- 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
Kim Briggs (picture via Metropolitan Police Service).PNGHusband of woman killed by cyclist calls for changes to law on dangerous cycling
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.”
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
- Rendel Harris 2 sec ago
I'm game, 100 miles, 100 pies has a ring to it...
- don simon fbpe 11 min 16 sec ago
And? Your neck don't work?
- lonpfrb 17 min 45 sec ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 1 hour 4 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 32 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 12 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 2 hours 52 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 3 hours 49 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 5 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
99 comments
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.
If you kill a pedestrian wandering across an A road and your car had no brakes ... you'd be convicted and probably with manslaughter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're right, but this one was on an "A" road ... it didn't make it as far as Old St.
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 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
Pages