Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Government review of cycling offences likely to be a ‘patch-up job’ according to Cycling UK

Charity also calls for support to ensure anti-cycling campaigners do not sway upcoming cycle safety review towards further regulation of cycling

Cycling UK says that an ongoing government review is only likely to result in new careless and dangerous cycling offences, and describes such an outcome as “a patch-up job rather than the holistic review required.”

The government announced a two-part review of cycle safety in September in the wake of “a series of high profile incidents involving cyclists” – thought to be a reference to the case in which pedestrian Kim Briggs lost her life following a collision with cyclist Charlie Alliston.

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

The first phase of the review is looking at whether a new offence equivalent to causing death by careless or dangerous driving should be introduced for cyclists. The review will then move onto wider improvements to cycling road safety.

Speaking to Sky News this week, Kim Briggs’ husband Matthew renewed his call for a new offence of causing death or injury by dangerous or careless cycling.

"I maintain that the law is hopelessly out of date,” he said. "A week after Kim died I received a call from the police to say there was an issue with the bike and they were considering bringing charges but they didn't know which charges they could bring because these laws weren't there.”

Describing an 18-month wait for the case to go to trial, he added: "I don't blame the police at all for this but the police had to go back to 1861 to scrabble around in a box of old laws, when it's very, very clear this is just an omission and we need the law to catch up."

Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns said the charity was expecting to hear the government’s proposals later this month.

“Unfortunately, despite the representations made by us and others, the Department for Transport appears to have undertaken this as a discrete inquiry, without carrying out the broader review of all road traffic offences promised back in 2014.

“Instead of asking whether the definitions of and standards for ‘careless’ and ‘dangerous’ actually work when applied to offences by any road user, Government seems keen on only adding new careless and dangerous cycling offences: a patch up job rather than the holistic review required.”

Dollimore is also calling for support from the cycling public ahead of the second part of the review to ensure anti-cycling campaigners do not redirect it towards further regulation of cycling.

“Also expected this month is the launch of the government’s inquiry into cycle safety, which they have repeatedly claimed will be evidence led.

“Whilst that may well be their intention, we know from the media coverage following the Alliston case that there will be numerous individuals and organisations who use this opportunity to press for further regulation of cycling, ignoring the principal causes of danger to cyclists and pedestrians.

“Cycling UK is therefore going to need all the support offered by our members and the wider cycling public when the cycle safety review is launched, to make sure it’s not side-tracked by peripheral issues and the focus remains on the safety of people cycling and other vulnerable road users, not on victim blaming.

“We know that road.cc readers will understand the importance of this, and we will be asking as many as possible to respond to the review and support Cycling UK’s submissions.”    

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

48 comments

Avatar
kitsunegari | 6 years ago
0 likes

It's a shame that Mr Briggs has allowed his anger and grief to come this far.

His selfishness is going to lead to problems for all of us.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
3 likes

Was his Labrador ok?

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
3 likes

Having just been SMIDSYd by a driver in broad daylight on a sunny day at noon at a similar speed to the Alliston collision, I am confident that the driver will not be prosecuted because "the sun was in my eyes".  Since the collision was at a similar speed, it is quite conceivable that I could have died, but since he didn't have defective brakes and was driving a car, nothing will happen to him, apart from CUK solicitors screwing every possible penny from his insurance, and having to pay hundreds of pounds to get the dent out of his wing.

He was wearing the darkest sunglasses I've ever seen, and I know there are rules about tinted windscreens and how much light they must allow through, but is there anything about sunglasses?

I'm all right apart from some bruises and an overwhelming sense of burning indignation, but not a good start to the year I was going to get back into Audaxes.

Avatar
Housecathst | 6 years ago
5 likes

Yeah, she step off the curb 3.8 seconds before the impact. She stepped into a parking bay between a parked car and a van. So wouldn’t have been visible until  about 2.8 before impact. Motorist are generally given 2.3 seconds to react in these situations , so we’re looking .5 seconds of braking time. The numbers just don’t add up.

the judge can get fucked to, using his lack of a helmet as proof of his recklessness and held him to a started of absolute perfection which would never be expect of a driver and also these referees to the bike messenger movies, I assume any killer motorists whos made reference to watch the fast and the furious will equally have it used against them.

