The husband of Kim Briggs, who died in February 2016 from head injuries sustained in a collision with cyclist Charlie Alliston on London’s Old Street, has called for the law regarding dangerous cycling to be brought up to date.
Alliston, aged 20, was convicted at the Old Bailey of causing bodily harm through wanton or furious driving, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
He was acquitted of manslaughter in connection with the 44-year-old’s death, but has been warned by Judge Wendy Joseph QC that he may well face a jail term when he is sentenced next month.
> Charlie Alliston cleared of manslaughter of Kim Briggs – but guilty of wanton and furious driving
On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, Mrs Briggs’ husband Matthew urged that offences of causing death by carless cycling and causing death by dangerous cycling be created, similar to those that apply to motorists.
He said he wanted to see “not so much a new law as just bringing the current law up to date.
“If this were to happen again – which I inevitably think it will – the police and the CPS have a more coherent framework to reach for so that for the next family having to go through this it’s more straightforward.”
Mr Briggs, who said he cycles himself, emphasised that he was not engaged in a “witch-hunt against cyclists.”
He said: “This is dealing with a specific issue of reckless cyclists and those people who choose to ride fixed-wheel bikes without the additional front brake.
“With the fixed-wheel bike without the front brake the only means of braking is reverse pedalling … That’s totally inadequate and we’ve seen that with my wife’s death.”
Under The Pedal Cycle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983, a bike with a saddle more than 635mm above the ground is required to have “a braking system operating on the front wheel.”
Alliston, a former cycle courier, had been riding a Planet-X track bike with no front brake at the time of the fatal collision, and claimed at the trial that he did not know he was breaking the law by not having one fitted.
Mr Briggs pointed out that not knowing the law was “absolutely no defence”. He also said he often saw cyclists riding fixed-wheel bikes without a front brake, and believed the vast majority of them were couriers.
“There’s a degree of a fashion statement around that,” he claimed.“There’s almost a fetishism around this.
“But as we’ve seen with my wife’s death they [bikes without a front brake] are potentially lethal, not just illegal, they are potentially lethal.”
He also had a message for anyone thinking about riding a bike without a front brake.
“I would urge them to read my story to understand what happened to my wife,” he said.
“Mother of two, the most wonderful woman, the most fun-loving woman, went out to work and didn’t come back because of this.
“Why would you take that risk with somebody else’s life, and why would you endanger yourself?”
In 2011, Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom introduced her Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences) Bill, which among other things calls for the introduction of a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling, with a proposed maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, the same as applies to causing death by dangerous driving. The bill failed to get a second reading.
> MP’s ‘Dangerous Cycling’ bill fails to get second reading in House of Commons
Following yesterday’s verdicts, Duncan Dollimore, head of advocacy and campaigns at Cycling UK anticipated calls that “laws on irresponsible cycling should be aligned with the laws on irresponsible driving.”
However, he insisted that the law as a whole needed to be brought up to date for all road users.
He said: “Riding a fixed wheel bicycle on busy roads without a front brake is illegal, stupid, and endangers other road users especially pedestrians. Charlie Alliston’s actions had tragic consequences for Kim Briggs’ family, and it was entirely right that this led to his prosecution.
“The fact that he has been convicted of an offence dating back to legislation from 1861, drafted in archaic language, will doubtless lead some to argue that the laws on irresponsible cycling should be aligned with the laws on irresponsible driving. The reality is that the way in which the justice system deals with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users has long been in need of review.
“In 2014 the Government acknowledged this when announcing a full review of all motoring offences and penalties, but then waited three years to launch a limited consultation last year which closed six months ago, with silence ever since.
He added: “To ensure that there is consistency with charging decisions, and with how dangerous behaviour on or roads is dealt with, it is vital that the Government ends the delay, and gets on with the wide scale review that politicians from all sides, victims’ families and various roads safety organisations have tirelessly demanded.”

99 thoughts on “Husband of woman killed by cyclist calls for changes to law on dangerous cycling”
The fact is, had there been a
The fact is, had there been a death by dangerous cycling offence he probably would have been acquired as there is reasonable doubt whether the brake would have made a difference. And so Mr Biggs would be less satisfied with the outcome if the changes that he is calling for occur.
wycombewheeler wrote:
That’s not a fact, it’s supposition.
People need to take
People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Why isn’t he calling for a law that prohibits the use of mobile phones when walking, just to bring it in line with the prohibition of mobiles when driving?
don simon wrote:
Does taking responsibility include ensuring your bike is safe and legal to ride?
Rich_cb wrote:
People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Why isn’t he calling for a law that prohibits the use of mobile phones when walking, just to bring it in line with the prohibition of mobiles when driving?
— Rich_cb Does taking responsibility include ensuring your bike is safe and legal to ride?— don simon
Of course it does. Surprised at the question.
don simon wrote:
How foolish of me. The rest of the post was so sensible I should have just assumed you had all bases covered.
Correct it is supposition but
Correct it is supposition but you can’t deny that killing someone with your car, and getting charged with dangerous driving get’s you a pat on the back from a QC and a couple of points. I think the CPS even buy you a cake and a bottle of sherry?
georgee wrote:
Exaggeration aside, I agree with you which is why Duncan Dollimores sensible comments are all the more pertinent. (snip)
georgee wrote:
Dangerous driving carried a mandatory disqualification of at least 12 months and the court must also order an extended re-test be taken.
MrB123 wrote:
But you do get Cake
There most definitely should
There most definitely should be a change to the law!
I think we should have a law to deny right of way to anyone actively using a mobile phone and being in control of their transport, whether driving, cycling or walking. If you want to have right of way, then look where you are going.
However, the law seems sufficient with regard to cyclists. There’s already a law governing the fitting of brakes to bikes and there’s a law governing accidentally causing death (manslaughter) which the jury found that the cyclist was not guilty of.
What annoys me about this is
What annoys me about this is not the fact he got charged with something, as he obviously carried an element of blame into the situation but the fact the media seems to be creaming themselves over a vehicle doing 10-14mph at the point of collision because that vehicle is……a bike.
If I dropped below 14mph I’d be getting annoyed with myself but now I am supposedly pushing the limits of physics and riding with shear disregard for my fellow road users (who generally are travelling 2 to 4+ times faster than me and weigh 20 times more).
