Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Sounds like pure chance she didn't kill him. Stands to reason if you're going to get in the way of a faster moving person who has right of way, you might come off worse. Just because he survived and she didn't, should give her actions and those of others a free pass.
If he been able to brake and in time, but was killed in the process(eg sent flying by applying the front brakes, it can happen), what are the chances that she would have been prosecuted?
|
I assume by your comment you've ridden a fixed gear bicycle, more later on that.
By your argument a pedestrian who walks out in front of a vehicle and is killed is at fault. There's a law that covers that. It's called driving without due care and attention! In other words be aware of your surroundings and expect the unexpected and be able to stop if necessary.
To get back to the fixed gear bike I used to have one when I was 14yrs old so I know what can and can't be done with them. The front break isn't the only means of breaking and unless you are going downhill "hell for leather" you'd be surprised at the short distance you can stop. Putting your weight on the upward pedal causes a breaking force to be applied to the rear wheel so a front break isn't the sole means of breaking and would prevent "going over the top".
"Why don't velodrome riders use this method to stop after a race?"
1) They've expended that much energy in the race they just want to relax.
2) Vanity as they'd look like horses on a carousel.
Bottom line, he could have stopped, tried to cover it up by changing wheels, prosecute to the extent the law allows!