Avatar
Housecathst | 6 years ago
1 like

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Housecathst | 6 years ago
3 likes

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

Avatar
kevvjj replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
1 like

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
6 likes

kevvjj wrote:

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

 

Charged, sure, but you are going to have to prove to me that such a car driver would have recieved a comparable  sentence, because I really doubt it.  And I'm 100% certain it would not have attracted the same level of attention or the same aftermath with respect to demands to change the law.

 

Googling reveals a mixed picture with regard to sentencing, but, importantly, only one of the cases involved the victim stepping into the road in front of the vehicle, generally they involved the vehicle leaving the road or the lane.    In the one case vaguely comparable, the penalty was a fine, no jail time.

 

No custodial sentence at all, just a fine -

http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/faulty-brakes-driver-fined-after-f...

 

Three years, but the victim didn't suddenly appear in front of him, he drove into a car correctly stopped at traffic lights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/4236765.stm

 

Same sentence as Alliston, but speeding as well as faulty brakes, and nobody suddenly stepped in front of him -

https://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/news/southport-west-lancs/ormskirk-lo...

 

Roughly comparable situation with a pedestrian stepping into the road, no prison time

https://www.wigantoday.net/news/fatal-crash-lorry-had-brake-fault-1-165247

 

 

No-one killed or injured, but managed to hit a _house_ which I'm guessing didn't suddenly step out in front of him.  20 weeks, not months.

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2017-10-05/jail-for-van-driver-who-ha...

 

So, charged, sure, but I don't really believe you if you are saying a motorist would have recieved the same penalty.

Avatar
Pudsey Pedaller replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
3 likes
kevvjj wrote:

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

That would depend on whether the non-functioning brakes were a factor in the collision. If a pedestrian stepped in front of a motor vehicle and the driver had no realistic chance of stopping or slowing enough to make a difference, regardless of the condition of the brakes, then any competent defence would argue that the brakes weren't a contributing factor.

This is why I don't understand how the prosecution was able to get away with completely ignoring thinking time in the Alliston case and the video produced by the MET police was a disgrace:

http://road.cc/content/news/228204-metropolitan-police-stopping-distance...

Avatar
gmac101 replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
4 likes

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

 

My uncle (on a motorcycle) was killed by a motorist who had faulty brakes - the motorist was fined for not having a roadworthy vehicle. No consequences for killing my uncle

 

Avatar
Housecathst replied to gmac101 | 6 years ago
1 like

gmac101 wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

 

My uncle (on a motorcycle) was killed by a motorist who had faulty brakes - the motorist was fined for not having a roadworthy vehicle. No consequences for killing my uncle

 

yup this very much, he was found not guilty of man slaughter and the judge said the lack of a front brake had no bearing on the conviction for W+F or the sentence that she passed. 

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to gmac101 | 6 years ago
0 likes

gmac101 wrote:

My uncle (on a motorcycle) was killed by a motorist who had faulty brakes - the motorist was fined for not having a roadworthy vehicle. No consequences for killing my uncle

My uncle crashed his motorbike into a tree while trying to avoid a drunk that stepped out in front of him - the drunk got away uninjured, my uncle spent several days in hospital.

I've nearly been knocked of my motorbike (big blue thing, noisy exhaust, headlight and hi-viz on) when some idiot ran straight into the bus lane I was in from behind a queue of people at a bus stop. The guy hit my elbow, causing me to wobble, but I managed to control it and stop in the bus lane. If he'd hit me differently, there's a good chance he might have had me off, or even pushed me into oncoming traffic!

Avatar
brooksby replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
1 like

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

Personally, I'd like to know what would have happened and what the media coverage would have been like if Alliston had managed to swerve/brake so Briggs had lived but Alliston had died. I bet Alliston would still have been blamed...

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
4 likes
brooksby wrote:

Personally, I'd like to know what would have happened and what the media coverage would have been like if Alliston had managed to swerve/brake so Briggs had lived but Alliston had died. I bet Alliston would still have been blamed...

Sadly, there was a case similar to what you describe recently.

It didn't get very much media attention at all unsurprisingly.

The Daily Mail did put together a rather malicious and inaccurate article that attempted to blame the cyclist, again unsurprisingly.

Pretty balanced view here:
http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/keen-accomplis...