The fact that the guy does appear to be an utter twat doesn’t help matters though. Some socio/psychopathic tendencies on display there. Pretty sure I’d be devasted if I killed a mother of two, regardless of overall fault, never mind going on social media to have a complain about it.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Most of this. I’m having an argument with some berk on Twitter who’s trying to tell me that a cyclist doing 18mph on Old Street is speeding. Speeding, ffs. Regardless of where I’m cycling my average speed is 19mph, so I’ll go hand myself into the boys in blue, shall I? Piss off.
And I’ll concede that the guy looks a bit of a knob, but on the other hand, at least he’s being himself. How many people go to court all scrubbed up, wearing a suit, pleading all concerned and remorseful only to reoffend again a few weeks or even days later, like all those scumbags with more than 12 points and still driving?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Agree entirely Both about the infuriating and depressing double-standards illustrated by the whole affair and how it has been covered in the media, and about the guy being an utter twat.
And while the ‘evidence’ presented about supposed braking distances seems scandalously stupid to me, it presumably is the case that with a front brake the cyclist’s speed would have been lower at the moment of impact? And, given that the victim was very unlucky to be killed by such an impact, even a small reduction in speed might have made a big difference to the outcome.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I nearly got knocked off my bike a few weeks ago by a woman turning right out of a junction right in front of me – I was close enough to kick her bumper, even after hauling on the brakes (mountain bike at the time, so big hydraulic brakes).
Confronted her at the next set of lights and was told, in no uncertain terms, that it was all my fault for going too fast! I was doing about 25mph in a 40mph zone where most cars would be going around 45mph.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
To me, that is the salient point. He seemed to have the lack of empathy for the plight of other humans as that of a sociopath.
bsknight wrote:
And that is why the judge may choose to make an example of him and give him a jail sentence. If he’d shown some remorse and accepted some blame he would likely walk away with a much softer sentence.
bsknight wrote:
Does a sociopath take actions that in 99.999999999% of cases result in no incident/harm whatsoever? Does a sociopath slow down to a crawl (10mph) and try their best to avoid harming another human being, that to avoid a person who has failed to act in the accepted way to cross a road prudently, and also failing to take some responsibility for their actions?
does someone that has had numerous idiots step out in front of them on a daily basis putting them in harms way for quite a number of years, say things out of turn when this happens again with the consequence of him being knocked off/smashing his head, be labelled as a sociopath, or someone that acts in a fairly common fashion, typical human nature?
Does a person totally beleiving their innocence, scared shitless of being judged/strung up by his knackers/unmentionable things in the showers, go on the offensive saying things to try to protect themselves/explain the situation or is that simply the response of a sociopath – bearing in mind that person did not know the extent of the injuries of the person he 100% beleived was at fault for the clash.
Sociopath, next you’ll be saying he deliberately targetted the poor woman so he could get some air time!
There are now winners in this
There are no winners in this case, but it does beg the question why motorists so frequently receive more lenient sentences for similar offences. This article gives a good perspective:
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/
OldRidgeback wrote:
Thanks for that. An interesting analysis of the current situation, and while it isn’t short, it is most definitely worth reading.
burtthebike wrote:
Yep, I thought the article nailed a few pertinent points. The rider sounds like an idiot but that isn’t an offence in itself. I think the sentence he received was about right, but it does beg the question why motorists seem to get off so much more lightly for offences of a similar nature.
If they introduce causing
If they introduce causing dangerous cycling and careless cycling then won’t it just go the way of the motoring equivalents and the CPS will only ever go for ‘careless’ because that’s easier…?
If they introduce causing
duplicate post: network issues
Interesting article on the guardian website on the laws associated with this case:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge#img-1
The thing is, would she have
The thing is, would she have crossed the road in front of a car. If you read the guardian article the braking distance quoted by the “expert” in the trial are no where near what the physics state a bike can stop in. If it had been a car it would have been the pedestrians fault as even from 18 mph a car would not have been able to stop. Change cyclist to ‘car driver’ Change mother and wife to ‘pedestrian on phone’ and it would be just another Darwin award candidate and it would be business as usual in the media
Sad he’s turned his attention
Sad he has turned his attention on cyclists and the law. Looks like he’s more intent on trying to lock up cyclists rather than help prevent accidents involving cyclists. He also appears totally unconcerned about what causes most deaths on our roads. Basically he wants someone to blame and he wants them in jail.
Zjtm231 wrote:
Yep – he’s knee-jerked his way to a cause, as often seems to happen with relatives/friends of victims of crime. I can’t begin to imagine what he’s gone through, so I can’t blame him for clinging to something to make it seem like his wife didn’t totally die in vain. The knee jerks mostly die down.
I’m in two minds about this, though. I have very little faith in politicians to do the right or even the sensible thing, but I think any one-sided review that just wants to update laws relating to cyclist behaviour just cannot get traction, given that the Tories have been putting off a wider traffic crime review for what – a couple of years?
And those laws, and their application, are in dire need of that review. So he just might mis-aim here and trigger something beyond his intention, which is fine with me.
davel wrote:
Yep – he’s knee-jerked his way to a cause, as often seems to happen with relatives/friends of victims of crime. I can’t begin to imagine what he’s gone through, so I can’t blame him for clinging to something to make it seem like his wife didn’t totally die in vain. The knee jerks mostly die down.— Zjtm231
totally agree I cant imagine the pain and stress of it all its a terrible situation to find yourself in through no fault of your own. My issue is really that the media subsequently then give people who are obviously still grieving, distressed and stressed from the court case, the free platform to make these kinds of claims.
I mean I presume the R4 debate didnt include anyone with a counter point or even a properly trained legal background who could have totally cut through the legalese and explained what he is asking for in simple terms, is not what he wants at all.
davel wrote:
Yep – he’s knee-jerked his way to a cause, as often seems to happen with relatives/friends of victims of crime. I can’t begin to imagine what he’s gone through, so I can’t blame him for clinging to something to make it seem like his wife didn’t totally die in vain. The knee jerks mostly die down.
I’m in two minds about this, though. I have very little faith in politicians to do the right or even the sensible thing, but I think any one-sided review that just wants to update laws relating to cyclist behaviour just cannot get traction, given that the Tories have been putting off a wider traffic crime review for what – a couple of years?
And those laws, and their application, are in dire need of that review. So he just might mis-aim here and trigger something beyond his intention, which is fine with me.— Zjtm231
Agreed with all of what you say.
Just worried the pickforks are out and the easiest targets to lynch are those F@*$ing cyclists!
