- 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
- chrisonabike 8 min 42 sec ago
Still not quite sure why we haven't done more of the "US cycle path bodge" - using large concrete (removable) blocks (jersey barrier) to form a...
- Chris RideFar 31 min 40 sec ago
The language in the title and the article seems a little odd/presumptuous to me, saying that the cyclist "was killed", which suggests that some...
- Pub bike 54 min 23 sec ago
I can vouch for this. Priory Lane for example runs from the junction with the A205 all the way to Stag Lodge....
- Pub bike 1 hour 3 min ago
"use of illegally modified e-bikes"...
- JLasTSR 1 hour 14 min ago
The cheapest I found with reasonable cover was the Insurance Emporium.
- Gbjbanjs 10 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...
- Rendel Harris 12 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...
Add new comment
122 comments
Is that the law - or justice, though? If you're a dick we'll screw you over way beyond the realms of normality?
It was interesting that the prosecution spent so much time talking about the social media comments. They did little more than confirm the statement made by the cyclist in court. it was just about making the jury hate the cyclist and hopefully they would over look the somewhat doubtful stopping distance testing.
I hope the next time police deal with a speeding motorists that kills they spend some time trawling social media looking for a reference to them watch fast and furious.
I'm glad he was not found guilty of Manslaughter, and somewhat pleased he was found guilty of only the lesser charge.
However he should not have been charged with Wanton and Furious driving he should have been charged with breaching The Pedal Cycle (Construction and Use) Regulations as the Cycling silk says.
I also think the judge missed an opportunity to point out how monumentally stupid it is to use a mobile phone crossing the road not to mention that checking for traffic is essential before stepping off the curb
A lot of comments ignoring that he was riding an illegal bicycle. I think any credible defence stops there, really.
I presume you have never ridden a bike without reflectors on the pedals.
Don't let the public get wise to that one. It'll be a licence to run us down.
Only after dark, not required in the day.
Does anyone know if he was actually charged with that particular offence? And what is the punishment?
The outcry from the cycling community is not for his defence, but the OTT determination and prejudice displayed by the CPS. They dusted off an rarely used, and mostly forgotten law, levelled it along side the accusation of manslaughter for the apparent reason of requiring a higher level court to issue higher levels of penalty.
How ever distasteful a character he seems to be I for one would be happy to fund an appeal. Isn't this after all what the cyclist defence fund is for?
No.
No.
Why not? Whilst he is not a particularly nice character he has been treated far more harshly than a motorist would and my natural justice warrior thinks this is wrong.
However; I am more concerned about a motorist mowing down a cyclist and saying well he was going more than 18mph and was on a track bike and therefore that’s “Wanton and furious cycling” just see this legal judgement..
I have often commented that our friends in Australia are Kings of calmness when they receive 3 digit fines for not having a bell, brakeless bikes just don't belong in the road
So "wanton or furious driving" is riding a bike within the speed limit without a brake fitted? thats a whole load of hipster cyclists knackered then. There'll be a whole load of them searching for a front brake fitting tomorrow
"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."
I have some serious doubt as to whether a front brake would have made the slightest difference. I keep seeing this quoted figure of 3m, being the distance he would have been able to stop in, if he had a front brake. A mtb with real grippy tyres and good hydraulic discs and a half decent rider may have been able to stop within 3m from 18mph, a fixed wheel roadbike with non-grippy tyres and front brake i doubt could have stopped anywhere near 3m.
I suspect the rider in the test was also
A) expecting the stop command
B) covering the brakes in anticipation.
I suspect the rider in the test was also A) expecting the stop command B) covering the brakes in anticipation.[/quote]
I doubt the test replicated the situation because the test rider knew what was going to happen unlike the rider in the accident. If they had told the test rider to ride along at 14mph as quoted by some media sources and react to something that might or might not happen and do this several times to get a reliable figure then the test would be more accurate, as it is I don't feel it it.
Finally, we are allowed to comment on this story.
I just don't understand why this guy was charged with manslaughter and countless motorists who kill cyclist are charged only with careless driving and can fear, at most, a small fine and some points on their license.
It is blatent dual standards.
(I'm not defending the cyclist BTW. Just expressing exasperation at our "justice" system).
It's not dual standards (in the way you describe) because the countless motorists who kill cyclists are, in generally, careless- they are not deliberately driving cars with no brakes which are illegal and obviously unsafe for the road. If a motorist drove a care with no brakes and killed someone, i have no doubt at all that a manslaughter conviction would follow.
