Current Events > Hipster Bicyclist runs over and kills mother of two in bike without front breaks

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41028321

Maybe I'm just judgemental but maybe, just maybe, when you are on trial for killing a person because you were riding on a ridiculously illegal hipster bicycle that has gimped breaks for hipster reasons you should remove the facial piercings before you appear in court instead of appearing with a hip hairdo and your ring piercing through your nose through the cheek gold dot like a stylish little tworp that can't be bothered to conform with societal norms at all after you fucking killed a person because you couldn't be bothered with stylish norms like regular legal brakes on your bike so you paid extra so that you could get a bike without brakes.

Holy shit.

I'm not on his side at all but I'm super confused here.

This is the first I'm reading about a front break.. was that really the deciding factor? Everything I've read has been a lot different from this story (none were this recent).

Did he use his back break? I could be wrong here but if he was still going 10-15mph after using the back break then hitting the front would have been a serious endo right? Likly feet over bars type endo ya?

I still think he should go to jail because if anything he had plenty of room and time to avoid her outside her walking path and if she jumped or ran into his path it wouldn't have been his fault. I'm just a little surprised the front break was made out like that, can anyone explain a bit better for me? I've only ridden dirt bikes mostly, I've ridden some bikes but I've never ridden one where I required my front break to slow down enough to avoid someone (though they were still on my street bmx bikes.
---

And only two years?

Zeeak4444 posted...

I'm not on his side at all but I'm super confused here.

This is the first I'm reading about a front break.. was that really the deciding factor? Everything I've read has been a lot different from this story (none were this recent).

Did he use his back break? I could be wrong here but if he was still going 10-15mph after using the back break then hitting the front would have been a serious endo right? Likly feet over bars type endo ya?

I still think he should go to jail because if anything he had plenty of room and time to avoid her outside her walking path and if she jumped or ran into his path it wouldn't have been his fault. I'm just a little surprised the front break was made out like that, can anyone explain a bit better for me? I've only ridden dirt bikes mostly, I've ridden some bikes but I've never ridden one where I required my front break to slow down enough to avoid someone (though they were still on my street bmx bikes.

He got convicted because they found that he would have had plenty of room to break if had been riding a road legal bicycle. He went out of his way to buy a bike that was illegal for use on the road and then he ran over and killed a person.

"wanton or furious driving"

That sounds so British.
---

Atralis posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

I'm not on his side at all but I'm super confused here.

This is the first I'm reading about a front break.. was that really the deciding factor? Everything I've read has been a lot different from this story (none were this recent).

Did he use his back break? I could be wrong here but if he was still going 10-15mph after using the back break then hitting the front would have been a serious endo right? Likly feet over bars type endo ya?

I still think he should go to jail because if anything he had plenty of room and time to avoid her outside her walking path and if she jumped or ran into his path it wouldn't have been his fault. I'm just a little surprised the front break was made out like that, can anyone explain a bit better for me? I've only ridden dirt bikes mostly, I've ridden some bikes but I've never ridden one where I required my front break to slow down enough to avoid someone (though they were still on my street bmx bikes.

He got convicted because they found that he would have had plenty of room to break if had been riding a road legal bicycle. He went out of his way to buy a bike that was illegal for use on the road and then he ran over and killed a person.

I'm not disagreeing with that but I'm asking about the front break specifically.

He was going 10-15mph right? Wouldn't the front break just have thrown him face first into the pavement?

I figured he should be locked up for the same charges but for negligence or straight up recklessness to not get out the way or something.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Atralis posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

I'm not on his side at all but I'm super confused here.

This is the first I'm reading about a front break.. was that really the deciding factor? Everything I've read has been a lot different from this story (none were this recent).

Did he use his back break? I could be wrong here but if he was still going 10-15mph after using the back break then hitting the front would have been a serious endo right? Likly feet over bars type endo ya?

I still think he should go to jail because if anything he had plenty of room and time to avoid her outside her walking path and if she jumped or ran into his path it wouldn't have been his fault. I'm just a little surprised the front break was made out like that, can anyone explain a bit better for me? I've only ridden dirt bikes mostly, I've ridden some bikes but I've never ridden one where I required my front break to slow down enough to avoid someone (though they were still on my street bmx bikes.

He got convicted because they found that he would have had plenty of room to break if had been riding a road legal bicycle. He went out of his way to buy a bike that was illegal for use on the road and then he ran over and killed a person.

I'm not disagreeing with that but I'm asking about the front break specifically.

He was going 10-15mph right? Wouldn't the front break just have thrown him face first into the pavement?

I figured he should be locked up for the same charges but for negligence or straight up recklessness to not get out the way or something.

It takes a fraction of distance for a bike with front brakes to come to a full stop, safely or not, let alone slow to a speed where an impact wouldn't be enough to kill a person. Fixie bikes really are far worse at breaking than standard bikes which is the reason why the are illegal to ride on roads in many places including the UK where this guy did it.