Coverage in the MSM is
Coverage in the MSM is typically biased and staggeringly trite:
“CYCLOPATH Death cyclist who mowed down mother-of-two hid ghoulish skull tattoo from jury”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4295825/cyclist-charlie-alliston-kim-briggs/
“‘Remorseless’ cyclist had ghoulish SKULL tattoo jury couldn’t see during mum death trial”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/639764/Charlie-Alliston-skull-tattoo-cyclist-Old-Bailey-trial-Kim-Briggs-London
Even the BBC attributes blame solely to the cyclist, even if it does mention that she stepped out into the road while looking at her phone.
“http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41028321”
The report on R4 this morning was the same, with no blame whatsoever attached to the pedestrian, who was apparently ignoring the pedestrian lights and not looking where she was going.
Evening Standard is the same https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/charlie-alliston-widower-calls-for-radical-law-change-after-cyclist-is-cleared-of-manslaughter-of-a3618726.html
While the Telegraph highlights the fact that 32 pedestrians have been killed in collision with cyclists in the past ten years, but astonishingly quotes CUK and some real facts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/23/cyclist-convicted-wanton-furious-driving-pedestrians-death/
I can’t find a single MSM news story which points out that the pedestrian was probably at least equally responsible for stepping out into the road without looking, ignoring pedestrian lights and looking at her mobile phone.
Certainly this was a tragic event, but there is blame on both sides and it is being used to hammer cyclists.
burtthebike wrote:
I have mixed feelings on that point. I tend to want to cut pedestrians every possible inch of slack, because they were here first and everyone else needs to work around them. So I wouldn’t want to put equal blame on Ms Briggs.
But I don’t believe for an instant, that had the same situation occurred involving a car that the media coverage wouldn’t have included loads of commentary excusing the driver and pushing the blame onto the pedestrian.
There’s no way it would have gone the same way had the charmless Mr Alliston been driving a car.
This case seems to have been
This case seems to have been a bit of a shit show.
Does the law need updating when there’s so few prosecutions and the bicycle hasn’t fundamentally changed since the 19th century? If anything they’re (usually) safer now with better brakes, braking surfaces and tires.
Might be a case for having a single offence covering all road vehicles, but the application of the law seems uneven when we hear of so many drivers getting away with killing someone.
ChetManley wrote:
Yes, as tragic as this case is there’s absolutely no need for a change in the law. The ludicrous level of coverage is due in part to the rarity of such incidents, and in any case the cyclist was actually convicted under the 19th century law, so it seems that it does still serve a purpose, while countless drivers get away with killing people under the much more recent driving-specific laws. The BBC cited two other previous instances of this law being used against cyclists who killed pedestrians, and again they resulted in convictions.
I want to give them every
I want to give them every inch of slack too, but even when you think about the stopping distances, brake etc. there was equal chance she could have stepped out if he was 30cm away, or a car. Just how important is that email, facebook update picture of your mates lunch etc.
I nearly had a collision with a pedestrian today, on the link below if you effectively turn right and go past Mecca Bingo you will first see a lovely couple strolling in the cycle lane. There’s then barriers to keep peds safe and direct them to the crossing, across the 2 lanes of traffic you will see the grass worn where people are cutting the corner. Lady today went from peds side, across the cycle path to cross the road about 10m in front of me. The case being in the news may have made me more aware of her, the fact that I’m injured may mean i was travelling a lot slower, the fact that I’m injured may have meant I was in trouble if I crashed into her. She was blisfully unaware that she was a dickhead…
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Odeon/@53.0954154,-2.443484,3a,75y,126.19h,71.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syeDkAS5NT0BVoXk28t9esQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x487af5f7888ba1e1:0xae20e55a0146ed65!8m2!3d53.0960082!4d-2.4436369
He certainly won’t be the
He certainly won’t be the only twat with a smirk on his face going into court this week for killing another human being in a road traffic incident, but he is front page news simply bevause of the rarity of a bicycle being his mode of transport.
At one level this should not concern me, I have no responsibility for the actions of Mr Alliston, and he is no representative of cyclists including myself. However, suspecting what I do of human nature you can be sure that a significant number of the UK population believe this morning that they are at more risk of injury from a cyclist than from a car driver when in reality putting on their own socks probably represents a greater hazard to their wellbeing.
taking all of the other
taking all of the other factors out of the equation
Driver with 3 bald tyres, skids across road and kills 4 cyclists, 3 of which died at the scene almost immidatly including a 14yr old boy. multiple families devestated, DEFINATE cause for car leaving the road is illigal tyres. Cyclists completely innocent in this, Driver 100% to blame.
Drivers scentence for such a blatant disregard for safety and maintenance of his vehicle?
£180 fine
Cyclist with only 1 working brake, which MAY OR MAY NOT have contributed to the ladies death given the short stopping distance and reaction time, and the fact she stepped out into traffic
Cyclists Sentance? Unknown as of yet but potentially facing jail time when sentanced for wanton furious cycling.
1 of these is infintalty worse than the other in terms of the magnitude of the infraction. can you guess which one?
I think that Alliston will
I think that Alliston will receive a harsher sentence than normal because he has as refused to accept any blame for the accident, and that isn’t going to go down well during sentencing. The other major issue is that his bike was not road legal and the lack of a front brake contributed to the death of Mrs Briggs. He’ll get a harsher sentence because he deserves it and not because he is a cyclist.
I’d have to agree that those committing driving offences do get off far too lightly, but that’s another matter … the law is an ass.
nbrus wrote:
He shouldnt though, being an ass still isnt illigal.
However his punishment compared to what a driver would and has recieved for killing people with a defective vehicle is worlds apart.
My complaint is that he should be held to the same standard and procedure motorists who kill people are held or change the law for everyone, so if you kill someone with a defective or illigal car or bike you see the inside of a jail, i would be all for that, but you cant lock up cyclists for the same offense as a driver that pays an £80 fine and gets 3 points
SL1D3R wrote:
Entirely agree. However, I’m sure there must be a reason why motorists who kill appear to get off more lightly than a cyclist. I don’t believe that the entire legal profession is out to get cyclists … that’s too much of a stretch for me.
I find it really hard believe
I find it really hard believe that he did not know his bike was not legal for use on the roads. He was a cycle courier and a member of a fixie forum he would have found out. I know they are not legal and I don’t even ride one.
earth wrote:
I was unaware of the exact law about brakes, so I can believe that he didn’t know. However, ignorance of the law is not usually a valid defence, so it’s largely irrelevant in this case.
