Charlie Alliston, the cyclist convicted last month of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving in connection with the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs, has been sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment in a young offenders institution.
The 20-year-old from Bermondsey was cleared at his trial at the Old Bailey last month of manslaughter, but the jury found him guilty on the second charge, which has a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
Mrs Briggs, aged 44, died in hospital from head injuries sustained when she and Alliston were involved in a collision as she crossed London’s Old Street in February last year.
Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel bike with no front brake, meaning it was not legal for use on the road.
Sentencing him today, Judge Wendy Jospeph QC told Alliston that she believed he rode the bike for a “thrill,” reports the London Evening Standard.
She said: “I am satisfied in some part it was this so-called thrill that motivated you to ride without a front brake shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way.
“I’ve heard your evidence and I have no doubt that even now you remain obstinately sure of yourself and your own abilities.
“I have no doubt you are wrong in this. You were an accident waiting to happen.
“The victim could have been any pedestrian. It was in fact Mrs Kim Briggs.”
She continued: “If your bicycle had a front wheel brake you could have stopped but on this illegal bike you could not and on your evidence, by this stage, you were not even trying to slow or stop.
“You expected her to get out of the way,” the judge added.
Speaking in mitigation on behalf of Alliston, Mark Wyeth QC said: “What we do not have is a callous young man who doesn’t give a damn about anything.”
He added: “There is within him, I respectfully submit, a lot of internal sense of emotional turmoil but keeps this hidden as a coping strategy.”
The court heard Alliston was depressed, had broken up with his girlfriend and lost his job.
After Alliston was sentenced Mrs Briggs’ husband Matthew, who has called for careless or dangerous cyclists to be subject to the same laws as motorists, said: “I would like to thank the judge Wendy Joseph for her comments this morning.
“This case has clearly demonstrated that there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling.
“To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end tells us that there is a gap. The fact that what happened to Kim is rare is not a reason for there to be no remedy.”
He continued: “I am pleased to say that we have made very good progress towards updating the law and I would like to thank the media, the public, my MP Heidi Alexander and also the transport minister for their support and commitment to resolving this matter.
“I would also like to use this opportunity to call on bike retailers and courier companies to help me get fixed wheeled and velodrome bikes without front brakes off the road.
“Whilst I would commend the five major retailers who have withdrawn products or altered their websites in response to my calls, I am still seeing too many retailers irresponsibly advertising these bikes.”
“The vast majority of people I see riding these bikes are couriers. I would call on these companies to help me get these bikes off the road.”
He added: “They are illegal and as we have seen with Kim’s death, they are potentially lethal.”




















130 thoughts on “London fixed wheel cyclist Charlie Alliston sentenced to 18 months in young offenders institution”
That’s harsh. I would’ve
That’s harsh. I would’ve expected a suspended sentence would be sufficient.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The sentence is harsh because he didn’t show remorse.
If you want a lighter sentence when you are at court both you and your lawyers have to grovel. Shredding a few tears and saying sorry to the family also helps.
Bluebug wrote:
Meaning it helps most, at the very least coming across as self-righteous if not actually being so will never help although as shown by a number of comments here I think it is being a natural state for one too many cyclists. I mean I passed two bell ends the other day who were on fixed gear bikes without brakes so such lessons are never going to be learned sadly no matter the outcome.
hawkinspeter wrote:
“That’s harsh” Are you serious???!! I can’t believe that someone could actually think a suspended sentence sufficient, for someone who killed a pedestrian whilst riding a bike at speed and without brakes……..and who apparently showed little remorse at his trial. What’s even more saddening is that the above comment attracted so many ‘Likes’. What’s happening to the world.
That does seem very harsh for
That does seem very harsh for riding without a front brake.
Still, in other news, Wayne Rooney has to pay a £170 fine for driving while 3 times voer the drink-drive limit.
Justice?
You do actually realise that
You do actually realise that this woman is dead, right?
That does seem very harsh for riding without a front brake.
Still, in other news, Wayne Rooney has to pay a £170 fine for driving while 3 times voer the drink-drive limit.
Justice?— ChrisB200SX
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I think you may have drifted over the line from cherry picking facts to outright lies here.
Standard £85 costs and £85 victim surcharge.
The punishment was the ban, community service and community order.
grahamTDF wrote:
What part of what I wrote was untrue?
People get less time than
People get less time than that for burglary, or even robbery.
Something wrong with this country.
Grumpy17 wrote:
Some people get more. That’s how sentencing works. You set the levels then sentence within each. Now, this offence carries with it a sentence of up to 2 years. The judge will balance aggravating and mitigating factors and come up with what is correct. She won’t be bound by the existing cases, but others have also gone to prison. Finally, that judge will remember that the harm in this case was a death.
bendertherobot wrote:
Blah, blah, blah. Bottom line though, is that the message again is ‘if you are going to kill or seriously injure, use a car’.
I’m not angry on this chap’s behalf, rather am just angry all over again at every case of reckless drivers getting away with slapped wrists.
Would have got less if he’d
Would have got less if he’d killed her with a car…
Death by dangerous driving
Death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. In this case the maximum was 2. I’d say it’s imbalanced in favour of cyclists in this case, wouldn’t you? Personally I feel the same rules should apply to all road users in terms of faulty equipment and dangerous driving. Obviously you have to protect the weaker party to a great extent, ie. cyclists so there are special provisions, ie. cyclists are treated by law as equal road users with equal right of way (much to the chagrin of motorists..) Equal right of way means equal liability, ufortunately.
Would have got less if he’d killed her with a car…— gbadman
Applecart wrote:
The equivalent of Death by dangerous driving would be the manslaughter charge that the jury cleared him of.
The law seems perfectly able to punish cyclists the same as drivers at the mo, just needs to be done in a roundabout way. The law might be tidied in a bid by the government to please Daily Mail readers, but sentancing options for judges unlikely to change.
Applecart wrote:
I’m not commenting on if what he got was appropriate or not. He shouldn’t have been riding a bike that wasn’t road legal on the road in my opinion. But then I wonder how much time is spent checking cars are in road legal condition after accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians.
I was just commenting that it is likely he would have got a shorter sentence if he’d killed her with a car. We’ve seen this time and time again recently with cyclists killed by drivers.
Personally, I’d also like to see this offence and death by careless/dangerous driving all completely scrapped. And then everything just done as murder or manslaughter if someone died as a result of the accident, depending on whether there was intent or not. I think that would clear things up much more.
gbadman wrote:
Death by (insert) was a direct consequence of it not being at all simple or easy to charge as manslaughter or murder.