Avatar
PRSboy replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
0 likes

Rich_cb wrote:
brooksby wrote:

Personally, I'd like to know what would have happened and what the media coverage would have been like if Alliston had managed to swerve/brake so Briggs had lived but Alliston had died. I bet Alliston would still have been blamed...

Sadly, there was a case similar to what you describe recently. It didn't get very much media attention at all unsurprisingly. The Daily Mail did put together a rather malicious and inaccurate article that attempted to blame the cyclist, again unsurprisingly. Pretty balanced view here: http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/keen-accomplis...

Horrific... was the drunk pedestrian prosecuted for anything in that instance?

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to PRSboy | 6 years ago
0 likes

PRSboy wrote:

Horrific... was the drunk pedestrian prosecuted for anything in that instance?

Yes, terrible - there was quite a lot on here about it, if you search. I know the junction well, it's on my bike commute route.

I don't think the pedestrian, Nathan Kelsell, was even breathalysed, or charged with any sort of offence, far less prosecuted for anything, despite his mate saying he walked into the road, but he didn't because he saw a cyclist coming. Mr Kelsell was also injured and insists he has no memory of the incident.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to kevvjj | 6 years ago
2 likes

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

you clearly missed the point about having another working brake! he had one recognised/legal brake otherwise could not have slowed to circa 10mph from circa 18mph, even so given the timescales involved he would not have had enough thinking and mechanical action braking time to avoid Briggs stepping back.

The Met police video using a brand new disc braked bike utilising no thinking time, no stress/panic involvement invalidates it completely and should not have being allowed to be admitted as evidence. Try braking underf duress/high stress situation for an event that unfolds a few metres in front of you and compare that to what the MET showed, it's completely different to the real world and what happens in incidents.

 

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
5 likes

Banning water would massively help my triathlon attempts!

 

Agree with BTBS and the lack of challenge to some shocking 'evidence' and court room bias, wasn't Alliston without representation (certainly in the first instance) which may account for some of the issues. Having said that, representation may also have been affected by bias.

 

If Mr Briggs really wanted to do some good to save people like his wife then there are some much better things he could do including:

 

1. Helmets for all pedestrians

2. Ban mobile phone use for anyone moving

3. MOT for pedestrian footwear

4. Walking test including theory test of the green cross code

5. Pedestrian crossings every 5 metres as clearly 10 metres away is just too far

 

I can't help but think being so media hungry, Mr Briggs will see things like this. I wish him no ill and with children myself wouldn't like to contemplate life without their mother (when she's let out of the shed). However, I feel the 'justice' he seeks is revenge, and it is happening to one rather stupid if unlucky young man. This crusade though is wrong, morally and statistically, ill judged and at the expense of his own and his family's mental health and wellbeing. He needs to get the help he needs to continue to live a productive life and look after those children...

Avatar
IanGlasgow | 6 years ago
3 likes

We currently have laws for dangerous driving, driving while under the influence of alcohol, careless driving (driving without due care and attention), etc.

Instead of inventing new rules for cyclists why not just alter the law so that these offences cover ALL road users?
That way anybody using the road, footway or paths on a skateboard, horse, ebike, foot-propelled scooter, mobility scooter, pair of running shoes, hoverboard, jet-copter or whatever other modes of transport might be invented in the next 100 years has similar responsibilities.

The only laws which need to be different for different vehicle users are the ones that are vehicle specific.
Not wearing a seat-belt? Only applies if you're in a car or van.
Not wearing a helmet? Only applies if you're riding a motorbike or under 14 and riding a horse.
No saddle or bridle? Only applies if you're riding a horse (though it's probably a good idea to have a saddle on your bike too).
 

Avatar
DaveE128 | 6 years ago
3 likes

Next priority must surely be to pass new laws to deal with men biting dogs.

Avatar
PRSboy replied to DaveE128 | 6 years ago
1 like

DaveE128 wrote:

Next priority must surely be to pass new laws to deal with men biting dogs.

Not to mention stairs, which should be held to account for many deaths and serious injuries per year...   Stair users should be made to wear helmets and carry insurance.

On a more serious note, this makes interesting reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statisti...

Avatar
Grahamd replied to PRSboy | 6 years ago
6 likes

PRSboy wrote:

DaveE128 wrote:

Next priority must surely be to pass new laws to deal with men biting dogs.

