scene's machinations between the Prosecution and the Defence maybe.
I don't think anyone is saying that the police actually falsified evidence, just that their tests were not fair and were not appropriate or equivalent to the situation they were trying to explain.
nbrus, I don't know Old Street very well, I assume the cars drive down the centre line of the road at under 10mph. Sounds very civilised.
I suppose where you live cyclists overtake families on shared cycle paths at 20 mph on fixies with no brakes. Yes, very civilised. You probably have a bell on your bike, just to be nice.
Have no idea what you are talking about or what point this is supposed to make.
I'm not the one suggesting you come to a complete standstill every time you see a pedestrian, that you ride in a position where they couldn't step out on you or that travelling at nearly 50% under the speed limit for heavy metal objects is wrong.
Incidentally, on the rare occasions when I use cycle paths, I'll be pootling along on my commuter which has a big fuck off horn on it... Not to be nice, more to scare the shit out of the wankers!
Your horn must be worn out, I do hope you carry spares.
Little blue pills
Well, look on the bright side; with this level of incompetent evidence, the appeal should be a doddle.
Since the person riding the bike was a policeman, I would suggest that they weighed considerably more than a teenage cyclist, which would also affect the results. As others have said, this experiment lacks all credibility and would seem to have been conceived and conducted in order to convict, not to indepently verify facts.
There's some science in this guardian article, which seems to suggest that Alliston was attempting to go around Mrs Briggs rather than attempting to brake. It also says that Mrs Briggs stepped backwards to get out of his way when she heard him shouting. Unfortunately, that put her directly in his path as he was attempting to go behind her rather than attempting to brake, suggesting she was struck at close to 18 mph.
Looking at some of the numbers quoted (6.53m @ 18 mph = 8 m/s) the whole event lasted around 1 second, which would also suggest that Alliston was doing 18 mph with no brakes in very close proximity to pedestrians, leaving him (or a pedestrian) very little chance to react. An unfortunate accident, but one where having a front brake would have made a significant difference had it been used and where a lower speed (or greater distance from pedestrians) would have been sensible.
We won't really know all the facts until after the case, so a lot of speculation here. The whole case comes down to Alliston not having a front brake and was he riding recklessly.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-w...
I'll repeat it again. HE BRAKED from the outset, this is accepted by the prosecution, he WAS (past tense) doing about 18mph BEFORE she stepped out, a figure given by the prosecution. He BRAKED to the admitted by the prosecution speed of as low as 10mph just before impact.
I've given my comments on the amount of thinking time involved when multiple (unexpected) things happen one after another in a short space of time, simply put, by the time the pedestrian stepped back he was trying to swerve around her and was doing circa 10mph and had no additional time to take this into account.
Unless all road users should slam on their brakes for all potential scenarios when hazards present themselves on the road, not only the testing but the whole 'he didn't have a front brake and could have stopped' is ludicrous.
Ride at 10mph and at the last second (literally in this case) only a couple of metres away get something to unexpectedly fall into your path (say push a person in front) after having to previously a second or two before have had to deal with another unexpected event. See how one does in being able to apply the brakes in time when both those scenarios present you with danger and the potential for harm to both yourself and the hazard.
unless you can think quicker than any human being you can't think fast enough nor would there be enough time for the mechanical action of putting on the brakes/action of brake to take effect.
None of this is put forward by the defence and the prosecution does not include it in their pathetic tests. it should be a mis-trail but the defence lawyer is clearly inept or just not bothered to do his/her job properly.
So he managed to brake from 18 mph to 10 mph in around 1 second using only his leg power (on rear wheel) and all while attempting to swerve around Mrs Briggs and shouting for her to get out of the way? Maybe he did.
Imagine you were out on Old Street with your kids, and one of them stepped out...
I updated my post just after you quoted me. This bit of analysis was added...
So now you are saying you don't find the prosecution's analysis to be plausible? You speak in riddles.
