Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

London fixed wheel cyclist Charlie Alliston sentenced to 18 months in young offenders institution

20-year-old was convicted of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving after death of pedestrian Kim Briggs

Charlie Alliston, the cyclist convicted last month of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving in connection with the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs, has been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in a young offenders institution.

The 20-year-old from Bermondsey was cleared at his trial at the Old Bailey last month of manslaughter, but the jury found him guilty on the second charge, which has a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

Mrs Briggs, aged 44, died in hospital from head injuries sustained when she and Alliston were involved in a collision as she crossed London's Old Street in February last year.

Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel bike with no front brake, meaning it was not legal for use on the road.

Sentencing him today, Judge Wendy Jospeph QC told Alliston that she believed he rode the bike for a "thrill," reports the London Evening Standard.

She said: "I am satisfied in some part it was this so-called thrill that motivated you to ride without a front brake shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way.

"I've heard your evidence and I have no doubt that even now you remain obstinately sure of yourself and your own abilities.

"I have no doubt you are wrong in this. You were an accident waiting to happen.

"The victim could have been any pedestrian. It was in fact Mrs Kim Briggs."

​She continued: "If your bicycle had a front wheel brake you could have stopped but on this illegal bike you could not and on your evidence, by this stage, you were not even trying to slow or stop.

"You expected her to get out of the way," the judge added.

​Speaking in mitigation on behalf of Alliston, Mark Wyeth QC said: "What we do not have is a callous young man who doesn't give a damn about anything."

He added: "There is within him, I respectfully submit, a lot of internal sense of emotional turmoil but keeps this hidden as a coping strategy."

The court heard Alliston was depressed, had broken up with his girlfriend and lost his job.

After Alliston was sentenced Mrs Briggs’ husband Matthew, who has called for careless or dangerous cyclists to be subject to the same laws as motorists,  said: “I would like to thank the judge Wendy Joseph for her comments this morning.

“This case has clearly demonstrated that there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling. 

“To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end tells us that there is a gap. The fact that what happened to Kim is rare is not a reason for there to be no remedy.”

He continued: “I am pleased to say that we have made very good progress towards updating the law and I would like to thank the media, the public, my MP Heidi Alexander and also the transport minister for their support and commitment to resolving this matter.

“I would also like to use this opportunity to call on bike retailers and courier companies to help me get fixed wheeled and velodrome bikes without front brakes off the road. 

“Whilst I would commend the five major retailers who have withdrawn products or altered their websites in response to my calls, I am still seeing too many retailers irresponsibly advertising these bikes.”

“The vast majority of people I see riding these bikes are couriers. I would call on these companies to help me get these bikes off the road."

He added: “They are illegal and as we have seen with Kim’s death, they are potentially lethal.”

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.

Add new comment

130 comments

Avatar
jigr69 | 6 years ago
4 likes

Having read a couple of sentences from the link given, for the judges remarks on this case, she herself, does not know the law. She states, "It is against the law to ride any bicycle on a public road without a front-wheel brake.

I emphasize the word "ANY", which is factually incorrect. You need a front brake or more precisely, a secondary braking method for any bike whose seat is 650mm above the ground, provided that the pedals are not directly attached to the driving wheel.

Therefore a childs bike does not need a secondary braking method, a penny farthing does not need a secondary brake since the driving wheel is the front one, which the pedals are attached to and certain recumbents are also exempt (since the seat is very low down). So if he had been riding a recumbent bike, probably able to go much faster than 18mph, he couldn't have been charged for not having a front brake.

Another comment which gave me concern is as follows, "It gave you the power to ride faster than before.", with reference to him choosing to purchase a fixie as opposed to a normal bike. Well I can hit 38mph on the flat on a road bike, a speed I've never been able to attain whilst at Derby velodrome on a track bike. So you don't choose to purchase a fixie in order to go faster than a regular road bike. People choose a fixie simply because of it's simplicity in maintenance. Yes I know some will purchase it for reasons only beknown to themselves, vanity or otherwise, but most fixies are bought purely due to the lack of gears.

For anyway still stating that he has been found guilty of killing her, he hasn't, he was acquitted of the charge of man slaughter.

Avatar
David9694 | 6 years ago
4 likes

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/15167954.No_jail_for_woman_whose_...