I used to commute on a unicycle and I had no idea whether it was legal or not – it certainly didn’t have any brakes, but the crucial point is that you’re not likely to be out of control on a unicycle (or at least not for long).
hawkinspeter wrote:
I have to admit I don’t know the law on brakes for a unicycle but I have also never ridden one. Although I don’t ride a fixie now I did for a year and I learned the law regarding them then. If he did not know the law then he had not done his due dilligence.
earth wrote:
Due diligence and unicycle riding don’t usually go hand in hand and a disregard for safety is often required. I used to do some of my riding on pavements and I still don’t know how that is regarded in law. (The closest I came to hitting anyone was when a very young child came running at me, but I just stepped off and came to an immediate halt – quick reactions).
earth wrote:
So without Google, what’s the law?
He hasn’t been sentenced yet
He hasn’t been sentenced yet so I don’t understand all complaints that cyclists are being targeted. The effing idiot killed someone yet there are people on here sticking up for him.
When a cyclist is killed we get numerous comments about victim blaming yet what are people doing on here……….double standards and it’s pathetic.
Stumps wrote:
Abosolutely right … and just look at how many ‘likes’ some of those posts get … not eveyone of course, and its human nature so can’t blame them really.
Stumps wrote:
Not at all. Bit of perspective…
Double standards, yes. Discussing contributing factors… yes.
I’ve probably read all/most of the comments here and the other (2?) main threads that they’re on, and I don’t think anyone’s saying the charging/guilty verdict is extreme in itself. But compared with huge numbers of similar behaviour with a motorised vehicle/more vulnerable victim, what’s wrong with highlighting the double standards in charges and guilty verdicts? And the discrepancies in reporting makes me despair of the media.
Also, there’s been debate about whether she was crossing the road on her phone. There would be plenty of the same on here, and a lack of sympathy from loads of posters, if a cyclist was meandering across the road on their phone and got hit by a car.
haven’t seen any disrespect or blaming her completely for it, and it certainly isn’t on a par with a cyclist being rear-ended and then the driver’s defence focusing on their clothes, lights or whether they were wearing a helmet. Was that discussed ANYWHERE regarding Mrs Briggs? I haven’t got a clue whether she was wearing dark clothing or a helmet, which is at it should be, but that’s not the case when cyclists are hit, is it?
You call it double standards, or bias: I call it redressing the balance given that cyclists seem to be despised by a sizeable section of the public and media.
Stumps wrote:
I haven’t seen many ‘sticking up for him’. I do see plenty noting how this highlights how leniently killer drivers are treated. Double standards are exactly the issue, and the extreme level of coverage this case has had, is indeed an example of that.
I would bet money that had the guy been driving a car when this happened the same people now going on about cyclists on comments all over the web, would have been posting remarks about how the victim was partly, or even entirely, to blame, and going on about pedestrians and their mobile phone use.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I haven’t seen many ‘sticking up for him’. I do see plenty noting how this highlights how leniently killer drivers are treated. Double standards are exactly the issue, and the extreme level of coverage this case has had, is indeed an example of that.
I would bet money that had the guy been driving a car when this happened the same people now going on about cyclists on comments all over the web, would have been posting remarks about how the victim was partly, or even entirely, to blame, and going on about pedestrians and their mobile phone use.— Stumps
Here’s a question for you FK…
Would you say hiting a pedestrian in a car doing 20 mph (with working brakes) is the same level of recklessness as hiting a pedestrian on a bicycle (with no brakes) at 20 mph? Would you describe both as ‘wanton and furious driving’? Are both offences equal? Both are accidents and both attempted to stop.
nbrus wrote:
I haven’t seen many ‘sticking up for him’. I do see plenty noting how this highlights how leniently killer drivers are treated. Double standards are exactly the issue, and the extreme level of coverage this case has had, is indeed an example of that.
I would bet money that had the guy been driving a car when this happened the same people now going on about cyclists on comments all over the web, would have been posting remarks about how the victim was partly, or even entirely, to blame, and going on about pedestrians and their mobile phone use.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Here’s a question for you FK…
Would you say hiting a pedestrian in a car doing 20 mph (with working brakes) is the same level of recklessness as hiting a pedestrian on a bicycle (with no brakes) at 20 mph? Would you describe both as ‘wanton and furious driving’? Are both offences equal? Both are accidents and both attempted to stop.— Stumps
My point is that in the car case the on-line and media reaction would have been different _whether they had fully working brakes or not_. (the cyclist did have brakes, just not ones that were legally good enough)
There have been countless cases of motorists showing greater levels of recklessness (killing someone while speeding, or on the wrong side of the road, or having no lights, or jumping a red light, or even doing all those things at once)and getting nothing like this level of media attention. Nor the associated collective-responsibility guff.
And, to repeat myself (as you didn’t seem to read the comment you are replying to), if this case had involved a driver, there would have been plenty of on-line comment from drivers trying to push the blame onto the pedestrian for not looking and stepping out so close to the oncoming vehicle.
At no point have I said this cyclist shouldn’t pay a hefty legal penalty (shall wait and see what the court decides for that). It would just be nice if the same happened with motorists and if the media paid the same level of attention to those cases.
(e.g. I cite many of the BTL comments on this DM story)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3459833/Shocking-moment-Volkswagen-driver-ploughs-pedestrian-crosses-street-internet-divided-fault.html
“Pedestrian’s fault. Simple. You don’t walk out in front of moving vehicles. This guy was too ill mannered to care.”
“Both of them are at fault. We have a duty towards our own safety as well as others safety. Unfortunately only the driver is legally liable. Hopefully the pedestrians careless disregard will be taken into account. ”
etc etc
Edit – I mean, can you honestly say, hand-on-heart, that those DM comments would have been radically different if the volkswagen had been shown to have inadequate brakes? That then none of them would have tried to point the finger at the pedestrian?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Edit – I mean, can you honestly say, hand-on-heart, that those DM comments would have been radically different if the volkswagen had been shown to have inadequate brakes? That then none of them would have tried to point the finger at the pedestrian?— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I’ve had a look at that Daily Mail story you referred to … and this is only my opinion … but I’d say the car driver was at fault because they had plenty of time to brake and avoid a collision. However, they excercised poor judgment in not doing so (they probably panicked and thought the pedestrian might move back). I see what you mean about the comments blaming the pedestrian on that page … I don’t agree with them at all. Hopefully no one died.
However, that accident was a result of poor judgment unlike the Alliston case which involved ‘wanton and furious driving’ along with having no brakes … it was an accident waiting to happen.