Applecart wrote:
Oh please, give the petrol-head defense-squad stuff a rest, will you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9636991/Third-of-drivers-who-kill-and-maim-avoid-jail.html
It would be nice if sh*t
It would be nice if sh*t drivers were given sentences like this more often
Couldn’t agree with you more.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
It would be nice if sh*t drivers were given sentences like this more often— the nutcracker
Sends a clear message out to
Sends a clear message out to all cyclists… FFS get a front brake on your bike.
The chap has my sincerest sympathies. His life is now done for an error in judgement (the brake), driven by ignorance of the law.
Oh, and lets forget, for making a few comments post accident (but before the woman died) that on reflection can now be portrayed as remorseless.
Sadly I fear this is not a great day for justice in this country. Social media posts should not dictate prison sentences.
I am siding with Mr Briggs, the law needs urgent reform to bring cycling laws closer in line with those used in motoring.
Serves the arrogant little f*
Serves the arrogant little f**ker right. Same rules apply to everyone: I don’t buy for a millisecond that a cyclist can’t be found guilty of dangerous driving on an illegal machine as this dickhead was. (going by the general comments on this site, wherein a cyclist can never do any wrong and all motorists are crazed maniacs who get off scott-free, etc) There is an imbalance in favour of motorists, agreed, but it goes both ways. My first words were “fucking yes” when I read the headline, quite frankly as I can’t stand kids on track bikes – they give the rest of us a bad name.
Applecart wrote:
Well said that man!
wilkij1975 wrote:
So, you should be sent to jail for being a dickhead then… if that’s the case, we are going to need a lot more prisons. 18 months for this is just playing to the crowd: something the law should never do.
essexian wrote:
+1.
18 months in prison rolls off the tongue/keyboard so easily but most people don’t stop to think whether this is an appropriate punishment.
essexian wrote:
He KILLED someone or have you forgotten that? How would you feel if that was your wife/mum/daughter?
wilkij1975 wrote:
I’d feel angry, which is why we don’t allow suspects to be tried by members of the deceased’s family.
I’ve been taken out before by a dopey ped staring into a mobile phone. I wouldn’t have felt a bit of guilt if they’d happened to come off worse than me.
wilkij1975 wrote:
Of course I have not forgotten that someone died but please look at the verdict of the jury and what the cyclist was found guilty of and then ask if the sentence was the correct one.
As to how would I feel that if it was one of my family members who had died: I would want justice and not revenge. I would question whether the sentence is justice or bile induced revenge?
essexian wrote:
Easy to say if it’s not one of your family.
Ultimately he killed someone on a bike that didn’t have the required amount of brakes just to be fashionable. What would have been a sufficient penalty to give the poor woman’s family justice? A fine and some time picking up litter? How about tweeting that he was ever so sorry and it won’t happen again?
wilkij1975 wrote:
Which would be rather more than happened to the woman who killed Michael Mason, without even noticing she’d done so, or the tipper driver in Glasgow who mowed down a bunch of pedestrians while knowingly too sick to drive.
oldstrath wrote:
What they did and their punishment doesn’t excuse this lad. The whole system and punishments for these things needs sorting.
But this lad lad took a life, the life of a mother/wife/daughter and to say he should get off with virtually no punishment is beyond mind boggling.
wilkij1975 wrote:
Again, no he did not. He was found not guilty of manslaughter. Take some time to readjust your thinking and then your mind will be less boggled.
wilkij1975 wrote:
He did not KILL someone. He was aquitted of that.
And I would feel quite angry that he had been aquitted of that.
wilkij1975 wrote:
He was found NOT Guilty of Manslaughter.
Applecart wrote:
I’d take a few minutes to have a think about that generalisation, and then work out whether I can take anything else you’ve said seriously.
Daily Mail will be loving this though.
He more or less deserves it
He more or less deserves it for being a total pile of.
Let’s hope tough prosecutions are the norm for ALL road users who cause KSI’s due to breaking road traffic laws.
wellsprop wrote:
While I agree with you on your second point, with juries being made up of car drivers who are reluctant to convict one of their own, and by Judges who seem to follow the bile which pollutes the press, then this seems extremely unlikely.
And with regards to your first point: being a pile of whatever is not a criminal offence: I have checked in the copy of Anthony and Berryman’s Magistrates Court Guide which lives on my desk and nope, its not in the 1050 pages which make up this book.
It would appear that ,
It would appear that , according to the Judge’s comments, warning pedestrians verbally of your approach is now an aggravating factor in the case of an accident.
pockstone wrote:
Hopefully the same reasoning will apply the next time a motorist uses their car horn.
Says the judge, “… shouting
Says the judge, “… shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way.” Erm, wasn’t that him trying to get the pedestrian-who’d-walked-out-into-the-road-without-noticing-him out of the way? Would it have been better, then, if he’d stayed silent whilst attempting to avoid them?
Custodial sentence seems a bit harsh IMO, and way worse than any motorist would have received…
brooksby wrote:
perhaps if he had used his brakes instead of shouting and swerving…
Darkhairedlord wrote:
It’s all the rage on two wheels now if you have a camera, especially with motorbikes. If in imminent danger you now pull your clutch in and…..rev your engine, hit thing that could have been avoided if you’d braked instead, fall off and then shout ‘you’re going on Youtube’ to the person that half the time didn’t do anything that bad.
Darkhairedlord wrote:
But he did brake, didn’t he. That was why he hit her at c10mph instead of c20mph, as I understand it. He just didn’t have enough braking capacity (the front brake that would have made his bike street-legal). He shouted as well as slowing and as well as swerving (not, instead of).
brooksby wrote:
Has been reported elsewhere that the judge stated that “you were not even trying to slow or stop” and “you expected her to get out of your way”.
As that appears to contradict other information then perhaps he should appeal.
Darkhairedlord wrote:
Again, HE DID BRAKE, from approx 18mph to as low as 10mph, that being the ranges the PROSECUTION gave. he swerved to avoid the idiot who casually walked out into traffic and clearly by the timescale given dawdled across the road without looking for even a split second.
if you step back into the path of a car that has slowed significantly to a crawl/honked their horn to let you know they are there, but because of the timescale of you stepping back into the path of the car that HAS SLOWED, cannot brake in time because human brains cannot work quick enough to instantaneously take action (as per ALL crash investigator papers) you think the outcome of even the case going to court would have occured?
No it friggin’ well wouldn’t.
The whole thing is a monumental stitch up.
How on earth can Briggs
How on earth can Briggs continue to claim there is some kind of gap in the law when the accused has been not only found guilty but given 18 month custodial sentance?
