- 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
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)London fixed-gear cyclist Charlie Alliston cleared of manslaughter of pedestrian Kim Briggs
A London cyclist has been cleared of the manslaughter of pedestrian Kim Briggs, who died from injuries sustained when the pair collided as she crossed Old Street in February last year.
However, a jury at the Old Bailey found Charlie Alliston guilty of a separate charge of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.
The maximum sentence is two years' imprisonment, and the judge presiding over the case has warned him that "He shouldn't be under any illusion" that she is considering a custodial term when he is sentenced next month.
The 20-year-old from Bermondsey had pleaded not guilty to both charges at the start of his trial last week.
Much of the prosecution's case had been built around the fact that Alliston has been riding a fixed-gear bike at the time of the collision that led to the death of Mrs Briggs, a 44-year-old HR consultant and mother-of-two.
Alliston admitted during the trial that the bike, which he had bought second-hand the previous month, had not been fitted with a front brake to make it legal for use on the road and claimed he was unaware that it was required by law.
The jury began its deliberations on Monday afternoon, and were today directed by Judge Wendy Joseph QC that a majority verdict would be acceptable.
She said: "The time has now come when I can accept a verdict which is not the verdict of you all. I can accept a verdict on which all 12 are agreed, on which 11 are agreed or 10 of you are agreed, but nothing less will do."
In a statement released via Twitter after the verdicts were announced, Cycling UK said: “Riding a fixed wheel bike on busy roads without a front brake is illegal, stupid, and endangers other road users, especially pedestrians.”
However, the charity called for the government to complete its review, announced three years ago, of road traffic offences and penalties to ensure they are brought up to date and that there is consistency in the way the legal system deals with dangerous behaviour on the roads.
Verdict in for Charlie #Alliston case - guilty of "wanton and furious driving" but cleared of manslaughter. Cycling UK's reaction below. pic.twitter.com/kTIATyp2ST
— Cycling UK (@WeAreCyclingUK) August 23, 2017
Detective Inspector Julie Trodden, of the Metropolitan Police's Roads and Transport Policing Command, commented: "This is a sad case where a bicycle that was illegal for road use has been used on London's streets. The lack of a front brake resulted in Alliston's inability to stop and avoid the collision resulting in the tragic death of Kim Briggs.
"This investigation has highlighted the necessity for all cyclists to have the required brakes on their bikes, whether they be a fixed wheel or free wheeling hub cycle," she added.
"It should act as a reminder to all road users that they have a responsibility to look out for each other and to travel safely at all times."
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
- cardch 1 sec ago
This is so very true! I talk as someone just coming out of the other side (kids are 17/19, mortgage is under control), though I still struggle...
- Jitensha Oni 8 hours 34 min ago
If it’s the same FOI response I saw ( FOI-0538-2425 ), in Richmond Park (local to me so the one I had a good look at in the FOI tables), from 2019...
- Gbjbanjs 8 hours 43 min ago
As an Irish person, I am embarrassed for this guy and the judge. He is clearly a thug, so do not get where he takes pride in wearing the country...
- ktache 8 hours 49 min ago
I don't think the fine toilet roll holder is made of an old chainset, looks more like the two biggest rings on a carrier from a cassette, my 9...
- Rendel Harris 10 hours 54 min ago
Far be it from me to tell you your business, but if you want to promote your product sneakily on a website without paying for advertising then...
- JMcL_Ireland 12 hours 57 min ago
I absolutely stand by my criticism of Elite (note: I'm not criticising the volunteer marshals). They charge an arm and a leg for these events but...
- Destroyer666 13 hours 11 min ago
There's a lot of good stuff here, but shoe reviews are still lagging on average when comparing to for example bike or tire reviews. Specs relating...
- galibiervelo 13 hours 44 min ago
Loved the Bastion in the flesh but Lemond's bike has the soul. Nice event and met some friends and contacts but like the magazine, it does promote...
- Hirsute 15 hours 54 min ago
All in the article - road tax.