I think the media jumped on this story because it is unusual, someone died, and covering the story helps to make others aware that track bikes are not road legal and can kill.
nbrus wrote:
At least we aren’t in much disagreement about that. Again, my issue is not with the court case, but with the media coverage and internet comment around it and the inconsistency thereof.
Briggs said – “Why would you
Briggs said – “Why would you take that risk with somebody else’s life, and why would you endanger yourself?”
he should have that inscribed on her headstone – this is now a story about three idiots!
Finally found a vaguely
Finally found a vaguely comparable case
http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/faulty-brakes-driver-fined-after-fatal-crash-1-385648
Drove a car he knew had faulty brakes. And also speeding. Killed someone. Convicted of careless driving – £2000 fine and nine points on the licence, no jail time. Presumably could carry on driving immediately.
The case didn’t seem to attract national media attention. In fact that local paper article seems to be the only mention of it anywhere on the web (would be helpful to know why it was only ‘careless driving’ not ‘causing death by careless driving’ but without any other source one can’t tell)
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
As regards the faulty brakes case … the article says that the Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) was faulty, not that the brakes weren’t working. Not all cars even have ABS and some systems will only be active below a certain speed. He was speeding before the accident, not neccessarily at the time of the accident (he was stuck behind a lorry) and it wasn’t his speed that caused the accident. The car lost control when braking during an overtake when a motorcycle was spotted coming the other way. Driver definitely at fault. Tragic accident involving careless driving rather than reckless driving.
nbrus wrote:
As regards the faulty brakes case … the article says that the Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) was faulty, not that the brakes weren’t working. Not all cars even have ABS and some systems will only be active below a certain speed. He was speeding before the accident, not neccessarily at the time of the accident (he was stuck behind a lorry) and it wasn’t his speed that caused the accident. The car lost control when braking during an overtake when a motorcycle was spotted coming the other way. Driver definitely at fault. Tragic accident involving careless driving rather than reckless driving.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
So you speed, you overtake badly, your car is not fit for the roads, you cannot see a motorbike and you kill someone. Do you want this person around your loved ones?
alansmurphy wrote:
I’d rather he wasn’t on the road, but try this one …
So you’ve just finished eating a banana and you toss the peel away and it lands on the road causing a motorbike to skid killing the rider. Do you want this person anywhere near a public road? What would be a fair punishment in this case? Should judgment be based on the ‘recklessness’ and ‘intent’ of the person that threw the banana peel away, or should the judgment be based on the end result … the death of the rider? This is the sort of dilema that the legal system has to deal with. Opinions will always be split.
nbrus wrote:
I’d rather he wasn’t on the road, but try this one …
So you’ve just finished eating a banana and you toss the peel away and it lands on the road causing a motorbike to skid killing the rider. Do you want this person anywhere near a public road? What would be a fair punishment in this case? Should judgment be based on the ‘recklessness’ and ‘intent’ of the person that threw the banana peel away, or should the judgment be based on the end result … the death of the rider? This is the sort of dilema that the legal system has to deal with. Opinions will always be split.
— alansmurphy
Surely wanton and furious littering would cover this off…
No. The media talk about
No. The media talk about 18mph as if that was wrong, they talked about HIS lack of helmet and him having a tattoo of a skull. Even the ‘wanton and furious’ is wrong, negligent for said lack of brake or careless for said lack of brake.
The link has been posted several times already, why is this different to 3 bald tyres and killing people? Why is one charged with manslaughter and one given points.
As for the media, you give them much more credit than they deserve, the piece in the Guardian is the only one with balance. If it is so rare they should surely mention this, talk of how rare it is and how slow he was going on a machine statistically proven to be safer than the motor vehicle. Encourage their readership therefore to check their cars, never drive tired and focus on the risk to pedestrians of using mobile devices and being unaware of their surroundings…
Given the circumstances of
Given the circumstances of the collision, and what looks like a bit of a witch hunt by the police and family, I’m half inclinded to set-up a crowd funding page to see if Charlie Alliston wants to appeal the case – if he’s not already.
While you have to feel
While you have to feel sympathy over the loss of a wife and mother her husband clearly hasn’t come to terms with the fact that it was her actions in ignoring a nearby crossing and walking out into traffic that contributed in a very large part to her death.
Unfortunately as soon as MPs are back no doubt one of them will try to introduce such a law and as is so often said knee jerk reaction make for basd laws.
spen wrote:
I don’t like this comment for the same reasons I don’t like it when it comes up after similar events involving drivers. The cyclist should have done a better job at not hitting her at such speed, whatever the reason.
I don’t think any new law is likely to come out of this. Also it does seem like there was just a element of sheer awful luck involved, in the sense that the consequences of the collision were so severe.
spen wrote:
You’ve got to remember that a fixie has no gears or freewheel and so they are completely silent when in motion … she may not have been looking where she was going, but she was more than likely listening for traffic. Electric cars are also completely silent, but they have a fake engine noise added so that pedestrians can hear them. What if Mrs Briggs was a blind person, or both blind and death? She isn’t responsible for the accident even if she did contribute to it.
nbrus wrote:
Have you ever used a bike? The pedals rotate, air is deflected, tyres are in contact with the ground, the frame and components shake. Please do sell me one of the completely silent bikes you offer though.
Is listening for traffic enough? If you’re just going to step out, counting to 10 maybe equally viable…
I actually think some new
I actually think some new legislation is exactly what is needed.
Something like:
Vehicular manslaughter.
Vehicular GBH.
Vehicular ABH.
Bicycles to be included alongside motor vehicles.
Anyone convicted of GBH or manslaughter would have an automatic lifetime driving ban. Sentencing to otherwise reflect their their non vehicular equivalents.
Nbrus and fuffy kitten – I’m
Nbrus and fuffy kitten – I’m just wondering how you manager to absolve Mrs Briggs when she did something that she had surely taught her own children not to do. She made a poor choice, saying she couldn’t hear a bike merely goes towards supporting my point, she should have looked. To lay the blame on one party is fallacious
spen wrote:
I think the bulk of the responsibility lies with the party creating the hazard (and bringing the kinetic energy). The penalty for momentary lapses of attention by the vulnerable shouldn’t be death.