No jail for woman whose careless driving caused fatal crash

(Defence lawyer) Mr Nuttall said Frith (car driver) has made the same trip every day for seven years and was "appalled" by the incident.  He said: "She will have to live with this for the rest of her life." "The fact she is going to bear this until death is punishment enough." The court also heard how Frith ... was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder after the crash.

Eight hours on from the first posting with opinion on the Alliston case divided, I'm in search of some kind of moral to this sad, sad story.

The other  story which I've linked and quoted from happened round my way a few months ago.

"Life", as in 'rest of' stands out for me. A misjudgement, a momentary lapse, a gamble - I don't know, but what ensues is some remorse, PTSD on the one hand and on the other an innocent biker's life cut short irrecoverably, followed by some relative  inconvenience for the driver from the court. 

I guess one moral is don't make an ass of yourself in the aftermath of an incident.  There was a follow-up a few days later.

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/15192024.Sister_of__beautiful__in...

I say 'irrevocably' because in my limited experience of sudden death (a friend's cat 10 years ago, a bloke at sixth form who I didn't know especially well) the word I keep coming back to is "final".  You don't wake up, or come out of a trance and the person (or cat) is back and it never happened. 

I'm sure as well as non-road legal unbraked fixies there's plenty of other paraphanelia that could also be removed from sale, like boom boxes, mod kits, mobile phones that don't say  "hey, Jo I sense that we're in a moving car, so let's see you put all ten fingers on my screen for 15 seconds just to show you're not driving, or I'm going to sleep 'til we stop", or cars that say in a nice Humans/Anita voice "I'm sorry, Adam, but I notice that you're angry right now and your sense of entitment is raised so I'm going into Safe mode until the red mist clears."

As cyclists, do we have accept that because incidents Iike this are so rare they make news  - like aircraft or trains? When countless other incidents go unremarked on, undetected and (when detected) relatively unpunished?

But now we're there ones that are dangerous, always killing and maiming, a bad lot, etc. as Daily Mail readers have known all along.

 

Finally, and unrelated to all the above, we've all noticed that cars are getting larger right - wider cars seem more numerous - harder to park for the owner, less room to pass for the rest of us, more pollution, etc. This change and contrast comes into sharp focus when there's a lot of vintage cars about at weekends.  Would that be in any way related to increased obesity (people fitted ok into a Mini in the '60s or an Austin 8 before that, didn't they?) And what's a major cause of all that obesity..?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
barbarus | 6 years ago
9 likes

The sentence is unfair. This has the whiff of moral panic. An objectionable young man accidentally caused the death of a much loved wife but they are still supposed to be equal before the law.
She stepped out in front of him. That's not to say that it isn't tragic for Mr Briggs but he was doing well under the speed limit. Yes, the bike should have had a brake but I bet he wouldn't have been able to stop even with one.
Appeal now, Charlie Alliston.

Avatar
shufflingb | 6 years ago
3 likes

There's an interesting write up on it in the Guardian that makes a fairly compelling case that he has been dealt with disproportionately harshly. Worth a read  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge 

Avatar
tinguinha | 6 years ago
1 like

"he swerved to avoid the idiot who casually walked out into traffic and clearly by the timescale given dawdled across the road without looking for even a split second."

 

Everyone makes mistakes, and this poor woman paid for hers with her life. Calling her an idiot because she got killed for the mistake of taking a step without properly looking makes you look unbelievably callous. 

Avatar
Stumps | 6 years ago
0 likes

He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever. 

Had the roles been reversed and a cyclist was killed by someone driving a vehicle there would be pyres being built and loads of you out with your pitchforks after the driver was sentenced to 18 months.

Avatar
StraelGuy | 6 years ago
2 likes

My grandmother gave up driving for a similar reason. Driving back to her's after dinner at our's one Sunday and drove into the back of a parked car she 'didn't see' at 25 mph. I'm all for re-testing from 70.

Avatar
kitsunegari | 6 years ago
0 likes

It's worth reposting this link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-w... beacuse it sums up well the bias and double standards that we are so sick of seeing.

Avatar
Stumps | 6 years ago
0 likes

700c - just because someone is cleared of an offence it doesn't mean they didn't do it, you know that as well as anyone.  

As for the braking distance test done by the Police i wholeheartedly agree its totally crap but if the defence are unable to show that then thats hardly the fault of the prosecution. 

 

Behindthebikesheds - please dont try and twist things, you know exactly what i meant by my comments but if its to difficult to understand i'll say it again-

"had a cyclist been killed by a vehicle and the driver was given 18 months people would be up in arms saying the sentence was to lenient."