Especially considering the vast majority of drivers who kill receive nothing like that:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9750785/Driver-who-killed-pedestrian-after-texting-escapes-jail.html
I don;t nwish to appear
I don;t nwish to appear insensitive, but since being found guilty, all news reports seem to miss out the bit that Mrs Briggs was not crossing at a pedestrian crossing and seem to absolve her of any responsibility to crossing the road and not appearing to be looking out for the traffic.
18 months for no front brake seems harsh.
Scoob_84 wrote:
You are not being insensitive. To me this seems like a very harsh sentence where he is being jailed for the consequences of the crime not the crime itself. As we all know, from these pages, killers of cyclists are rarely jailed because the Courts are obliged to look at the crime, not the effect of the crime.
I cycle in Central London most days; there are a minority of motorists and cyclists who break the law. However from my perspective the biggest risk to my safety is pedestrians who ignore Peilican Crossings and cross roads without looking; apart from at their phone of course.
If this Lady crossed the road without looking then she paid the ultimate price for her mistake. That doesn’t absolve the cyclist from not having a front brake. However the sham science used to prove that he would have stopped if he had a front brake was outrageous and should have been thrown out. I hope he appeals this.
Scoob_84 wrote:
Absolutely. Just listening to the report on R4, about five minutes, blaming the cyclist 100%, not mentioning the pedestrian crossing, or that she was on her mobile phone but how difficult it is going to be to get compensation. With all due respect, if she had been killed by a driver in those circumstances, it would appear unlikely that any damages would be payable, and the driver would have a strong case for contributory negligence.
For comparison
For comparison
From road peace (here)
176 convictions for careless driving during the period of the report:
46 drivers were given immediate custody and 55 were given a suspended sentence.
The proportion of shorter custodial sentences (12 months and under) has declined from 80% to 54% since 2014; while those getting a longer custodial sentence has risen correspondingly.
Average length of custodial sentence has increased to 14 months, from 10.4 months in 2014.
66 guilty drivers (39%) were given a community sentence, up in absolute and percentage terms from 2014.
Relative to 2010, prison sentences (immediate and suspended) have increased, while community sentences have declined.
So, he would almost certainly have got a lower sentence if he was a driver.
the little onion wrote:
well researched!
Hopefully this new found
Hopefully this new found ability to find prison vacancies for road users who kill and maim others through their reckless behaviour will extend to operators of all vehicles and also to pedestrians who put others at risk by their negligent actions.
Mrs. Briggs’ death was a
Mrs. Briggs’ death was a tragedy, and as I’ve said in a previous post, as tragic as all unnecessary road deaths. However the Law’s response seems to have been different to that which we are used to seeing in Driving cases.
I am perplexed by the background to the charging of Alliston. He couldn’t be charged for Causing death by dangerous cycling, as that offence does not exist. He was charged with Manslaughter instead. Why then was he also charged with causing bodily harm (in this case, death) by wanton and furious cycling ?
Is it common for drivers charged with, for example Dangerous driving, to be also charged at the same time with a lesser offence of Careless driving? And is it common for drivers charged with Causing death by dangerous/careless driving to be also charged with Manslaughter
He could have been charged with dangerous cycling, the definition of which seems to fit with his lack of a front brake, but wasn’t.
He could have been charged under Construction and Use legislation, but wasn’t.
As for sentencing, the guidelines for Dangerous driving allow for mitigation where the actions of the victim are in some way contributory, yet the Judge makes no reference to this in her comments on sentencing. Presumably this means that it wasn’t taken into account. Why not?
pockstone wrote:
If a driver is charged with Dangerous Driving they are also charged with the lesser offence (careless). So juries will be asked to consider first whether evidence supports conviction for DD and second whether it supports it for CD.
Driver would only be charged for Manslaughter in exceptional circumstances but it is possible. Its also possible to be charged with Murder if there is proof your action was deliberate and pre-meditated. Only aware of one conviction for that in recent years. Even the lad who killed the police officer on Merseyside recently avoided a murder conviction I recall. There was a gross negligence manslaughter conviction earlier this year for the tipper truck that had defective brakes in Bath.
These are all exceptions to the rule though, just as Alliston is an exception.
It would be interesting to see if vehicle defects (e.g. no MOT, bald tyres) will be considered in future cases and see the charge be elevated to manslaughter, which to my mind would be appropriate. Might be difficult to prove that driver knew vehicle was defective though.
As to mitigation I doubt that’s available under the Wanton and Furious legislation. I think the RTA enshrines mitigations as part of the Act rather than as part of sentencing guidelines.
I expect most of us have “been there” with peds stepping out, it will be interesting to see what happens with the recent Oxford St fatality and also the one on Ride London.
kil0ran wrote:
You clearly never owned a car.
Just because your car has a valid MOT doesn’t make it roadworthy and vice versa. All an MOT means is that on the day it was tested it was roadworthy.
So people can be driving death traps and I know people who have in the past with valid MOTs.
Likewise some people get their car serviced at a different time to the MOT as some parts need servicing at a different mileages, and if they then forget to MOT it on time their car would still be considered roadworthy.
Some nasty part of me hopes there are more car accidents with dumb walkers so there is a campaign to get people to look up from their damn smartphones when attempting to cross the road.
Bluebug wrote:
Doesn’t even mean that. Last garage I took my car to for an MoT said they were intimidated by it and gave me a 12 month ticket without even moving it into a bay.
Bluebug wrote:
I’ve owned more cars than bikes 🙂 No MOT by default means that the car is unroadworthy and uninsured in the eyes of the law. A vehicle inspection after the accident shouldn’t remove that contributing circumstance.
The logical outcome of this won’t be anything that inconveniences car drivers. Expect jaywalking laws or a bunch of victim-blaming of pedestrians on phones. Peds vs drivers get even less protection from the law than cyclists.
kil0ran wrote:
I also work in the insurance industry. That myth has gone around for years but due to court cases and complaints to the ombudman it is untrue.
If your car is serviced regularly but you forget to do your MOT, and have an accident then the insurer can’t use the fact you have no MOT to avoid paying out to you if you can prove that the car is roadworthy. This you can do by showing the service records/receipts.
You are also still insured as regardless they have to pay out to third parties.
In my area until about 5 years ago teenagers use to just suddenly walk out in the middle of the road and cross it really really slowly. As a driver you just had to stop and let them cross. They knew as a vehicle on the road it was your job not to run them over. (This is what Charlie Alliston didn’t understand. ) If you were impatient so honked and/or shouted at them they walked slower.