(Though, again, I would say that it seems unlucky and hopefully very rare, that such a low-speed collision results in death – presumably the cyclist had slowed to well below the 18mph starting speed by the time of impact, so the outcome seems disproportionate to the speed involved)
The issue for me remains the double-standards illustrated by the media coverage. I don’t agree with your point, but it’s significant that it appears to be only on a cycling site that anyone has attempted to make it. Whereas had he been a car driver variations on your post would have appeared in multiple incarnations on every single story about it on the web, and probably on every radio phone-in, etc. And if the victim had been a cyclist crossing against the lights, it would have been wall-to-wall victim blaming and blather about helmets.
spen wrote:
If Allistons fixie had had a front brake and he had been travelling at a more relaxed pace with due care and attention to his surroundings, then he wouldn’t have had a case to answer. The whole event would simply have been an accident and Mrs Briggs would likely still be alive. It wouldn’t even have made it into the media.
However, Alliston was not in full control of his bicycle as he wasn’t able to react properly to unexpected events. Mrs Briggs didn’t suddenly throw herself out into the path of an oncoming bicycle, she simply stepped out into the road. Riding a bike with no front brake (illegal) and at a pace that made it difficult for him to react in any meaningful way to someone stepping out in front of him was reckless and that is why he is responsible for the accident. Hence the ‘wanton and furious driving’ charges and not manslaughter. Seems a very fair verdict to me, though his sentencing may not go so well due to his apparent lack of remorse.
nbrus wrote:
I still don’t really agree with you (even though I don’t agree with spen either).
What would be a ‘more relaxed pace’, considering most motorists on that road would have been doing over 20mph? 18mph isn’t outrageous on a road where motorists will regularly go much faster than that.
On most 20mph limits round here the lowest car speeds tend to be significantly over 20, and, on one in particular, not infrequently (in the early hours or on weekend evenings) they can hit 50 or 60.
As for “at a pace that made it difficult to react…” that would apply to most motorists most of the time, good brakes or not.
Certainly none of those who zoom along the road (that I used to cycle on before deciding I couldn’t stand it any more) at 60mph would be able to react to someone stepping out 6m in front of them. Yet if they’d hit a ped in that situation there is no way it would have become such a major story, and I’m not convinced they’d have faced particularly serious legal penalties.
Alliston screwed-up badly by not having a legal braking arrangement (the one time a pedestrian stepped out right in front of me like that I didn’t manage to stop but nor did I hit them, I just toppled over sideways and collected a lot of grazes and bruises. So, I’m not particularly sorry for him.
But the relentless double-standards in attitudes to this case vs cases of motorists continues to depress me, in the way it demonstrates how irrational most people are.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
This is only my opinion (from watching a lot of episodes of Judge Rinder
), but here goes…
20 mph is pretty slow for a car, and an alert driver would be able to react, change direction and/or stop quickly from that speed. An old lady could do this.
20 mph on a fixie with no front brake is pretty fast and the rider would not be able to react, change direction and/or stop quickly from that speed. An old lady couldn’t do this.
So its not so much the 20 mph speed that is the issue, but the consequences of that speed on your ability to react to a situation given all the factors involved (e.g. fixie with no brakes, pedestrians nearby, etc.). Doing 20 mph on fixie with no brakes on a quiet road is quite different to doing 20 mph on a fixie with no brakes in an area where pedestrians are present … both are illegal, but the second example is also reckless (lack of due care and attention).
I would like to think any motorist involved in an accident while doing 60 mph in a 20 mph zone would face stiff penalities for doing so.
Sometimes it can seem as if there are double standards, one for motorists and another for cyclists, but its more likely down to differences in how the law judges offences … every incident is unique, so its difficult to compare.
nbrus wrote:
What does this mean? A vehicle’s top speed has no bearing on how fast 20mph is for its operator.
Are you saying that the complexity of the operation of the vehicle is a factor in how quickly the operator reacts?
davel wrote:
20 mph is pretty slow for a car, and an alert driver would be able to react, change direction and/or stop quickly from that speed. An old lady could do this.
20 mph on a fixie with no front brake is pretty fast and the rider would not be able to react, change direction and/or stop quickly from that speed. An old lady couldn’t do this.
— davel What does this mean? A vehicle’s top speed has no bearing on how fast 20mph is for its operator. Are you saying that the complexity of the operation of the vehicle is a factor in how quickly the operator reacts?— nbrus
nbrus wrote:
Just to point out that Old St is not particularly pedestrian friendly, it is quite a wide (3 to 4 lanes), busy thoroughfare for traffic with many pedestrian crossings expressly put there for the purpose of safely crossing this busy street, and so not in the least bit reckless or inattentive to cycle at 20 mph along it with no expectation whatever of any pedestrians attempting to stroll across without looking or waiting for the lights.
beezus fufoon wrote:
Just to point out that Old St is not particularly pedestrian friendly, it is quite a wide (3 to 4 lanes), busy thoroughfare for traffic with many pedestrian crossings expressly put there for the purpose of safely crossing this busy street, and so not in the least bit reckless or inattentive to cycle at 20 mph along it with no expectation whatever of any pedestrians attempting to stroll across without looking or waiting for the lights.
— nbrus20 mph on a fixie with no brakes resulted in the death of a pedestrian.
Pedestrians don’t have to use pedestrian crossings just as cyclists don’t have to use cycle paths.
nbrus wrote:
ah I see – so your logic is that “an area where pedestrians are present” is entirely circular – were you to wander blindly across a busy A road and cause a collision resulting in your death, pedestrians would have been present by the mere fact that you used your feet and legs to wander out into fast moving traffic
beezus fufoon wrote:
If you kill a pedestrian wandering across an A road and your car had no brakes … you’d be convicted and probably with manslaughter.
nbrus wrote:
very good, it still does not make Old St an area where pedestrians are generally present – I take it you have no experience of the area – it is a major traffic and cycling thoroughfare where 18 mph is a fairly reasonable speed, and so as you said, the absence of a front brake is illegal but not reckless.
beezus fufoon wrote:
18 mph may well be a reasonable speed, but not if you don’t have any brakes. And it clearly wasn’t reasonable in this case because someone died. The jury would have considered all contributing factors together and not each one in isolation. Its an unfortunate case to say the least and for both parties.
nbrus wrote:
It seems that it’s a chance to send a message to “reckless” cyclists, but I can’t help but think the simple message of how to cross a busy road safely has been somewhat overlooked here.
nbrus wrote:
Can we keep the discussion within the bounds of reality, please. A car with *no* brakes is unlikely to get to Old Street under any circumstances, whereas a bicycle can do so relatively easily, usually without mishap (if illegally). In addition, any conviction for manslaughter would be an outcome of a jury trial, as here, the result of which is far from 100% certain. For example, if a car had malfunctioning brakes, the defence might claim it happened on that journey – “and we can all visualise that, can’t we… etc?”. In any case with Alliston, the jury decided it wasn’t manslaughter so a claim that a different scenario would resiult in a conviction “probably with manslaughter” doesn’t really enter into it.
