- 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
- marmotte27 13 min 32 sec ago
Tried engaging with logic yet? If so, seems not to have worked out for you.
- Nick T 1 hour 33 min ago
As a motorbiker as well as cyclist, that side nod is how I greet other riders
- andystow 3 hours 50 min ago
I use Newton meters (sorry, US based) a lot at work, and I usually use the dot to make it clearer, N·m. I'll use N-m if I'm in a hurry. Otherwise...
- Dnnnnnn 6 hours 50 min ago
Boatsie, is that you?
- timmyotool 8 hours 40 min ago
£52 of sale price is so impressive, when you see some companies giving small %age of profits from sales to similar initiatives. Well done Galibier!
- wtjs 8 hours 49 min ago
If drivers routinely get away with this then how the hell do MPs like this expect it to work for bikes?...
- Rendel Harris 10 hours 50 min ago
When was the submission? I have been informed by the Met that although they have to send an NIP within fourteen days they then have up to six...
- Another_MAMIL 11 hours 24 min ago
While I agree, not all bike fitters are equal. I found their know-how varies enormously—some are considerably more expert than others.
- katar_6 11 hours 25 min ago
Now on my PC it says again that I don't have a subscription. I ask you to indicate what should be done to avoid this situation.
- Creakingcrank 12 hours 31 min ago
Like Hawkinspeter, I am a bit of a tool squirrel. I bought one of these. It is really neat and well made, but I've found it rather confusing to use...
Add new comment
122 comments
The jury's finding appears pretty sensible to me, but the question now is what sentence will he get? If it is more than a driver in similar circs would get, then it demonstrates bias in the judiciary against cyclists.
We could use this case maybe as a guide, strangely overlooked by the mass media http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-woman-who-killed-pensioner-by-...
We could, and we will wait and see. But to the extent there is bias, among the public, media or anywhere, one has to ask, why? Cyclists only relieve congestion, reduce pollution, reduce health care costs, save road wear, increase transport safety and other benefits. One can only conclude that we're an out-group, and therefore going to receive irrational hatred whatever benefits we contribute to society as a whole. Perhaps we could try to get the hate crime laws amended to include us, but I'm not holding my breath.
This has been the fasciniating thing with the whole case, anything done against Alliston MUST be translated across to drivers in similar circumstances (hence the focus on the brake). I think I would have preferred guilty as it would have opened the flood gates against drivers. We already have the motor being used as a weapon, even though plod try to avoid this. Manslaughter is the next natural step.
He could have been sacrificed for the greater cause.
I think the focus is on the brake and the illegality of the bike purely because then there is no translation whatsoever to motorists.
If he'd had a front brake and chosen to attempt to swerve around her, would they have attempted this prosecution with such zeal? I very much doubt it, they'd have then had to apply the same actions to drivers who kill, and who wants that?
Motorists can sleep easy because they can carry on killing pedestrians and cyclists and just say "I didn't see them."
The Guardian has (what I think is) an excellent analysis: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge
Indeed. Martin Porter, sometimes known as the "cycling silk", is a well known barrister and cycling campaigner who knows his stuff. He has a website, thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk, that highlights relevant cases.
I agree, most of that article is good but it fizzled out slightly at the conclusion unfortunately. I agree that the charges were disproportionate in the context of charges against drivers of cars in similar situations, and that he was outmaneouvred legally with the analysis of braking distances. Using a completely different type of bicycle to evidence a proper braking distance is ridiculous, it would be like comparing a truck's stopping distance to a VW Polo. However, he shouldn't have been riding that bike on public roads and the pedestrian has right of way - so he is guilty of something, and there's no careless or reckless driving charge that can be applied to a cyclist.
On a slight tangent, between this and Welsh police forces accepting dash cam footage as 'solid, reliable evidence', that's two things now where it comes across that car drivers are protected by the law in ways that cyclists are not. (Referencing how action-cam footage of illegal passes and careless / reckless driving has been consistently ignored by police forces in the past)
Just got around to reading that. Martin Porter's analysis is excellent, as always. Particularly interesting is comparing how many motorists get away with "careless driving " even if someone dies or is injured and yet even though there was an administrative charge available (a fine for not having the front brake - the only strictly illegal element in this incident) the state decided to go for manslaughter charges and a crown court. He also asks how 18 mph can be considered "speeding" in an urban environment given that all the motor vehicles would have been going faster than that, and suggests that is a bit of a double standard.
even in this regards we are treated more harshly its bizarre
http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/040669239-death-driver-escapes...
On balance, I think that verdict is right.
It would be quite sad if he gets jail time, both from the perspective that it was simply unlucky that they collided in such a way that she died from her injuries, and also that car drivers rarely get jail time when it's much more likely that their actions/inactions will cause harm.
He's a dick, but I doubt before this that you'd think he'd be likely to kill someone just because he didn't have front brake. I suppose at such a young age it depends on whether he has really learnt his lesson from this tragedy.
According to the Daily Hate, "Judge Wendy Joseph QC said: 'If you want to rely on remorse, I am bound to say I haven't seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all - at any stage.
'Now of course he was facing an allegation of manslaughter for which he has been acquitted.
'But in relation to the course of driving, I haven't seen one breath of remorse'. "
Doesn't look very good for him then.
He should have used the 'came out of nowhere' defence used by the woman who mowed down & killed the guy on his bike in Regent St. One law for cars, one for bikes...
Might have worked had he not been shouting at her.
In my opinion this was manslaughter.
The bike wasn't fit for use on the road, using it on the road was negligent.
With a front brake the collision may have been avoided or if not avoided the energy involved would have been lower.
I hope the sentence reflects the harm done, I'm not hopeful that it will.