- chrisonabike 17 hours 8 min ago
Ah, but: in UK, if a motorist drives into you (or simply parks in a cycle lane, forcing you out into the path of another motorist) then the council...
Add new comment
122 comments
I keep reading these accounts and i also cycle across this roundabout daily ... I am aware that there is a higher likelyhood of a ped stepping out so I slow.... irrespective of what bike I am on, on that day (it's old st roundabout ffs)....
..to kill someone you have to be going some and not be able to react because of speed, anticipation or inadequate equipment (lack of braking mechanism)..
..I don't know the intricacies, but it seems to me that to end up hitting a ped at speed and kill them, that you have to have a disregard for the damage that you are able to cause on a bike ...
...imo, therefore rightful that this guy is brought to bear for his failings, but a shame if his naievity ruins his life (assumption)...
....he has however taken the life of another and hopefully the law will be applied as we wish it was applied to motorists...
It will of course not happen in the short term, but I hope they throw the book at this guy
Rip
I know they both carried elements of fault as it stands but say we had a situation where he did have brakes and he died, would she have been liable for his death?
I've seen a couple of comments suggesting he should have known the brake law but note from the linked article:
"The requirement for a front brake is set out in The Pedal Cycle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983. Regulation 7(1) provides that every bicycle must be equipped with at least one braking system. Alliston’s bicycle satisfied this test. However because his saddle was more than 635mm from the ground, Alliston was also required by Regulation 7(b) to have “a braking system operating on the front wheel”. "
Who knew?
Maybe we should do as Honolulu has:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/28/hawaii-law-targets-smartphone-zombies-with-crosswalk-ban
Didn't the chap admit under X-exam that the lady was not using her mobile?
Interested to hear the unfortunate husband on radio 5 this morning calling for new laws or more specifically for bycycles to be included in the road traffic acts to "put them on a level footing".
I am not quite sure why a guilty verdict under existing laws shows a need for change but if the same laws were applied to bikes and cars then it might lead to more equal decisions on whether to bring specific charges.
People claiming that a cyclist being wanton or reckless whilst travelling at 18mph on a 8kg machine might be a little hard pushed to argue against 20mph speed limits or justify the actions of drivers travelling twice as fast in a machine weighing 100 times as much with longer stopping distances, whether one or two brakes are fitted.
Do you know what... I kind of sympathise with (ok understand) the viewpoint of the cyclist here.
In his eyes, he was riding within his limits, on a bike that was fit for purpose, when a woman stepped out in front of him, knocking him off his bike. Sadly she died, but now, in the eyes of the cyclist, he is about to lose his civil liberties because of this woman's actions.
I get why remorse is fairly low on his agenda.
However...
On balance, he was not riding within suitable limits... as mentioned by someone else, idiot pedestrians have a habit of walking out in front of cyclists, you need to be prepared.
His bike was not fit for purpose... not legally, and whilst we can argue the toss about braking distances all we like, if you have time to shout, you have time to brake, so it wasn't fit for purpose practically either.
I hope he comes to understand the importance of those two points in time.
But this does raise an important point for me and that is cyclists knowing their legal obligations.
If a front brake had been present, this would have never gone to court... wanton and furious cycling charges look pretty stupid when you are shown to be riding a legal bike at 14mph on a public highway with a speed limit of 30mph.
So the lack of brake is utterly key here.
Now I am sure some hipster dudes are riding about fully aware that they are being edgy and illegal on their track bikes, however I am equally sure many are acting in blissful ignorance.
How do cyclists learn their legal obligations? How did each of you learn? Now its easy to say common sense says you should have two brakes, but common sense is all too often learned sense and not so common. Hence why we have driving licenses and highway codes... to ensure sense is gained.
My point here is that this chap is going down for legal failings on his bike... failings that he had no legal obligation or prompt to know about.
For me the takeaway for this shouldn't be stricter laws for cycling (although I would be all up for having the same legal protection currently afforded to car drivers), it should be how can we ensure that all cyclists have a better understanding of their responsibilities moving forward.