There now does that make it more simple for you to understand. 

 

 

Avatar
oldstrath replied to Stumps | 6 years ago
5 likes
Stumps wrote:

He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever. 

Had the roles been reversed and a cyclist was killed by someone driving a vehicle there would be pyres being built and loads of you out with your pitchforks after the driver was sentenced to 18 months.

Maybe he did 'deserve it'. Two things bother me. First, many drivers kill at least as casually and are acquitted ( Measures) or not even tried (Purcell). Second, the Briggs vengeance campaign,band the way it and the reporting of this case encourage anti cycling sentiment and probably regulation.

One horrible accident is being used to justify sweeping, probably dangerous, changes to law. Does this not trouble you?

Avatar
surly_by_name replied to tinguinha | 6 years ago
4 likes

tinguinha wrote:

"he swerved to avoid the idiot who casually walked out into traffic and clearly by the timescale given dawdled across the road without looking for even a split second."

 

Everyone makes mistakes, and this poor woman paid for hers with her life. Calling her an idiot because she got killed for the mistake of taking a step without properly looking makes you look unbelievably callous. 

If I stepped out in front of you on your morning commute but instead of colliding with me, you somehow miraculously managed to miss me, I imagine you'd be describing me in more colourful terms than "idiot". Ms Briggs death is very unfortunate. However, stepping out into the road without looking is idiotic; the fact that Mrs Briggs died as a result (at least partly) of doing so doesn't mean it wasn't an idiotic thing to do.

Alliston and Mrs Briggs both made a number of mistakes that are typically of little or no consequence. Many of us make some or all of the same mistakes every day. 

Alliston's biggest crime appears to be that he's an objectionable young man. I know lots of objectionable young men (who show no remorse about being objectionable) who appear not to have been incarcerated.  I'm relying on media reports, but anecdote would suggest that you get a second chance (so "driver will have to live with this all of his/her life") in a motor vehicle.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Stumps | 6 years ago
2 likes

Stumps wrote:

 just because someone is cleared of an offence it doesn't mean they didn't do it, you know that as well as anyone.  

And just because someone was convicted of something doesn't mean they actually did it.  Ask every victim of a miscarriage of justice, ever.  Sometimes, someone is convicted because they fit into a convenient narrative (not just from the media, but the police, or the judiciary, or even the vigilante neighbours).

Avatar
rollotommasi replied to kitsunegari | 6 years ago
0 likes

kitsunegari wrote:

It's worth reposting this link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-w... beacuse it sums up well the bias and double standards that we are so sick of seeing.

 

But that article is based on a flawed understanding of the case.  Martin Porter claims "The allegation against Alliston essentially related to the absence of a front brake on his bicycle." That's just wrong.  Sure, the unroadworthy bike was a key aspect of the case.  But it wasn't the only one.

Just as key was the fact that Alliston could have done more to prevent the collision but CHOSE not to.  He initially slowed down but then maintained his speed when he could have slowed further.  His primary motivation was not to avoid an accident, but that he felt "entitled" to go on (as he put it in court).  

As the judge's sentencing statement says: "On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident." 

Avatar
tinguinha replied to surly_by_name | 6 years ago
3 likes

surly_by_name wrote:

Alliston's biggest crime appears to be that he's an objectionable young man. I know lots of objectionable young men (who show no remorse about being objectionable) who appear not to have been incarcerated.  I'm relying on media reports, but anecdote would suggest that you get a second chance (so "driver will have to live with this all of his/her life") in a motor vehicle.

 

I don't dispute any of that, but it's a separate issue.

Stepping out into the road without looking may be "idiotic" but we all make idiotic or careless mistakes; one doesn't make us an idiot. Calling the victim here an idiot is callous and is the sort of thing that people will gladly seize on to attack cyclists. 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to rollotommasi | 6 years ago
2 likes
rollotommasi wrote:

kitsunegari wrote:

It's worth reposting this link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-w... beacuse it sums up well the bias and double standards that we are so sick of seeing.

 

But that article is based on a flawed understanding of the case.  Martin Porter claims "The allegation against Alliston essentially related to the absence of a front brake on his bicycle." That's just wrong.  Sure, the unroadworthy bike was a key aspect of the case.  But it wasn't the only one.