Jitensha Oni wrote:
You’re right, but this one was on an “A” road … it didn’t make it as far as Old St.
To top off the absurdity of
To top off the absurdity of the double standards, I think I’m the only one so far who’s mentioned the ridiculous idea of her wearing a helmet, insofar as I pointed out the lack of discussion about it. We’re not discussing her PPE, which is right: we’ve gone straight to ‘was she paying attention to hazards as she crossed the road’, which is, at least, a debate.
Contrast that with the usual nutjob sections of society kicking off discussions about mandated cycling helmets and hi-viz whenever a cyclist dies of a head injury in similar circumstances. Contrast that with it being referenced by the defence of the ‘killer’.
One segment of road users (us, brothers and sisters!) is expected to take responsibility for their safety WAY more than others, therefore society accepts a degree of victim-blaming in their deaths. We’ve got to change that.
Edit: just seen hawkinspeter’s post in another thread. Took a while, though, didn’t it – and even then it’s done to highlight the double standards.
Throughout this thread there
Throughout this thread there has been an ongoing debate of responsibility and blame.
As “road users” cyclists should take on the same responsibility as any other road user ie: responsible action, safe vehicle, abiding by the laws, courtesy and responsibility towards others. That is a fair expectation but in return, if these are done, then it is fair to expect in return parity with others in the eyes of the judicial sytem meaning that a motorist who kills a pedestrian or cyclist would receive the same penalty as a cyclist who does likewise. This isn’t happening.
The accused in this instance has wilfully neglected his responsibilities as well as being remorseless and arrogant beyond belief. (As an aside, it offends me greatly that this prick is viewed the same as myself and millions of other responsible riders. He is not representative of most people who ride bikes and yet his actions are causing legislation to be reviewed and will affect us all) Therefore his actions contributed towards the death of the pedestrian and his subsequent arrogance further compounds the dislike towards this individual.
There are also responsibilities for pedestrians. Who remembers the “Green Cross Code”? The fact that the pedestrian was on the phone when she stepped in front of the cyclist seems to been skimmed over in the court case.
I can’t believe that nobody has mentioned what difference wearing a helmet would have made. It could have been very beneficial for one party indeed. Let’s not go there.
There are always going to be incidents between road users and pedestrians but the likelihood of fatal outcomes can be lessened if everyone is responsible and vigilant. If you observe people (cyclists, pedestrians, motorists) at any major road junction especially in the capital you will see that this doesn’t happen. There is a lesson for all to come from this unfortunate case which, rather than a change in the law, requires education of road users.
Velovoyeur wrote:
Moving slightly OT, the Grauniad has another op-ed piece today https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/24/kim-briggs-cyclists-traffic-bike-charlie-alliston about how cyclists need to remember that they are traffic too and therefore should act responsibly (the same as every motorist does (…?)).
The author of that misses the point that most adult cyclists have always considered themselves traffic, and are fully aware that they can hurt those further down the food chain.
Unfortunately, they are generally not treated as “real traffic” either by motorists (who think they’re just annoying people who should take their toys off to the park) or by pedestrians (who are more than happy to walk out in front of an oncoming bike when they would (generally) never dream of doing so in front of an oncoming car).
This regrettable incident has
This regrettable incident has really highlighted how poorly protected pedestrians are.
We must call for mandatory helmet laws for pedestrians – anything less will just lead to more avoidable deaths.
@Velovoyeur: I just don’t see
@Velovoyeur: I just don’t see parity being reached ‘organically’.
It would take too much of a cultural shift, in addition to tinkering with charging and sentencing guidance. It would take ‘columnists’ to stop pandering to the moton cheap seats. It would take an emphasis on actual statistics regarding the danger of cycling, as opposed to perception, and it will probably take a lot more people cycling.
I just can’t see that happening via nudges, and waiting for society to wake up and ‘do the right thing’ isn’t really happening, is it? Society wakes up and uses a cyclist killing a pedestrian as a vehicle for slating cyclists regarding responsibilities and aggression; it uses a cyclist being killed by a driver as a vehicle for slating cyclists regarding taking responsibility for their safety; it uses a fast-moving pedestrian pushing a slower pedestrian into the road as a vehicle for slating CYCLISTS regarding aggression.
In another country, or in another time, or with another outgroup, we’d call this what it is: persecution.
When you look at shifts in cultural attitudes towards fairness and objectivity (anti-discrimination – ‘parity’) in the last couple of generations, they’ve been on the back of a fair dollop of legislation. There is already a law governing Alliston’s lack of a front brake. As we’ve seen, there are already laws (albeit including an archaic one) and a willingness to prosecute regarding Alliston’s riding. I can only see one single action that could shift the balance to about where I think it needs to be, and to where I think Mr Briggs probably thinks it needs to be regarding the cyclist-pedestrian relationship, too.
Time for strict liability.
Edit @hawkinspeter – yes, it could be worth us calling that out. We’re generally a reasonable bunch: we have Chris Boardman instead of Jeremy Clarkson; we try to look at evidence (even on here) instead of just shit-headed opinion. But yes, in the absence of logic on the other side, taking any platform to make the same offensive and ill-judged arguments that are made about ‘us’ repeatedly, even ironically, might make a point. It’s a race to the bottom, but we’re not even in that race at the moment.
@davel – I second your call
@davel – I second your call for strict liability; it would be the biggest shake-up in road safety since drink driving was made socially unacceptable.
I think the persecution of cyclists (in the UK at least) needs to be examined objectively. Do we, as a society, want to encourage or discourage various forms of transport? What are the “hidden costs” of different modes (e.g. air pollution from vehicles causing respitory diseases; fixie riders going at extreme speeds of up to 18mph; slow walking pedestrians causing intense anger flare-ups to people behind them)? Just imagine what a pervasive ad campaign could achieve if it encouraged everyone to walk/skate/cycle more or at least 10 minutes a day.
hawkinspeter wrote:
And I think this is part of the problem: according to a report the other day, 6 million adults in the UK don’t get exercise equivalent to brisk walking for 10 minutes EACH MONTH.