This stopped after some teenagers on separate occassions got run over by buses, van and a black taxi – vehicles that can’t brake quickly. The teenagers who got run over by the buses died.
Bluebug wrote:
Interesting – I wasn’t aware of the MOT/insurance thing. Certainly recall being told when I started drving 30-odd years ago that no MOT meant no insurance. I’m guessing that it would still be an aggravating circumstance in a court case though.
From time to time on shared-use paths I’ve had pedestrians deliberately block my way in response to a bell ring so I’m always riding at a speed where I can stop quickly. Not a fan of riders who think buzzing past at 20mph+ on a shared-use path is acceptable, it just turns you into a close-passing driver and intimidates peds.
I don’t walk often but it amazes me how people can walk, gaze at their screen, type, and not fall over. Favourite tactic appears to be glance up briefly, check path of oncoming pedestrians, choose line, gaze back at screen. I wonder if there’s been an increase in minor injuries from pedestrian-on-pedestrian collisions? Not sure if STATS19 records those…
pockstone wrote:
I know from previously being involved and knowing things about other court cases that have hit the headlines that the press miss out facts. Some of this is delibrate while other times they have to due to reporting restrictions.
In this case because the women died, she wasn’t elderly and has a vocal husband I would say this is delibrate.
Bez makes an interesting
Bez makes an interesting point about all this on his blog. The CPS have to show that the actions of the motorist fall short of what a reasonable motorist would be expected to do (and we keep saying motorists are let off because the juries are mainly also motorists thinking ‘there but the for the grace of god…’).
If Mr Briggs gets his way and careless and dangerous cycling are introduced then surely the jury has to be composed of regular and frequent, exerienced even, cyclists, in order to be able to make a judgement on whether the behaviour of a cyclist is reasonable or not… (Because we know that non-cyclists don’t seem to be able to).
Where are they going to get all these available cyclists from, to sit on juries??
brooksby wrote:
Hopefully not from Road.cc.
I know this has been used
I know this has been used before but……
don’t upset the Applecart….
Coat time.
Back to being serious, I think this is about what he deserves given his seeming lack of remorse and ‘not my fault’ attitude on social media. If he’d used social media to say how sorry he was instead of playing the victim blame route then maybe he woulnd’t be where he is. He set himself up for the portrayal as thrillseeker tbh and even if you didn’t know you ‘had’ to have a front brake it should have been pretty evident that it’s useful but obviously asthetics were more important.
Don’t confuse my attitude to this with driving convictions though as plenty of drivers are not getting what they deserve by a long shot.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I strongly disagree with this…
I will accept that on occasion, genuine remorse should be reflected in reducing the legnth of custodial sentences… when appropriate.
In my opinion, in this case however, his initial (note initial) lack of remorse has been factored into increasing his sentence.
There is a difference, and to me its not how the justice system should work.
And I’d also contest just how awful this young man has been. Yes his initial comments will absolutely be seen as remorseless now in retrospect, but many of those initial comments were made when the lady was still alive, and dare I say it, made when ignorant of the law.
In his eyes he’d done nothing wrong, because a) he saw her as stepping into his path (accurate), and b) failed to realise his legal obligations regarding braking and in his failure to adhere to these made him automatically at least partially responsible.
If you felt you were right, and they were wrong, would your first focus be around saying how sorry you are?
Don’t get me wrong, I have little time for the chap, but I am reluctant to pander to emotional responses in situations such as this. That is a dangerous game to get involved in.
His defence team need to be given a good slapping… wait, he didn’t think he needed one did he. Now we will all suffer.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
don’t upset the Applecart….
Coat time.
Back to being serious, I think this is about what he deserves given his seeming lack of remorse and ‘not my fault’ attitude on social media. If he’d used social media to say how sorry he was instead of playing the victim blame route then maybe he woulnd’t be where he is. He set himself up for the portrayal as thrillseeker tbh and even if you didn’t know you ‘had’ to have a front brake it should have been pretty evident that it’s useful but obviously asthetics were more important.
Don’t confuse my attitude to this with driving convictions though as plenty of drivers are not getting what they deserve by a long shot.— Jimmy Ray Will
I strongly disagree with this…
I will accept that on occasion, genuine remorse should be reflected in reducing the legnth of custodial sentences… when appropriate.
In my opinion, in this case however, his initial (note initial) lack of remorse has been factored into increasing his sentence.
There is a difference, and to me its not how the justice system should work.
And I’d also contest just how awful this young man has been. Yes his initial comments will absolutely be seen as remorseless now in retrospect, but many of those initial comments were made when the lady was still alive, and dare I say it, made when ignorant of the law.
In his eyes he’d done nothing wrong, because a) he saw her as stepping into his path (accurate), and b) failed to realise his legal obligations regarding braking and in his failure to adhere to these made him automatically at least partially responsible.
If you felt you were right, and they were wrong, would your first focus be around saying how sorry you are?
Don’t get me wrong, I have little time for the chap, but I am reluctant to pander to emotional responses in situations such as this. That is a dangerous game to get involved in.
His defence team need to be given a good slapping… wait, he didn’t think he needed one did he. Now we will all suffer.— Yorkshire wallet
Lots of comments on here being made without any understanding that teenagers (actually, people under 25) are physically different from adults, and do not think the same.
This is also reflected in his sentencing that discounted that his lack of emotional empathy could be partly attributed to the loss of one of his parents just over a year earlier.
Instead, we get the poor widower husband (who absolutely refuses to accept that his wife walked out into the road without looking – and if they had the balls to release the CCTV the cause he is now championing would fall to pieces) now pursuing more legislation claiming that the law has failed despite the fact that it worked as expected in this case, and every cunt and their dog has come out of the woodwork spouting off against ‘cyclists’.
Bollocks… I can’t be fucking bothered with it any more.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
[double post for some reason]
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf
bendertherobot wrote:
Worth reading in full before making any comments (for or against)
CygnusX1 wrote:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf
— CygnusX1 Worth reading in full before making any comments (for or against)— bendertherobot
Good point.
Apart fromt the generally pompous tone (possibly standard in such comments) there’s a weird phrasing in the sentence below which suggests that the Judge thinks that it’s somehow an aggravating circumstance that the killing of Kim Briggs was carried out by the operator of (what she refers to as a “bike” and presumably means “bicycle”):
Am I being in unfair in interpreting this (possibly sloppily phrased) sentence this way?
As has been mentioned before: I wholly condemn the killing of Mrs.Briggs, but the sentencing is markedly harsh compared to that typically given to car drivers. I woudl suggest keeping a future eye on the Judge to see whether she turns a blind eye to the next motorist up before her for “failing to see” another road user.