Just as key was the fact that Alliston could have done more to prevent the collision but CHOSE not to.  He initially slowed down but then maintained his speed when he could have slowed further.  His primary motivation was not to avoid an accident, but that he felt "entitled" to go on (as he put it in court).  

As the judge's sentencing statement says: "On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident." 

Well, he wasn't smart enough to just use the usual motorist defence and just claim he 'didn't see' the victim, and didn't know what happened or why. Had he done so he'd presumably have gotten off, as in the Michael Mason or Daniel Squire cases.

The chap was apparently too thick to lie, and has been punished accordingly.

Cyclists should take a leaf out of the motorist's book and cultivate the habit of just not looking where they are going. If you make sure you don't notice the person you hit you can't be held responsible for hitting them. If you foolishly look where you are going then you can. That seems to be how it works.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to tinguinha | 6 years ago
3 likes

tinguinha wrote:

surly_by_name wrote:

Alliston's biggest crime appears to be that he's an objectionable young man. I know lots of objectionable young men (who show no remorse about being objectionable) who appear not to have been incarcerated.  I'm relying on media reports, but anecdote would suggest that you get a second chance (so "driver will have to live with this all of his/her life") in a motor vehicle.

 

I don't dispute any of that, but it's a separate issue.

Stepping out into the road without looking may be "idiotic" but we all make idiotic or careless mistakes; one doesn't make us an idiot. Calling the victim here an idiot is callous and is the sort of thing that people will gladly seize on to attack cyclists. 

Again, for the hard of reading;

If a cyclist pulls out into a busy road, part ways crosses, hears the sound of a horn, ignores it, still dawdles to cross (when it wasn't clear to cross in any case but still let's carry on with the similarities) then a second or so later hears a horn again, pedals backwards into the path of the car a few metres before the car would be at that collision point.

Firstly, the drivers brain cannot compute fast enough to even hit the brake, an unexpected scenario like a cycllist coming back into their path takes around 1.5seconds (this is the accepted timescale for a good/alert driver to react to an unknown event). You haven't even taken into account mechanical action time (another 0.4seconds) before the brakes actually start to function.

So the car despite going only 10mph will continue to go 10mph until well past the collision point, say the cyclist dies, the cyclist is at fault for the incident and frankly is an idiot. Sad for the cyclist but they would be at fault for ignoring what was going on around them, not making normal progress across the road and for salmoning back into harms way.

The motorist has slowed right down, sure, honking the horn isn't ideal but they've slowed to a very slow speed and trying to take avoiding action to avoid a collision. When many mistakes by one part occur in a short space of time it's often too much for the other party to overcome even if they have the best brakes in the world and the best intentions, having being in a very similar situation (but I ended up being the injured party and the idiotic ped got off scott free) I know full well how things unfold and that you cannot always account for the stupid and idiotic decisions made by others.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Stumps | 6 years ago
3 likes
Stumps wrote:

He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever. 

Had the roles been reversed and a cyclist was killed by someone driving a vehicle there would be pyres being built and loads of you out with your pitchforks after the driver was sentenced to 18 months.

Do please let us know when a person on a bike pulled out into oncoming traffic without looking, hung around so long that the driver having slowed (because they thought you were crossing normally) steers to avoid at 10mph and the person then salmons back into the path of the car inexplicably and is killed.

In that scenario the person riding a bike is at fault.
More importantly people on bikes are rarely if ever killed in that way in the UK. Certainly of all the cases ive read in the last few years (of cyclist's being killed) none have been anything like that.
So whatever nonsense your spouting is exactly that.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Stumps | 6 years ago
1 like
Stumps wrote:

700c - just because someone is cleared of an offence it doesn't mean they didn't do it, you know that as well as anyone.  

As for the braking distance test done by the Police i wholeheartedly agree its totally crap but if the defence are unable to show that then thats hardly the fault of the prosecution. 

 

But it does point to a problem with the justice system, that it is so dependent on a defendent having the financial resources (and, to be fair, brainpower) to challenge such pisspoor police 'evidence'.

Stumps wrote:

Behindthebikesheds - please dont try and twist things, you know exactly what i meant by my comments but if its to difficult to understand i'll say it again-

"had a cyclist been killed by a vehicle and the driver was given 18 months people would be up in arms saying the sentence was to lenient."

There now does that make it more simple for you to understand. 

 

 

That's not really true, unless you add the clause "on this forum" after "people". The media in general would not give a toss.

Avatar
700c replied to Stumps | 6 years ago
5 likes
Stumps wrote:

He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever. 