Very sad case - on both sides, at least 2 lives ruined by 2 stupid people. 1 cavalier cyclist travelling too fast for the conditions (unable to stop in time). 1 person walking into the road while using their phone and not paying attention. Had the pedestrian been a driver, they would have been breaking the law...
I wonder if the pedestrians use of a phone will be taken into mitigation for sentencing. Had they been paying attention and looked before crossing it wouldn't have happened, so she does hold some of the responsibility. Also "18mph" may be "fast", but it's just over half the posted limit. That may be an absolute and you should drive / ride to conditions, but he was under the limit, she stepped out without looking - it's not just about the brake or lack thereof...
Was she or was she not in her phone while she walked out onto the road - did this then contribute to her attention to his shouts - I have not seen much if any critical comment focused on her contribution to the accident.
It would be interesting to look at how many convictions coming from deaths for car drivers v cyclists expressed as a proportion - anecdotally we are familiar in these pages with seemingly obvious wrongdoing by car drivers resulting in the death of a cyclist resulting in an inadequite feeling responce via the justice system.
The sense of equivelance feels out of balance and so if anything good is to come from this then a proper ground up look at how behaviour is policed for all drivers/cyclists/pedestrians would make this whole thing feel more fair and us feel protected consistantly by the law.
That said I think the jury came to the only sensible conclusion given the choice before them - I hope that in the end he is given some comunity based punishment and is allowed to get on with his life in peace. Society would not be served by his incarceration in my opinion.
While the sentence he received is probably about right, you do have to ask why motorists carrying out similar offences seem to receive much lighter sentences as a rule. This article gives a good perspective:
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/
A rather more factual report here, but still far from balanced.
"Edward Small, a crash investigator who studied CCTV of the incident, concluded that Alliston, who was then aged 18, would have been able to stop and avoid a collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake.
The defendant had been travelling at an average of 18mph before he noticed Briggs step into the road, jurors heard. He was a minimum of 6.65 metres (21.8ft) away when he swerved and tried to take evasive action."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/23/ex-courier-charlie-allis...
This seems to be a fairly wide main road, and has light controlled crossings, and some reports have said that the lights were green for the road, so would have been red for pedestrians. If this is true, then the pedestrian is at least equally responsible, if not more so.
People saying there is no equivalence, motorist would not have been convicted of this charge etc.
I think if a motorist had driven on the road, knowing that his/ her front brakes were not working at all/ non-existent, and had then killed someone, the manslaughter conviction would have been inevitable.
This is not a case of negligently running someone down- it is deliberately going out in/on an unsafe and illegal vehicle/ bike.
Given the circumstances of the collision, and what looks like a bit of a witch hunt by the police and family, I'm half inclinded to set-up a crowd funding page to see if Charlie Alliston wants to appeal the case - if he's not already.
Rjf - if you think your black and white view (that became very grey and murky) has been supported, just look for anyone that has been given a 10 year sentence.
I can easily find you a drunk driver killer walking free (and driving), a mobile phone using driver walking free (and driving 12 months later) and one with 3/4 illegal tyres killing 4 and driving free (harsh 9 points).
The witch hunt doesn't need your support, they've already got millions of delusional supporters...
It has been mentioned within these pages that the bike didn't have gears either. I wouldn't put too much expectation on folks knowing the finer details of brakes when something so obvious is missed.
There is a significant amount of double standards being bandied about here. A cyclist kills a pedestrian who stepped out of the road in front of them and they were being charged with manslaughter, but convicted of a reduced charge.
Compare with the case of Jessica Wells
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4809520/Jessica-Wells-killed-pen...
A motorcyclist who killed a pedestrian as they stepped off a bus is convicted of causing death by careless driving.
Wait...WHAT???? Careless driving.... undertaking a bus, whilst speeding, as it is at a bus stop is careless???? And she gets off with a 4 month suspended sentence. Careless....definitely not.... Dangerous driving... at the very least.