I’m not defending Allistons
I’m not defending Allistons actions here but…
The biggest problem I find with this is that the judge seems to have had preconceptions about the victim, and the perpetrator.
Why is it that in the cases of cyclists being killed by ignorant motorists Judges can’t seem to realise that the cyclists family is ripped apart by the motorist who decided it was more important to make a phone call, or send a text, or whatever? See paragraph 10.
This kind of emotive language has no place in Judges sentencing. Why is it allowed?
This law breaking young idiot
This law breaking young idiot has been given a ridiculously lenient sentence, to make more law-breaking friends and watch colour TV whilst playing playstation games, very comfortable and very cushy. I wanted to see at least 5 yrs if not more.
Once again, the law in this country is an absolute joke. Justice has not taken place.
Karbon Kev wrote:
Seriously… wow, what punishment would you bestow on the majority of motorists that kill who walk free from court?
The maximum was 2 years. His wontaness was not having a brake… I’d say it was a pretty heavy application of the law.
Karbon Kev wrote:
Seriously… wow, what punishment would you bestow on the majority of motorists that kill who walk free from court?
The maximum was 2 years. His wontaness was not having a brake… I’d say it was a pretty heavy application of the law.
I don’t have any sympathy for
I don’t have any sympathy for the rider with regards to the sentence.
He was clearly in the wrong and someone died. She may not have looked, she may not have been on a crossing, he may not have been going really fast, he may have shouted – all of those facts were known at the trial and it was found that he was responsible and so has been sentenced acordingly.
Frequently a driver of a motor vehicle would have received a lesser penalty – but it is the lesser penalty that would be wrong and I’d hate to think that just because some people get away with it we’d decide to let everyone off lightly – that is not the way to safer roads.
Lets not campaign against this sentence but rather lets campaign agaisnt inapproriate light sentences handed out frequently to those driving much more dangerous vehicles.
shay cycles wrote:
Its a fair point… my issues with the sentence is around inequalities around application of custodial sentence and the amount of emotion seemingly involved in the case.
The reality is however, there is nothing wrong with the sentence here… its the lack of adequate punishment being dished out elsewhere that makes it seem skewed… and you are right, that is where our focus needs to be placed, pushing more appropriate sentencing to address the hoards of killers walking our streets.
shay cycles wrote:
Cycling UK has been doing exactly that for years. The government promised a review of road law and sentencing three years ago, but we’re still waiting.
Have you written to your MP?
Clearly miscarriage of
Clearly miscarriage of justice and Alliston framed for Kim Briggs’s death despite everyone knowing she also contributed to the accident and actually, endangered herself but a lot of prople remain in denial. I hope he has appealed. Her husbsnd says he is a cyclist too, so should she not have been more cyclist aware?? I’ve had similar experiences as Alliston where even the best of brakes would not have made any difference let alone having an opportunity to even apply them as in 1 instance, where only swift actions of steering left to right in the opposite directions to the pedestrian movements avoided a collision and the road being free of cars allowed that. But yet again pedestrian refused to use lit zebra crossing only few metres ahead. 2nd instance was when a pedestrian appeared directly in my path despite myself in hi-vis. Happened so suddenly and unexpectantly that the only way to decribe it was that i went into autopilot and it was not me making the decisions as i recall applying brakes and realising them, simultaneously shouting out 2 audible warnings and pedestrian still in my path, not even looking to his right. I probably slowed to about 15mph and it was only when i was about a meter or 2 from impact, did he notice and jump out of the way. I can now officially say that actually, depending on your skills and experience, your auto reactions will takeover and do whats necessary to save harm to yourself..you will not be able to make ANY conscious decisions yourself. As a teenager i have tipped over during panic braking and other times back wheel lifting during heavy breaking. So i have learnt emergency braking can be dangerous on 2 wheels which is why i can say for certain i automatically released the brakes to remain in control for my own safety. That cop video stopping test is a fraud. To stop in 3metres from 18mph no human on any bike could possibly do that. The back wheel did not even lift. The test should only be government approved like stopping distances for cars. I hope courts do not use this much critised test as a benchmark in future cases.
Copsframecyclist wrote:
But everybody doesn’t know, because the media is whitewashing the whole thing. No mention in MSM of the fact that she was on her phone or that she was crossing near a pedestrian crossing but not at it. Most people who have seen the MSM reports will blame the cyclist 100% because it will not present facts that don’t support its view that pedestrians can do no wrong and cyclists can do no right.
People aren’t in denial because the media keep them ignorant of the facts. They can’t deny what they don’t know.
But everybody doesn’t know, because the media is whitewashing the whole thing. No mention in MSM of the fact that she was on her phone or that she was crossing near a pedestrian crossing but not at it. Most people who have seen the MSM reports will blame the cyclist 100% because it will not present facts that don’t support its view that pedestrians can do no wrong and cyclists can do no right.
People aren’t in denial because the media keep them ignorant of the facts. They can’t deny what they don’t know.— burtthebike
You’re right. The media only reported on what Alliston did and demonised him which is why he went all defensive. But the same media portrayed Kim Briggs as completely innocent, vulnerable mother of 2 and a wife..so i ask was she drinking and impaired to be on the road?
I can’t see how a custodial
I can’t see how a custodial sentance helps anyone here, this whole thing is a farce. The daily heil readers will be loving this, twunts.
Alliston is just a young idiot, since when do we as a society lock young idiots up? I’m pretty sure usually we just send them off to start political careers, or go and work in their local district councils.
Once again I’ll point out
Once again I’ll point out that pedestrians are under NO obligation to wait for the green man, cross at pedestrian crossings and especially not wait at zebra crossings.
In short they are allowed to cross where and when they like.
It is down to the user of a wheeled vehicle to give way to them and expect the unexpected.
Many years ago I used to help teach people to ride motorcycles, it was always drummed into us and new trainees that if you hit a pedestrian you had better have an iron clad reason, otherwise when you went to court it was time to eat humble pie before and pack a toothbrush for after the sentence.
On the issue of the sentencing killing someone with any wheeled vehicle should be a minimum of 10 years with no remission.
Judge Wendy Joseph has
Judge Wendy Joseph has demoted the green cross code out off existance and given pedestrians the green light to cross anywhere without looking nor jump out of the way and without resposibilty. Anymore similar deaths are on her head as she FAILED to contribute any blame on Kim Briggs. Rather blaming all onto lack of front brake clearly says she is anti-cylist but, what about the jury as none appeared to have questioned the legitimacy of the much critised cop video test as evidence. I and a family member have been knocked down by a car and it was considerd not drivers fault but if they were cycling, what then?