Cleared of manslaughter he did not kill anybody.

It's a tragedy that this collision resulted in somebody's death. Could have been his own if they'd fallen a little differently and extremely unlucky and rare outcome in any case. He deserved to be prosecuted for the negligence of not having adequate brakes. The contribution of this to the poor woman's death is not as clear cut as the prosecution made out. You can die from a head injury falling from 5 foot high onto the pavement.

What people are angry about is the double standards, the biased media coverage and the anti cyclist / hipster BS which seems to have influenced the CPS and the judge in this case.

Interesting that you don't address any of these issues in your response including the dodgy 'expert evidence' on braking distances, given by the police.

Avatar
tinguinha replied to Stumps | 6 years ago
4 likes

Stumps wrote:

He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever. 

Had the roles been reversed and a cyclist was killed by someone driving a vehicle there would be pyres being built and loads of you out with your pitchforks after the driver was sentenced to 18 months.

 

The chances of a motorist driving well under the speed limit getting 18 months for killing a pedestrian who walked out into the road in front of them with six metres stopping distance = zero. Remember as a motorist you don't even get charged if you drive right over and kill a cyclist riding in front of you in full compliance with the law and lit up with lights and hi-viz,  and offer literally no explanation whatsoever for having done so. 

Avatar
Projectcyclingf... | 6 years ago
0 likes

Beware all cyclists. Pedestrians are a protected species from cyclists particularly if they are of similar nature to Kim Briggs. I say this because would the media, cops snd CPS to start of with, have taken this similar route had the victim been a male, a non-white or even a non-mother? I suspect reactions would have been much different and less demonising to Alliston and less trial by media.
His bike did not collide with Briggs therefore not cause of death. It was either head to head or impacting the road and the hospital failing to save her life, the cause and there is a history of people dying in hospitals because of mistakes they make. Blaming solely on no front brake as to the cause of her death will remain debatable. Since the introdution of motor vehicles, millions of drivers have killed worldwide children and all, despite brakes. So this brake argument does not stack up. Where is this ferocious media outcry when drivers kill children or kill in multiples?
Shame on Wendy Joseph for being a complete incompetent judge..see my previous posts. Particularly in allowing that dodgy cop test video in a court as evidence being gross negligence and prejudicial. The defence could not do much more without being demonised and histarics from all anti-cylists and media.

Avatar
rollotommasi | 6 years ago
3 likes

I've seen several comments here complaining that Alliston has been treated more harshly than a driver would in similar circumstances.  But none of these comments showcase examples which  compare like with like.

Alliston's crime wasn't being involved in an incident that resulted in someone's death.  It's because he chose to act and behave in ways which were clearly dangerous, as the judge's statement makes clear.  Riding what he knew (or should have known) was an unroadworthy bicycle, unsafe for street conditions.  Riding recklessly and failing to take all reasonable steps to slow down or stop to prevent the accident - which included trying to force his way through a narrow gap between a parked lorry and the victim.  And failing to show remorse for his actions.

Perhaps these apologists for Alliston need to consider this.  As the judge said, Alliston was an accident waiting to happen.  In the end, it was a pedestrian who got in his way and lost her life.  But it could just as easily have been another cyclist. 

 

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to rollotommasi | 6 years ago
1 like

rollotommasi wrote:

I've seen several comments here complaining that Alliston has been treated more harshly than a driver would in similar circumstances.  But none of these comments showcase examples which  compare like with like.

Alliston's crime wasn't being involved in an incident that resulted in someone's death.  It's because he chose to act and behave in ways which were clearly dangerous, as the judge's statement makes clear.  Riding what he knew (or should have known) was an unroadworthy bicycle, unsafe for street conditions.  Riding recklessly and failing to take all reasonable steps to slow down or stop to prevent the accident - which included trying to force his way through a narrow gap between a parked lorry and the victim.  And failing to show remorse for his actions.

Perhaps these apologists for Alliston need to consider this.  As the judge said, Alliston was an accident waiting to happen.  In the end, it was a pedestrian who got in his way and lost her life.  But it could just as easily have been another cyclist. 

 

I see what you done there.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
7 likes
don simon wrote:

he chose to act and behave in ways which were clearly dangerous, as the judge's statement makes clear.

Something which applies to any number of killer drivers, a third of whom end up not doing any jail time at all.