God knows how many more who aren’t quite as sedentary as that, but have a similar mindset. Even when you’ve allowed for people who are incapacitated, that’s a huge chunk of the UK population who hold a completely different worldview from people who cycle regularly (like posters on here); to them, cyclists are weird and alien. And they outnumber us significantly.
davel wrote:
Just imagine…
hawkinspeter wrote:
Probably not much – the type of sofa-bound reality-TV-obsessed lard bucket (yes, I’m stereotyping) who doesn’t even muster ten minutes of brisk walking per MONTH (yes, I know, unbelievably the actual stat is that 6m Brits don’t even manage ten minutes of brisk walking per month) is unlikley to go out and get on a bike because the advert told them to. They’re not going to get out for a walk and some fresh air, either.
I’d like to see the public information budget spent on some simple reminders of the rules of the road. Stuff like:
“Cyclists don’t take the middle of the lane to annoy you, they do it to stay safe”
“On the motorway, if you are not overtaking, use lane one”
“The speed limit isn’t a target. Drive at a speed that allows you to stop inside the distance you can see.”
Post-watershed, the films could be hard-hitting, like the various drink driving ads aired over the last decade.
It’s a tragedy that this lady
It’s a tragedy that this lady died crossing the road but are we in danger of getting to the point that 18mph is dangerous if you can see a pedestrian on the pavement? If one stepped in front of me giving me too little time to stop, would I be prosecuted for dangerous riding even though I have 2 working brakes but no bell and reflectors?
I have a huge amount of
I have a huge amount of sympathy for Mr Briggs (how could you not!) and I can’t even begin to imagine to grief he must feel right now but – as peverse as this may sound – he’s “lucky” his wife was killed in an accident involving a push bike:
He’s been spared what must be utter hell on earth, as weasly characters like “Mr Loophole” take great delight in showing off to the court and the media as they attmept to diminish the responsibility of the killer (I’m not referring to the accused having a defense lawyer here BTW)
He’s not had the judge insult his wife by suggesting she was to blame due to her choice of clothing that day
He’s not had to endure thousands upon thousands of selfish, thoughtless drivers tell him she “deserved” it somehow, because she was using a phone, or verbally attack him for the actions of other pedestrians who may have done something wrong.
There is no easy way to go through what he’s having to endure and will continue to have to endure for the rest of his life and Mr Allison’s behaviour and attitudein all this is almost weirdly appaling. To attempt to make better something you perceive as being at fault is only natural, but perhaps a moment of reflection and a look at the bigger picture once the initial shock and early stages of grief are come to terms with would be more helpful if he truly wants to help prevent fatalities on the roads.
Another tangent here but…
Another tangent here but…
Taking the victim stepping out from the incident and the comparison to cars, surely he has been charged with the wrong thing and manslaughter is nearer the mark (or something involving negligence).
Wanton and furious cycling?
Wanton: adjective (of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked
His cycling was not cruel or violent (ok the outcome was a cruel misfortune) and nothing was deliberate or unprovoked.
If cycling on the road below the speed limit is wanton and furious then we are all guilty and often.
As for furious, he may have been exasperated, melancholy, miffed. Have they took a mental evaluation, he may need support for stress/depression or such issues if a jury has deemed him furious…
alansmurphy wrote:
He didn’t get charged with manslaughter because she’s a woman, but he did get charged with ‘wanton and furious driving’ despite the fact he was cycling … makes no sense at all … no wonder he’s furious.
He should have gone on Judge
He should have gone on Judge Rinder … then we could all watch it … bit inconsiderate of him.
Ah, but you are making the
(to nbrus)
Ah, but you are making the wrong comparison.
In a 20mph zone it’s very likely a cyclist will not even reach 20mph (because speed is hard work). Whereas the norm for a motorist on such a road is to go faster than 20. The police even formally allow for this, giving a leeway for speed-limit enforcement (not to mention explicitly refusing to enforce 20mph limits at all). So the correct comparison is not 20mph with 20mph. It’s the median speed cyclists go at on such a road with the one motorists opt for.
Particularly so because any supposed greater effectiveness at braking by the motorist is likely to be consumed by that motorist in faster speeds. If they can brake more effectively, then they will go accordingly faster _precisely because_ they know they can brake more effectively.
And it amazes me the speeds drivers reach on one particular road here. (I can tell the speed because just a bit further on there’s an automatic digital speed readout sign).
And I don’t believe they would face stiff penalties, not considering the sheer number of smashed-in road side fences, knocked down traffic lights, wrecked cars embedded in garden walls or being lifted out of the road by cranes, or large areas of broken windsceeen glass I’ve seen on that road over the years. I don’t recall ever reading about a driver facing much of a penalty as a result of any of these regular altercations with street furniture. (It’s seeing such aftermath regularly, along with the speeding cars themselves, that made me give up cycling that route.)
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
People will speed if they think they can get away with it. If they destroy street furniture they will be charged, if caught. Almost every car on the road is capable of going far in excess of the speed limit. Seems silly to manufacture cars that can do speeds far greater than is legal, but they do. People like speed. Those 20 mph zones don’t really work and most will ignore them. Its only when there is an accident that the speed is noted. When I’m on my bike I tend to stick to cycle paths and quieter roads because its much safer to do so and a lot less stressful. If cycling for fun, then I’ll try and go out when its quieter and avoid times when heavy traffic is present. I will mix with traffic when I need to, but I will avoid it whenever I can. I would highly recommend using a rear view mirror if you can fit one … I wouldn’t be without one now … though I don’t have one on my road bike as it would look naff … but I might change my mind and fit one anyways.
Just curious, could courier
Just curious, could courier companies be seen as turning a blind eye to one back brake fixies if they are illegal… if their riders are doing so….. I have no idea if they are.
Much as I sympathise with the
Much as I sympathise with the anger and distress that Mr Briggs must feel on losing his wife, I think that a campaign to toughen up the rules about or – more likely- against cycling is wrong-headed and aiming at the wrong target.
It doesn’t matter if the law used to convict Mr Alliston dates back to the nineteenth century: it is clearly and demonstrably still fit for purpose because he was found guilty under it. Given the government’s desire to remove so-called red tape whenever and wherever they can as we plough down the road into becoming a tax haven, I honestly can’t see them bothering with writing new legislation that *might* be used once per year if the police and the CPS have the time and inclination to use it.
Even if there’s a single pedestrian killed by a cyclist each year, I imagine that the majority of those are genuine “accidents” with no criminal behaviour suspected, and don’t involve “wanton and furious cycling”.
The Alliston case is a rarety among rareties, which I think counts as officially “vanishingly rare”, and any time spent on reviewing and rewriting laws to deal with such an obscurity would be far better spent on looking at why *existing* traffic laws are so badly applied.
IMO 😉