There was a case of that thug cop Simon Harwood who deliberately killed..
Harhttps://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pc-simon-harwood-10-complaints-in-12-years-for-the-red-mist-officer-7959576.html%3famp
But Jury let him off despite killing innocent victim Ian Tomlinson.
Where is the justice here??
Good. No sympath whatsoever.
Good. No sympathy whatsoever. That poor woman died because he was acting like a dick. Can’t believe the amount of ‘whataboutery’ on this thread.
HalfWheeler wrote:
So you don’t think that crossing a road not at a pedestrian crossing when there was one a few metres away, and looking at her mobile phone whilst doing so, had no contribution to the collision?
He may have been acting like a dick by being a typically arrogant youth and not having a front brake, but he did try to avoid her, shouted a warning and she stepped back into his path. Please tell us what you think of the way she acted?
burtthebike wrote:
She wasn’t on her phone, that allegation was withdrawn. She jaywalked. Like me at leat a dozen times today. And all of us.
Kadinkski wrote:
So you don’t think that crossing a road not at a pedestrian crossing when there was one a few metres away, and looking at her mobile phone whilst doing so, had no contribution to the collision?
He may have been acting like a dick by being a typically arrogant youth and not having a front brake, but he did try to avoid her, shouted a warning and she stepped back into his path. Please tell us what you think of the way she acted?— burtthebike
She wasn’t on her phone, that allegation was withdrawn. She jaywalked. Like me at leat a dozen times today. And all of us.— HalfWheeler
Dont tar the rest of us with the shitty brush youve given a going over with.
I have awareness when crossing the road because Im am sinbgularly aware that at least 1500kg steel boxes will be hurtling towards me that do so with impunity.
If you cant cross the road using the 5 fucking senses you were given (until the day we have presumed liability and it is strictly enfroced), then its best you just stay in your fucking hovel and stop passing the buck onto everyone else to stop you being a Darwinain statistic
Kadinkski wrote:
No she didn’t. Jaywalking is not a thing in the UK.
CygnusX1 wrote:
She wasn’t on her phone, that allegation was withdrawn. She jaywalked. Like me at leat a dozen times today. And all of us.
— CygnusX1 No she didn’t. Jaywalking is not a thing in the UK.— Kadinkski
Okay, she stepped out at a non-designated crossing. Like me at least a dozen time today.
“Mrs Briggs’ husband Matthew,
“Mrs Briggs’ husband Matthew, who has called for careless or dangerous cyclists to be subject to the same laws as motorists”
Fortunately for Mr Briggs, the cyclist has been sentenced much more harshly than most motorists who have killed cyclists (according to reports I have read on cycling websites). Obviously it is of little comfort to anyone in his situation even so.
Its unfortunate Kim Briggs
Its unfortunate Kim Briggs did not survive snd tell us her account of what happened. No one has explained why a mother of 2 would actually risk her life attempting to cross into, effectively, a “lions den”. Was she drinking or was she sick..her husband has remained silent as to her demeaner. I hope he has made sure his kids cross safely. I wonder if he really is a cyclist as he claims. I mean then wouldn’t she have been more cyclist aware? WNBR is about cyclists aware etc where it makes a point you will be more noticed if your riding naked as people will look, slow or even stop. Perhaps this would have prevented this accident or any other.
The testimony that he
The testimony that he typically sweared and yelled at pedestrians as he cycled on his non-legal bike is pertinent. It would have definately added to his sentence. He sounds like a nasty piece of work to me.
if anything this case,
if anything this case, reinforces the need to cyclists to have a camera on their bike or helmet, as it always comes down to he said, she said, and with how the public is always againsts cyclists, having actual proof of an incident is ammunition for the cyclist and a giant F you to everyone else who thinks cyclists have no reguard for anyone, as well as proving that pedestrians are more interested in their bloody phones than safely crossing a road.
Maybe wilk, but we are an out
Maybe wilk, but we are an out group. Day after day motorists are killing people whilst drunk, using a mobile, driving without sunglasses, visually impaired or in cars not fit for the road. We barely hear a mention.
This story is being repeated on the radio every half hour with vitriol, “thrill-seeking”, “aggressive” et al interchanged.
Apparently we are all a dangerous menace and those travelling beyond the speed in 2 tons of metal are all good!
alansmurphy wrote:
I was behind a little old lady driving a Honda Jazz this morning, utterly incompetent. Every corner was taken like a 50p piece, weaving all over the road, no idea of the width of her car. When I went past her she could barely see over the steering wheel. Accident waiting to happen, there should be compulsory tests every 3 years for the over 70s.
kil0ran wrote:
I was behind a little old lady driving a Honda Jazz this morning, utterly incompetent. Every corner was taken like a 50p piece, weaving all over the road, no idea of the width of her car. When I went past her she could barely see over the steering wheel. Accident waiting to happen, there should be compulsory tests every 3 years for the over 70s.— alansmurphy
What? Every over 70?
Plenty of shit drivers throughout the whole age spectrum.
don simon wrote:
They should all be retested more frequently, and the older ones should probably have to pass a rigorous medical (not just self-certifying themselves).
don simon wrote:
Agreed. But the license is good until age 70 and then you should be retested. My Nan insisted on driving for years longer than she should, only finally gave up her license when she rolled her Daihatsu Charade (Turbo) after hitting a parked car. Like Jackie she was pretty handy behind the wheel (and handlebars) in her youth but incapacity, particularly with regard to eyesight, creeps up slowly and is not always noticed by the driver.
kil0ran wrote:
RIP little GTti 🙁 cracking little engine in those!
My Grandparents over 70 were frightening to be driven by… for about 10 years 🙁
The judge’s comments are
The judge’s comments are extremely interesting https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf
It says, amongst many other things, that he withdrew the allegation that she was on her phone, and that the bike will be confiscated. I have to say, it is, as you would expect, a well reasoned piece of work, but there are some things I would disagree about. But read it yourselves and reach your own conclusions.
Causing a death by having a
Causing a death by having a non road legal bike warrants an 18 month sentence.
Causing 4 deaths by having four bald tyres on a car ends up with a £180 fine and 6 points.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-who-killed-four-cyclists-636552
Yes, his arrogant comments after the incident are shocking, but 18 months is about the most I would have expected (max for wanton and furious is 24 months anyway).
Sadly it’s still easier to get away with killing cyclists while driving in a car.
WillRod wrote:
In that case the car slid on black ice and the bald tyres were irrelevant, they did not cause the accident.
NicholasM wrote:
Causing a death by having a non road legal bike warrants an 18 month sentence.