Heck, choosing to drive a car at all, for any journey that could be undertaken by a different mode, is 'chosing to act and behave in ways which are clearly dangerous'. Almost all those road deaths that are determined not to be anyone's fault (but rather blamed on that wicked weather or the malevolent sun, etc), would not happen if the motorised party hadn't decided to drive that journey. Their choice to drive created the danger.

(Not even mentioning the _certainty_ of adverse health effects for people as a result of choosing to pump crap into the air by choosing to drive).

The problem is, because the tolerated level of danger for driving is set so high, it takes a lot to attract any special penalty. This doesn't appear to be the case for cycling, where the acceptable level is apparently much lower.

The double-standard is quite obvious.

Avatar
ooldbaker replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
5 likes

don simon wrote:

rollotommasi wrote:

I've seen several comments here complaining that Alliston has been treated more harshly than a driver would in similar circumstances.  But none of these comments showcase examples which  compare like with like.

Alliston's crime wasn't being involved in an incident that resulted in someone's death.  It's because he chose to act and behave in ways which were clearly dangerous, as the judge's statement makes clear.  Riding what he knew (or should have known) was an unroadworthy bicycle, unsafe for street conditions.  Riding recklessly and failing to take all reasonable steps to slow down or stop to prevent the accident - which included trying to force his way through a narrow gap between a parked lorry and the victim.  And failing to show remorse for his actions.

Perhaps these apologists for Alliston need to consider this.  As the judge said, Alliston was an accident waiting to happen.  In the end, it was a pedestrian who got in his way and lost her life.  But it could just as easily have been another cyclist. 

 

I see what you done there.

it was also the judge that claimed

1. Not wearing a helmet showed irresponsibility

2. He did not slow (in 6m he slowed from 18mph to 12 mph according to the evidence).

3. His shouting warnings was an aggravating factor.

If driving an illegal bike and in such a manner that it will take 12 m to stop is "furious driving" then surely any driver caught driving a much heavier car in a built up area at over 30mph is much worse.

All you are likely to get for that is points on a licence which are ignored even when you get to 30 points or more if you can say you need your car for work.

There seems to be a lot of effort to convict this cyclist despite not really fitting into any crimes and just as much effort not to even try to convict drivers for at least equally dangerous acts.

 

 

 

Avatar
rollotommasi replied to ooldbaker | 6 years ago
5 likes

ooldbaker wrote:

it was also the judge that claimed

1. Not wearing a helmet showed irresponsibility

2. He did not slow (in 6m he slowed from 18mph to 12 mph according to the evidence).

3. His shouting warnings was an aggravating factor.

If driving an illegal bike and in such a manner that it will take 12 m to stop is "furious driving" then surely any driver caught driving a much heavier car in a built up area at over 30mph is much worse.

All you are likely to get for that is points on a licence which are ignored even when you get to 30 points or more if you can say you need your car for work.

There seems to be a lot of effort to convict this cyclist despite not really fitting into any crimes and just as much effort not to even try to convict drivers for at least equally dangerous acts.

1. The judge referred to not wearing a helmet only once, and in passing, and it had no bearing on her judgment.  She referred to it in the context of Alliston himself making parallels between his cycling and the dangerous riding in Lucas Brunelle movies.

2. He slowed to between 10-14 mph at the junction.  He had plenty of opportunity to slow further, but he made the conscious decision not to, stating in court "I was entitled to go on".

3. His shouting warnings were an aggravating factor, because he was placing the full onus on Mrs Briggs to get out of his way. He was doing nothing more to try to avoid the accident.  He could have tried to slow himself down, but he decided not to.

Most crimes require both deed (an offence to be committed) and underlying intent to commit a felony.  It's clear from the judgement that Alliston displayed the intent of someone who was driving furiously.

Avatar
Projectcyclingf... replied to rollotommasi | 6 years ago
1 like
rollotommasi wrote:

ooldbaker wrote:

it was also the judge that claimed

1. Not wearing a helmet showed irresponsibility

2. He did not slow (in 6m he slowed from 18mph to 12 mph according to the evidence).

3. His shouting warnings was an aggravating factor.

If driving an illegal bike and in such a manner that it will take 12 m to stop is "furious driving" then surely any driver caught driving a much heavier car in a built up area at over 30mph is much worse.

All you are likely to get for that is points on a licence which are ignored even when you get to 30 points or more if you can say you need your car for work.