Also, why do you keep saying he 'had no brakes'? He had a braking mechanism, just not one that was legally or practically good enough. Drivers often have brakes that aren't sufficient for stopping quickly enough at the speed they are travelling at. Saying he had 'no brakes' is an attempt at spinning the facts, it seems to me.
...they'd quite likely be hit by a motorised vehicle going a good bit faster than 18mph.
What's your point? That you'd say "phew, thank God it wasn't a bike"?
You superficially _sound_ less trollish than someone like bikelikebike, but your constant agenda is to minimise the problem with motorised vehicles and to push an 'everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds and nothing should ever change' conservatism, in order to defend a car-centric culture.
Which is why you come out with weird stuff like the above.
First you say 'no brakes', which you know full well is not true. He had _inadequate_ brakes. Which certainly merits a legal penalty, no argument with that, but why the need to guild-the lilly on your part?
And are you seriously suggesting that it's outrageously unusual to travel at the horrendously high speed of 18mph 'in very close proximity to pedestrians'?
Travelling at speeds far higher than that in close proximity to pedestrians is the norm on our roads. Remember the Glasgow tipper truck disaster? Do you agree then that that needs to change, and more has to be done to keep motorised vehicles away from pedestrians?
Insisting that 18mph is a high speed is just a joke. Drivers rarely go that slowly and find it intolerable to be asked to do so. Which is why I suppose you have to try and push the 'no brakes' spin. Because if you admitted it was a case of 'insufficient brakes' that would raise the point that motorised vehicles go much faster so have trouble stopping even with fully working brakes.
Sounds like you are justifying your support for Alliston based on your greivance against motor vehicles. There are no motor vehicles involved in this case. If you believe Alliston has no case to answer, then you are also agreeing that if you suffer a close pass by a lorry (at a slow 18 mph) and are killed then it is your fault for not holding your line as they pass. And if they have Fred Flintstone brakes ... well they still have brakes, so that is also fine.
Planet-X Track Bike Full Spec
Bar Tape Planet X Soft Touch Handlebar Tape / Black
Chain SRAM PC1 1/8" Single Speed Chain / 112 Links / Brown
Chainset Stronglight Track 2000 Crankset / 170 mm / Black Chainring / 48t
Handlebars Planet X Road Bar Strada Shallow Drop / 40cm / Polished Black / 31.8 mm Clamp
Saddle Prologo Kappa 3 Saddle / STN Cromo / Black
Stem Selcof Zeta 6061 Alloy Stem / 100mm / Matt Black / 10 degrees / 31.8mm
Track Cog On-One CNC Chromoly Screw-on Track Cog 1/8in/ 16t
Tyres Tufo S3 Pro Tubular Tyre / 700C / Black / 21 mm
Wheelset Planet X Model A Track Wheelset / Fixed Free / Tubular
Head Set Planet X Headset Spacer Set / 1 1/8" / 15mm + 10mm + 5mm / Black
Frame Spare Selcof Carbon Steerer Fork Bung MK 2 / 1 1/8 inch
Bottom Bracket Stronglight JP 400 JIS Bottom Bracket / 107mm / BSA Thread / Aluminium Cups
Head Set FSA Orbit C Headset / 1 1/8inch / Black / Intergrated / 8mm
[there are no brakes]
Except the law says the bike did have a brake by definition of the action of the thing that propels it, and the prosecution accept that the rider BRAKED from approx 18mph to 10mph.
You can't even accept the facts given by the prosecution that were used against the convicted nor what the law states.
Jog on troll.
I suppose rubbing your bum against the rear wheel is also a brake, or jamming a pidgeon into your spokes. If you think you can slow a fixie from 18 mph to 10 mph in 1 second while swerving and shouting, then get yourself on you-tube. And you can't seem to accept the fact that he was convicted of 'wanton and furious driving'. Pot calling kettle....
Pages