Causing 4 deaths by having four bald tyres on a car ends up with a £180 fine and 6 points.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-who-killed-four-cyclists-636552
Yes, his arrogant comments after the incident are shocking, but 18 months is about the most I would have expected (max for wanton and furious is 24 months anyway).
Sadly it’s still easier to get away with killing cyclists while driving in a car.
— NicholasM In that case the car slid on black ice and the bald tyres were irrelevant, they did not cause the accident.— WillRod
driving a car knowing it had defective tyres at dangerous speeds (50mph round a bend on an untreated road, even if you didn’t know the road was treated going so fast in icy conditions is deliberately ignoring the safety of everyone around you, it’s recklessly dangerous with known outcomes to EVERYONE and it should have being manslaughter. To absolve the driver of such negligence and knowing that the action would have lost control in the conditions more often than not makes an utter mockery of the so called ‘justice’ system.
If he’d being swinging an axe in the middle of the high street when it was busy with pedestrians and he’d killed 4 of them because they didn’t get out the way do you think he’d have got a £180 fine? FUCK OFF!
He should have had a front
He should have had a front brake and it’s right that he’s being punished for riding without one. I don’t have a view on whether the sentence is right in and of itself, but it’s pretty clear that he’s been treated more harshly than the average car driver would be under similar circumstances.
Something that needs to be repeated a lot more widely is that his bike, even without a front brake and based on the apparently very sloppy police tests, had pretty much the same stopping distance as cars driving at that speed (large cars presumably have longer stopping distances than that, and of course cars, unlike bicycles, often travel at much greater speeds). A properly functioning car under the same circumstances would also have hit the unfortunate victim, with a lot more force. The law says he should have had a front brake, so he should have had a front brake. But if his bike is so dangerous as to be illegal without a front brake, it follows that ALL cars are too dangerous to be on the roads.
tinguinha wrote:
Thank you. I’ll just repeat that again. Also, notice in the sentencing remarks linked previously, that that judge claims that the absence of a front brake increased the stopping distance four fold. I would wager that most commuters do _not_ know how to do a Quick Stop.
I’ve seen several comments
I’ve seen several comments here complaining that Alliston has been treated more harshly than a driver would in similar circumstances. But none of these comments showcase examples which compare like with like.
Alliston’s crime wasn’t being involved in an incident that resulted in someone’s death. It’s because he chose to act and behave in ways which were clearly dangerous, as the judge’s statement makes clear. Riding what he knew (or should have known) was an unroadworthy bicycle, unsafe for street conditions. Riding recklessly and failing to take all reasonable steps to slow down or stop to prevent the accident – which included trying to force his way through a narrow gap between a parked lorry and the victim. And failing to show remorse for his actions.
Perhaps these apologists for Alliston need to consider this. As the judge said, Alliston was an accident waiting to happen. In the end, it was a pedestrian who got in his way and lost her life. But it could just as easily have been another cyclist.
rollotommasi wrote:
I see what you done there.
don simon wrote:
Something which applies to any number of killer drivers, a third of whom end up not doing any jail time at all.
Heck, choosing to drive a car at all, for any journey that could be undertaken by a different mode, is ‘chosing to act and behave in ways which are clearly dangerous’. Almost all those road deaths that are determined not to be anyone’s fault (but rather blamed on that wicked weather or the malevolent sun, etc), would not happen if the motorised party hadn’t decided to drive that journey. Their choice to drive created the danger.
(Not even mentioning the _certainty_ of adverse health effects for people as a result of choosing to pump crap into the air by choosing to drive).
The problem is, because the tolerated level of danger for driving is set so high, it takes a lot to attract any special penalty. This doesn’t appear to be the case for cycling, where the acceptable level is apparently much lower.
The double-standard is quite obvious.
don simon wrote:
it was also the judge that claimed
1. Not wearing a helmet showed irresponsibility
2. He did not slow (in 6m he slowed from 18mph to 12 mph according to the evidence).
3. His shouting warnings was an aggravating factor.
If driving an illegal bike and in such a manner that it will take 12 m to stop is “furious driving” then surely any driver caught driving a much heavier car in a built up area at over 30mph is much worse.
All you are likely to get for that is points on a licence which are ignored even when you get to 30 points or more if you can say you need your car for work.
There seems to be a lot of effort to convict this cyclist despite not really fitting into any crimes and just as much effort not to even try to convict drivers for at least equally dangerous acts.
ooldbaker wrote:
1. The judge referred to not wearing a helmet only once, and in passing, and it had no bearing on her judgment. She referred to it in the context of Alliston himself making parallels between his cycling and the dangerous riding in Lucas Brunelle movies.
2. He slowed to between 10-14 mph at the junction. He had plenty of opportunity to slow further, but he made the conscious decision not to, stating in court “I was entitled to go on”.
3. His shouting warnings were an aggravating factor, because he was placing the full onus on Mrs Briggs to get out of his way. He was doing nothing more to try to avoid the accident. He could have tried to slow himself down, but he decided not to.
Most crimes require both deed (an offence to be committed) and underlying intent to commit a felony. It’s clear from the judgement that Alliston displayed the intent of someone who was driving furiously.
rollotommasi wrote:
Thought i should respond to you as below:
I’ve had similar experiences as Alliston where even the best of brakes would not have made an outta of difference let alone having an opportunity or time to even apply them as in 1 instance, where only swift actions of steering left to right in the opposite directions to the pedestrian movements avoided a collision and the road free of cars allowed me to do that. Here again pedestrian neglected to use a lit zebra crossing only few metres ahead. 2nd instance was when a pedestrian appeared directly in my path despite myself in hi-vis. This happened so suddenly and unexpectantly that the only way to decribe it was is that i went into autopilot and it was not me making the decisions as i recall applying brakes and releasing them, simultaneously shouting out 2 audible warnings and pedestrian still in my path, not even looking to his right as i approached. I probably slowed to about 15mph from about 18mph and it was only when i was about a meter or 2 from impact, did he notice and jump out of the way. I can now officially say that actually, depending on your skills and experience, your auto reactions will takeover and do whats necessary to save harm to yourself..you will not be able to make ANY conscious decisions yourself. As a teenager i have tipped over during panic braking and other times back wheel lifting during heavy breaking. So i have learnt emergency braking can be dangerous on 2 wheels which is why i can say for certain i automatically released the brakes to remain in control for my own safety. That cop video stopping test is a fraud and too scared to do an actual reconstrution of the accident. To stop in 3metres from 18mph no human on any bike could possibly acheive without cheating which is what cops did as the back wheel did not lift therefore cop braked many meters before the cone..serious skulduggery. Any such tests should be government approved as are stopping distances for cars. I hope courts do not use this much critised test as a benchmark in future cases.