I don't accept your distinction between 'careless' and 'deliberate'. Driving carelessly is a choice (usually a cultivated habit), just as much as riding a bike without a front brake (while apparently being unaware that it's illegal to do so)
And your last sentence requires some supporting evidence if you expect anyone to believe it. Sounds to me that you just made it up and it is, in fact, nonsense, so it seems a bit odd that you have 'no doubt at all' about it.
I don't see any manslaughter conviction in this case, for example, even though he killed someone while driving after dark with no headlights (though he did at least get a longish sentence, but then just look at the catalogue of crimes he committed in a very short space of time)
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2017/06/30/hit-and-run-driver-...
Agree in that general substandard driving isn't merely 'careless', and there has to be scope for a temporary lapse, a suggestion that your driving momentarily slipped below the standards expected. That's how I'd read careless.
Unfortunately, given it's a 'stickier' charge and an easier conviction, it's become the default in all but the most concrete of 'dangerous' cases. Actually fixing what's wrong there seems too difficult for anyone to manage.
Careless on my part, as causing death by dangerous driving is an alternative offence to manslaughter which is available to prosecutors in motor cases (it is often seen as being equivalent to the US "motor manslaughter"). Given the conviction for causing death by dangerous driving and the 10 year sentence (more than the tariff for some murderers) I think that case supports my position, not undermines it.
No, they deliberately drive in a manner that is well known to kill and maim, a far greater crime against society, unlike braking and slowing to 10mph (offered up by the prosecution as a potential impact speed) and trying to steer around a person dawdling/daydreaming in the middle of a busy road which is not careless or reckless.
For the sake of accuracy, the bike had a rear brake through the fixed wheel, that is very different to no brakes.
What is obvious to you, and many of us is not necessarily obvious to all. It would be obvious if there was some form of mandatory learning around cycling, which there isn't.
The prosecution went into great detail (as I understand it) to demonstrate the shortcomings of the missing brake, so I'd say it certainly wasn't obvious to all. I certainly didn't know the finer points of the ruling around brake systems until this case.
I'd also say that if a driver, having a valid MOT was driving a car with defective brakes there would be no case to answer. Motorists are protected by a piece of paper that say on one day a year the vehicle they are driving was road legal. 360 days later however, how valid is that document in real terms?
Truth is, this is a freak accident, which highlights that more could be done to deliver safer cycling... however with less than three pedestrian deaths a year , you have to question the need to do anything at all.
For the sake of accuracy, an MOT is required to be undertaken one day each year but the elements that are checked during the MOT are required to be of a road worthy standard 365 days of the year and you can be prosecuted if they are not up to that standard.
This is true - however I think it is fair to say that in such a case, if the defendant had a valid MOT certificate, that would be presented as strong mitigation, and they would likely be treated pretty leniently as a result.
I am not convinced. I would think that if a motorist was driving around with say bald tyres and had an accident that the fact that they had a valid MOT would not be looked on as strong mitigation or result in them being treated pretty leniently as a result
3 bald tyres and excessive speed on an icy road, ending in the death of 4 people on bikes, the 'justice' system deemed that 50mph on an icy road and the bald tyres were not a contributing factor. The driver was fined £180 for defective tyres, a life therefore is only worth £45 if you're a killer motorist driving at ridiculously excessive speeds in known treachorous conditions with 3 defective tyres, if the victims are cyclists.
The differential in standards are shown time and time and time again and will continue to do so because of the hate and vitriol shown towards people who chose to ride a bicycle. That government don't act makes them culpable and responsible for the deaths and serious injuries of thousands of cyclists, pedestrians and indeed innocent motorists.
Someone should bring the government to account and take them to human rights court as their complete reticence to do anything is basically a terrorist act.
I wonder what sale Planet X can make out of this? 120 hour community service sale?
Glad he got off with manslaughter but also glad he got done for something as no brakes on the road is daft, fixed rear braking or not (ran no brakes up and down my street and quickly realised i needed a front one on my fixie).
I've been guilty of watching fixie vids and thought it was cool as fuck but being able to really ride fast and stop fast on a fixie is a lot harder than I ever imagined. Brakes may spoil your asthetics but you can't really do without them.
I have to agree that he sounds like an arrogant prick, certainly wouldn't want to go to the pub with him, but the charge seems excessive and if he's locked up how long before he appeals?
Idiot. No sympathy.
That poor woman...
Pages