If a cyclist had undertaken a bus, and knocked an elderly pedestrian down as they stepped from the bus they would be publicly flogged, before being sentenced to jail time before being hung drawn and quartered.
To be fair though the police did use a matchbox car and a hotpoint freezer to prove beyond all doubt that the car couldn't have stopped even had the tyres been snow tyres and the speed been 10mph...
That would be Honolulu which is still fine with motorists using a handheld phone while driving, but wants to stop pedestrians crossing the road and using one?
Personally, I think any sort of jaywalking laws would be a really bad idea, and a very slippery slope indeed.
(In my more tinfoil hat moments, I wonder whether this case was brought for precisely that reason - lets face it, it would make driverless cars a lot easier to design...).
I did not know that.
With regards to people commenting about other cyclist being illegal (fixies without brakes; no pedal reflectors at night), no-one really cares as long as you're responsible. This bloke wasn't at all careful and ended up killing.
(They should amend that pedal reflector law - my pedals don't have reflectors, but my shoes do).
The husband should be cautious about what he wishes for with regards having cyclists treated the same as drivers. If Alliston was in a car travelling at 18mph with dodgy brakes, rather than a bike, and the same thing occurred, he would have been LESS likely to be brought to court, charged with a crime (death by careless driving) with a LESSER punishment than manslaughter, he would have been LESS likely to be convicted, and the punishment would have been LESS strict.
Thanks for the link - that sums up why cyclists are getting enraged by this incident.
Agreed and as to a point below, I don't think he removed the brake I think he bought it without one (I stand to be corrected). I have a fixie and considered going brakeless because i read about it and it seemed cool, never saw a thing on the laws.
A good prompt would be bike shops selling track bikes to advise they are for Track Only, maybe even sign something to say so. This would merit the sale of such new bikes (though maybe not second hand).
Whilst we bring about this change, I think all cars with the ability to exceed 70mph could be labelled Track Only and not be used on the road, as a helmet was mentioned by the prosecution maybe make them wear one too.
Sorted.
I'm forced, somewhat reluctantly, to agree. If he gets a custodial sentence, count me in for a few quid.
We were all teenagers once, and full of it. Well, I was anyway. He should be given a chance to change.
That was my point exactly.
Is the problem that we have two sets of rules and would motorists face stricter charging if we eliminated the differences?
There seems to be a lot of outrage aimed at this cyclist but no-one comparing the outcome with similar offences by drivers. If they both were held to account by the same basic offences it would be impossible to ignore the inconsistency.
Now, that is a good idea.
What's the point of advertising (or advertorialising - I'm looking at you, Clarkson!) a car which can do the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs when its not legal to drive faster than 70mph anywhere on public roads in the UK, and on the vast majority of roads in the nation no faster than 60mph, and a significant number of those are urban with a 30mph or 20mph speed limit...
We do require cars to have regular tests that include brake functioning, and drivers who remove their front brakes because they think it makes their car look cool are probably non-existent.
But a driver with functioning brakes who didn't use them and said "I didn't see her in time to do anything" almost certainly would have been treated much more lightly.
I wouldn't put it past them, many darken the glass so they can't see...
or lower them, or fit the wrong size tyres, neither of which are automatic MOT failures, I saw one on my ride the other day which had been lowered so much that even on a reasonably flat road, every time they changed gear the front of the car nose pitched and grounded out on the road. it was semi comical if not for the fact every time it was grounding out the driver was basically not in full control, add a sudden flash flooding downpour, or a much bumpier road and needing to emergency brake, and the thought of that car trying to overtake me seemed alot less funny.
I certainly didn't. I occasionally ride a fixed gear bike for training and hill climbs. I hate riding it in traffic and try to choose quiet ways out of town. It doesn't have a front brake; I didn't realise it was a legal requirement. Think I should fit one?
A cyclist was prosecuted a few years ago for "furious riding" because he was doing 20mph in a 30mph zone. Don't expect equal treatment, and a cyclist's place is in the wrong. Always.
Pages