Not to mention stairs, which should be held to account for many deaths and serious injuries per year...   Stair users should be made to wear helmets and carry insurance.

On a more serious note, this makes interesting reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statisti...

Yes, 200 people drown each year, so let’s ban water...

The cycling problem is media driven nonsense and our gutless government just follows the mob.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
5 likes

Here are the words of Sgt Tony Burden.

Speaking after the hearing, Sgt Tony Burden said: "There is no such thing as causing death by dangerous or careless cycling.

"There is only careless or dangerous driving which the Crown Prosecution Service thought because of the seriousness of the offence was too minor.

"The wanton and furious driving charge goes back to 1861 under the Offences Against the Person Act and reflects the gravity of the incident.

He clearly thinks that the 1861 law of WAF that comes under the offences against the person act is more severe/serious than careless or dangerous driving.

Why motorists are not charged for similar in far more brutal cases one will never know!

Avatar
boxrick | 6 years ago
0 likes

It's interesting these articles about the Anti-Cycling agenda view some people have of the BBC. I wonder with a good list of examples we can get it pushed in front of the right people?

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to boxrick | 6 years ago
2 likes

boxrick wrote:

It's interesting these articles about the Anti-Cycling agenda view some people have of the BBC. I wonder with a good list of examples we can get it pushed in front of the right people?

Who would the right people be?

Avatar
Hirsute | 6 years ago
4 likes

There were for cyclists and pedestrians

2016 2 fatal collisions

2015 3

2014 2

2013 6

2012 2

Apportionment of blame is not identified

Overall

2016 438

2015 404

2014 443

2013 398

2012 424

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras10-reported-road-...

ras10012

Clearly going after the cyclists is the main priority (even if they crossed without looking, whilst on their phone, listening to music wiht headphones and within 10m of a crossing).

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Hirsute | 6 years ago
7 likes

hirsute wrote:

There were for cyclists and pedestrians

2016 2 fatal collisions

2015 3

2014 2

2013 6

2012 2

Apportionment of blame is not identified

Overall

2016 438

2015 404

2014 443

2013 398

2012 424

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras10-reported-road-...

ras10012

Clearly going after the cyclists is the main priority (even if they crossed without looking, whilst on their phone, listening to music wiht headphones and within 10m of a crossing).

The judge states that 3 cases of death were the cyclist pleaded guilty were heard in an appellate court in the last 10 years and then made a big deal about 'other' guilty cyclists of causing death (and serious injury) despite not providing any evidence to back her statement.

"Counsel’s researches have yielded only three appellate cases in the last 10 years, and only one in the recent past where death was caused by wanton or furious driving or other misconduct, R v Lambert [2008] EWCA Crim 2109, R v Hall [2009] EWCA Crim 2236, and R v Gittoes [2015] EWCA Crim 1608. This is not to say there have been no other deaths of or serious injuries caused to pedestrians by cyclists; it is only to say that no other such cases have reached the Appellate Courts. In each of the 3 cases to which I have referred the appellant had accepted his guilt" 

Lambert was cycling at high speed on a pavement and got 12 months after early guilty plea

Gittoes got 12 months after cycling on street and being warned many times and had a hugely defective bike.

Hall said he went onto the pavement to avoid being struck by a car and hit another elderly pedestrian and ghot 7 months (the poice Sgt at the time seemed to think the law/charging was fine in that case)

 

Indeed Charlie Alliston did far more to avoid the collision (including giving a warning as per recommendation by HC) than any of those circumstances and certainly more than most motorists who then get off scot free (if charged at all) - Helen Measures and Gail Purcell being just 2 of many hundreds, and yet was stitched up like a kipper with false/misleading 'evidence' and a clear agenda by the Met police, CPS and the media helped in spades to ensure he was never going to get a fair trial or any sense of logic/law being applied correctly.

Even the judge herself showed her bias/discrimination in the way she summed up and directed the jury to highlight/reiterate yet again that Briggs was a young mother of children though her words stated to ignore that fact. In her summing up she still makes the shouting to be a negative whilst ignoring that other road users do so all the time with their horns and that the HC states you should give a warning (the words are irrelevent because the judge states that Briggs was confused etc), she ignores that he had slowed to a very slow pace, that he was ultimately trying to avoid the collision that he did nothing different to the vast majority by simply steering around Briggs, that it was Briggs that stepped back into his path whilst he was going at a slow speed. Her ignorance, bias and discrimination is there in droves.