There seems to be a lot of effort to convict this cyclist despite not really fitting into any crimes and just as much effort not to even try to convict drivers for at least equally dangerous acts.

1. The judge referred to not wearing a helmet only once, and in passing, and it had no bearing on her judgment.  She referred to it in the context of Alliston himself making parallels between his cycling and the dangerous riding in Lucas Brunelle movies.

2. He slowed to between 10-14 mph at the junction.  He had plenty of opportunity to slow further, but he made the conscious decision not to, stating in court "I was entitled to go on".

3. His shouting warnings were an aggravating factor, because he was placing the full onus on Mrs Briggs to get out of his way. He was doing nothing more to try to avoid the accident.  He could have tried to slow himself down, but he decided not to.

Most crimes require both deed (an offence to be committed) and underlying intent to commit a felony.  It's clear from the judgement that Alliston displayed the intent of someone who was driving furiously.

Thought i should respond to you as below:
I've had similar experiences as Alliston where even the best of brakes would not have made an outta of difference let alone having an opportunity or time to even apply them as in 1 instance, where only swift actions of steering left to right in the opposite directions to the pedestrian movements avoided a collision and the road free of cars allowed me to do that. Here again pedestrian neglected to use a lit zebra crossing only few metres ahead. 2nd instance was when a pedestrian appeared directly in my path despite myself in hi-vis. This happened so suddenly and unexpectantly that the only way to decribe it was is that i went into autopilot and it was not me making the decisions as i recall applying brakes and releasing them, simultaneously shouting out 2 audible warnings and pedestrian still in my path, not even looking to his right as i approached. I probably slowed to about 15mph from about 18mph and it was only when i was about a meter or 2 from impact, did he notice and jump out of the way. I can now officially say that actually, depending on your skills and experience, your auto reactions will takeover and do whats necessary to save harm to yourself..you will not be able to make ANY conscious decisions yourself. As a teenager i have tipped over during panic braking and other times back wheel lifting during heavy breaking. So i have learnt emergency braking can be dangerous on 2 wheels which is why i can say for certain i automatically released the brakes to remain in control for my own safety. That cop video stopping test is a fraud and too scared to do an actual reconstrution of the accident. To stop in 3metres from 18mph no human on any bike could possibly acheive without cheating which is what cops did as the back wheel did not lift therefore cop braked many meters before the cone..serious skulduggery. Any such tests should be government approved as are stopping distances for cars. I hope courts do not use this much critised test as a benchmark in future cases.

Avatar
tinguinha | 6 years ago
5 likes

He should have had a front brake and it's right that he's being punished for riding without one. I don't have a view  on whether the sentence is right in and of itself, but it's pretty clear that he's been treated more harshly than the average car driver would be under similar circumstances.

Something that needs to be repeated a lot more widely is that his bike, even without a front brake and based on the apparently very sloppy police tests, had pretty much the same stopping distance as cars driving at that speed (large cars presumably have longer stopping distances than that, and of course cars, unlike bicycles, often travel at much greater speeds).  A properly functioning car under the same circumstances would also have hit the unfortunate victim, with a lot more force. The law says he should have had a front brake, so he should have had a front brake. But if his bike is so dangerous as to be illegal without a front brake, it follows that ALL cars are too dangerous to be on the roads. 

 

Avatar
Ush replied to tinguinha | 6 years ago
3 likes

tinguinha wrote:

Something that needs to be repeated a lot more widely is that his bike, even without a front brake and based on the apparently very sloppy police tests, had pretty much the same stopping distance as cars driving at that speed (large cars presumably have longer stopping distances than that, and of course cars, unlike bicycles, often travel at much greater speeds).  A properly functioning car under the same circumstances would also have hit the unfortunate victim, with a lot more force. 

Thank you.  I'll just repeat that again.  Also, notice in the sentencing remarks linked previously, that that judge claims that the absence of a front brake increased the stopping distance four fold.  I would wager that most commuters do _not_ know how to do a Quick Stop.  

Avatar
WillRod | 6 years ago
4 likes

Causing a death by having a non road legal bike warrants an 18 month sentence.

Causing 4 deaths by having four bald tyres on a car ends up with a £180 fine and 6 points.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-who-killed-four-cyclists-636552

 

Yes, his arrogant comments after the incident are shocking, but 18 months is about the most I would have expected (max for wanton and furious is 24 months anyway).

 

Sadly it's still easier to get away with killing cyclists while driving in a car.

Pages

Latest Comments