I think the operative word is *may*. The collision may have been avoided if he had front brakes. Likewise the outcome may be have been the same if he had front brakes. On a different day, he may have been the one who came off worse - and she may have been on trial.
The collision *would* have been avoided, if she had looked before stepping into the road. He was reckless, she was reckless, on the day she died and he survived.
There have been various reports of his speed in the press 'upto 20 mph', 'nearly 18 mph' however the last report I saw on the Daily Mail said 14 mph - how does 14 mph on a push bike with no brakes and only a fixed wheel, compare to a 30 mph (not sure of the limit on Old Street) car with working brakes?
With regard to the punishment reflecting the harm, does that mean that speeding/drunk/reckless motorists shouldn't be prosecuted unless they injury someone or damage property?
I have brakes on my bike, and I am happy to use them. However, I have had my fair share near misses with careless, pedestrians - reckless even. So far I have managed to colliding with a pedestrian, but how much is that down to fortunate timing, I wonder.
There will always be an element of uncertainty in cases like this. So 'may' is as good as you're going to get.
If he had a front brake would he have been been able to slow down more quickly? Yes.
Would that have made a collision less likely. Yes.
If a collision had still occurred would that have made a fatal injury less likely. Yes.
So, in my opinion, his negligence contributed substantially to that poor woman's death.
You ride to the conditions around you, if you're in an area with lots of pedestrians be prepared for one (or more) of them to do something stupid.
When harm is done the punishment should fit that harm.
When no harm is done the punishment should reflect the risk that the behaviour posed to the public.
Just wondering. How did he come to hit the lady? Did she step out in front of him (Genuine question)
Just wondering. Is this the first time a pedestrian has ever stepped in front of a cyclist? Are you aware of this incredibly rare event ever happening before? (Genuine question)
This event wasn't just predictable, it was inevitable. Anyone that's ever spent any time cycle commuting around pedestrians will know that.
You ride according to the conditions, if you're in an area with lots of pedestrians slow down and cover your brakes.
I think the story is that (1) she stepped out immersed in her phone, (2) he shouted to warn her, shouted again, (3) he began braking and swerved to go around her; and only then (4) did she look up from her phone, see him, and step back right into where he was aiming (to go behind her). And, (5) their *heads* collided (?) and they both hit the road.
I don't disagree, but at the same time I don't believe for an instant that this would have gone the same way had Alliston been driving a car. Certainly there's no way it would have attracted the same coverage, but I also doubt whether he'd have been convicted of anything at all.
You're almost certainly right. A car driver in this situation would probably have got points and a fine at worst.
But, to coin a phrase, two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't think you can honestly advocate for harsher sentencing in cases of negligent driving without calling for the same in cases of negligent cycling.
I wish the CPS would apply the same zeal to prosecuting killer drivers as they have done in prosecuting this arsehole.
Clearly riding a fixie without a front brake in a busy city is stupid and dangerous, and if it results in harm, you should be punished appropriately. I think that is something that we can all agree on.
The worry I have reading all the coverage of this is the prominence given to this story, and the reporting within the story. It is the second item on the BBC news homepage at present. This would never have happened if he was driving a car with faulty brakes and killed a pedestrian. There is a 'man bites dog' element to it. But it is galling that in the UK, for every pedestrian death involving a cyclist, there are somethign like 4,000 involving cars. Additionally, much is made that this is a track bike, and the strong implication is that it is inherently inappropriate and dangerous to take on the roads, as if it were a formula 1 car. This is irresponsible reporting. Track bikes, so long as they have a front brake and either a rear brake or fixed gear, are perfectly legal for riding in a city.
I look forwards to further headlines about 'lycra louts', calls for cyclists to be banned from existence, and sundry fumings from newspaper columnists, whilst ignoring the real road killers.
Agreed re coverage, which is similar to that for the other recent manslaughter charge over the faulty tipper lorry in Bath which resulted in 4 deaths.
Likely to see an increase in anti-cyclist hate crime as a result.
Would you consider yourself, as a cyclist, to be a member of an alternative sub-culture?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40628457
If you're the victim of assault due to the galling indecency of wanting to go for a ride, this may be a useful extra to know
Well, that's something. The time this has all taken, also shows that the jury actually thought about it and deliberated rather than just going "fixie cyclist - hang 'im!" (at least, I hope they weren't just spinning out their jury time off work...
). As others have said, I hope that this incident, and the associated coverage, finally makes the powers that be look into rationalising and revising the motoring/driving/cycling/transporting criminal charges system.
(Of course, he probably will get jail time: I note from the Grauniad that the judge is unhappy because he "has never shown any remorse").
All this proves is the utter inadequacy of the law with regard to vulnerable road users. A manslaughter conviction would have been disproportionate but politically could have been a milestone. Namely, kill someone whilst operating an unsafe/illegal vehicle and do time for manslaughter. Perversely vulnerable road users could have ended up benefitting from such a judgement and precedent (and yes, I know precedent doesn't apply to criminal cases). All those dicks driving around without tax/insurance/MOT or on drink/drugs would have been at risk of a much more serious charge.
I do agree with you, but as I basically pointed out why has it taken a cyclist to be the bad guy before any attention has been thrown on this? Message boards all over the web are full of hate and death threats towards cyclists because of this, yet pretty much 100% of them were almost certainly posted by people who happily break the law as regards to speeding and who pick and choose which highway code rules they obey. Something like 28 pedestrians a year are killed by cars illegally on the pavement alone...or 14 or 28 times the number killed a year by cyclists on average everywhere (I think 300-400 of peds are killed yearly in total). This idiot deserves punishment, but so do thousands of drivers every year - currently a huge proportion get away with it.
Yeah, but, y'know, that's different because, erm: cars!
Pages