Why was the fact Briggs wasn't wearing hi-vis or a helmet brought up, why wasn't the braking 'evidence' ripped apart as being utter BS, why was Alliston treated massively different to most other road users who kill and seriously injure, why wasn't the fact he was only doing about 10mph (admitted by the prosecution) made more of by the defence and many other aspects brought up.

That he received a sentence at all or even had charges pressed against him shows how disparate the system is against people on bikes to everyone else using the road.

And Briggs wants to bash people on bikes more, we are bashed massively more already, we have the law applied unevenly in these cases from both sides of the coin, we are expected to have a far greater level of looking out for others than anyone else even that of people operating known killing machines weighing in excess of 1000kg at high speeds that often aren't fit to be on the road (bald tyres killing 4 cyclists) and are operated beyond recklessness.

The 'system' as it is is bent as fuck. Briggs just wants revenge, nothing more, his words re safety for everyone incl people on bikes are empty IMHO.

Avatar
brooksby replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
4 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The 'system' as it is is bent as fuck. Briggs you're an ignoranant twunt, all you want is revenge, nothing more, your words re safety are empty as fuck!

The 'system' as it is is bent as fuck. Briggs just wants revenge, nothing more, his words re safety for everyone incl people on bikes are empty IMHO.

(edited 05/01 because BtBS toned down their original language)

I agree with you on pretty much all of this except for one item: I prefer to think (hope) that Mr Briggs genuinely is trying to make some good come out of his wife's death. He's drawn some bad conclusions and is calling for entirely the wrong actions to be taken, but I think (hope) that he means well rather than just being out for revenge...

Avatar
Pudsey Pedaller replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
4 likes

brooksby wrote:

I agree with you on pretty much all of this except for one item: I prefer to think (hope) that Mr Briggs genuinely is trying to make some good come out of his wife's death. He's drawn some bad conclusions and is calling for entirely the wrong actions to be taken, but I think (hope) that he means well rather than just being out for revenge...

I would like to think Mr Briggs wants some good to come from his wife's death, but I can't help but feel his motivation is borne out of anger and grief, neither of which I can blame him for. However, any change in the law should not be based on an emotional response to a tragic incident.

Despite Jesse Norman's claim that the Cycle Safety Review will not be based on ‘knee-jerk reaction’ but on ‘solid evidence’, I can't help but feel that the exact opposite is happening. Firstly, the press release announcing the review states the following:

Cycle Safety Review Press Release wrote:

This will address a specific issue emerging from some of the most distressing cases seen recently... [my emphasis]

Secondly is the fact that the review will be divided into 2 parts with the first part focusing on the group that causes significantly fewer deaths or serious injuries to pedestrians when compared to motorists, despite this other gem from the press release:

Cycle Safety Review Press Release wrote:

We already have strict laws that ensure that drivers who put people’s lives at risk are punished but, given recent cases, it is only right for us to look at whether dangerous cyclists should face the same consequences.

Based on the figures presented by hirsute and the one's from the press release, these strict laws aren't working:

Cycle Safety Review Press Release wrote:

In 2015, 2 pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle. Every year more than 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on British roads.

I suspect that this is due to the reduction in the number of road traffic police to enforce those laws. As a result, any changes to the law with regard to legislation surrounding dangerous cycling would be nothing more than paying lip service to Mr Briggs and his family.

Avatar
RobD replied to Hirsute | 6 years ago
4 likes

hirsute wrote:

There were for cyclists and pedestrians

2016 2 fatal collisions

2015 3

2014 2

2013 6

2012 2

Apportionment of blame is not identified

Overall

2016 438

2015 404

2014 443

2013 398

2012 424

Possibly even more striking as to how miniscule an issue it is when you take it as a percentage

2016 0.46%

2015 0.74%

2014 0.45%

2013 1.51% (not sure what happened here, clearly cyclists went mad in '13)

2012 0.47%

And as stated, this is assuming these were even the primary cause of the incident.

To be looking to bring in new laws that take into account on average less than three quarters of one percent of the overall  volume of these types of incidents on the road seems both pointless and wasteful, the cost of getting lawyers/legal experts involved to produce the appropriate documentation etc must be pretty huge.

Pages

Latest Comments