Having read a couple of
Having read a couple of sentences from the link given, for the judges remarks on this case, she herself, does not know the law. She states, “It is against the law to ride any bicycle on a public road without a front-wheel brake.”
I emphasize the word “ANY”, which is factually incorrect. You need a front brake or more precisely, a secondary braking method for any bike whose seat is 650mm above the ground, provided that the pedals are not directly attached to the driving wheel.
Therefore a childs bike does not need a secondary braking method, a penny farthing does not need a secondary brake since the driving wheel is the front one, which the pedals are attached to and certain recumbents are also exempt (since the seat is very low down). So if he had been riding a recumbent bike, probably able to go much faster than 18mph, he couldn’t have been charged for not having a front brake.
Another comment which gave me concern is as follows, “It gave you the power to ride faster than before.“, with reference to him choosing to purchase a fixie as opposed to a normal bike. Well I can hit 38mph on the flat on a road bike, a speed I’ve never been able to attain whilst at Derby velodrome on a track bike. So you don’t choose to purchase a fixie in order to go faster than a regular road bike. People choose a fixie simply because of it’s simplicity in maintenance. Yes I know some will purchase it for reasons only beknown to themselves, vanity or otherwise, but most fixies are bought purely due to the lack of gears.
For anyway still stating that he has been found guilty of killing her, he hasn’t, he was acquitted of the charge of man slaughter.
Beware all cyclists.
Beware all cyclists. Pedestrians are a protected species from cyclists particularly if they are of similar nature to Kim Briggs. I say this because would the media, cops snd CPS to start of with, have taken this similar route had the victim been a male, a non-white or even a non-mother? I suspect reactions would have been much different and less demonising to Alliston and less trial by media.
His bike did not collide with Briggs therefore not cause of death. It was either head to head or impacting the road and the hospital failing to save her life, the cause and there is a history of people dying in hospitals because of mistakes they make. Blaming solely on no front brake as to the cause of her death will remain debatable. Since the introdution of motor vehicles, millions of drivers have killed worldwide children and all, despite brakes. So this brake argument does not stack up. Where is this ferocious media outcry when drivers kill children or kill in multiples?
Shame on Wendy Joseph for being a complete incompetent judge..see my previous posts. Particularly in allowing that dodgy cop test video in a court as evidence being gross negligence and prejudicial. The defence could not do much more without being demonised and histarics from all anti-cylists and media.
http://www.salisburyjournal
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/15167954.No_jail_for_woman_whose_careless_driving_caused_fatal_crash/
No jail for woman whose careless driving caused fatal crash
(Defence lawyer) Mr Nuttall said Frith (car driver) has made the same trip every day for seven years and was “appalled” by the incident. He said: “She will have to live with this for the rest of her life.” “The fact she is going to bear this until death is punishment enough.” The court also heard how Frith … was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder after the crash.
Eight hours on from the first posting with opinion on the Alliston case divided, I’m in search of some kind of moral to this sad, sad story.
The other story which I’ve linked and quoted from happened round my way a few months ago.
“Life”, as in ‘rest of’ stands out for me. A misjudgement, a momentary lapse, a gamble – I don’t know, but what ensues is some remorse, PTSD on the one hand and on the other an innocent biker’s life cut short irrecoverably, followed by some relative inconvenience for the driver from the court.
I guess one moral is don’t make an ass of yourself in the aftermath of an incident. There was a follow-up a few days later.
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/15192024.Sister_of__beautiful__intelligent_adventurer__killed_in_crash_says_careless_driver_s_sentence_was__way_too_lenient_/
I say ‘irrevocably’ because in my limited experience of sudden death (a friend’s cat 10 years ago, a bloke at sixth form who I didn’t know especially well) the word I keep coming back to is “final”. You don’t wake up, or come out of a trance and the person (or cat) is back and it never happened.
I’m sure as well as non-road legal unbraked fixies there’s plenty of other paraphanelia that could also be removed from sale, like boom boxes, mod kits, mobile phones that don’t say “hey, Jo I sense that we’re in a moving car, so let’s see you put all ten fingers on my screen for 15 seconds just to show you’re not driving, or I’m going to sleep ’til we stop”, or cars that say in a nice Humans/Anita voice “I’m sorry, Adam, but I notice that you’re angry right now and your sense of entitment is raised so I’m going into Safe mode until the red mist clears.”
As cyclists, do we have accept that because incidents Iike this are so rare they make news – like aircraft or trains? When countless other incidents go unremarked on, undetected and (when detected) relatively unpunished?
But now we’re there ones that are dangerous, always killing and maiming, a bad lot, etc. as Daily Mail readers have known all along.
Finally, and unrelated to all the above, we’ve all noticed that cars are getting larger right – wider cars seem more numerous – harder to park for the owner, less room to pass for the rest of us, more pollution, etc. This change and contrast comes into sharp focus when there’s a lot of vintage cars about at weekends. Would that be in any way related to increased obesity (people fitted ok into a Mini in the ’60s or an Austin 8 before that, didn’t they?) And what’s a major cause of all that obesity..?
The sentence is unfair. This
The sentence is unfair. This has the whiff of moral panic. An objectionable young man accidentally caused the death of a much loved wife but they are still supposed to be equal before the law.
She stepped out in front of him. That’s not to say that it isn’t tragic for Mr Briggs but he was doing well under the speed limit. Yes, the bike should have had a brake but I bet he wouldn’t have been able to stop even with one.
Appeal now, Charlie Alliston.
There’s an interesting write
There’s an interesting write up on it in the Guardian that makes a fairly compelling case that he has been dealt with disproportionately harshly. Worth a read https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge .
“he swerved to avoid the
“he swerved to avoid the idiot who casually walked out into traffic and clearly by the timescale given dawdled across the road without looking for even a split second.”
Everyone makes mistakes, and this poor woman paid for hers with her life. Calling her an idiot because she got killed for the mistake of taking a step without properly looking makes you look unbelievably callous.
tinguinha wrote:
If I stepped out in front of you on your morning commute but instead of colliding with me, you somehow miraculously managed to miss me, I imagine you’d be describing me in more colourful terms than “idiot”. Ms Briggs death is very unfortunate. However, stepping out into the road without looking is idiotic; the fact that Mrs Briggs died as a result (at least partly) of doing so doesn’t mean it wasn’t an idiotic thing to do.
Alliston and Mrs Briggs both made a number of mistakes that are typically of little or no consequence. Many of us make some or all of the same mistakes every day.
Alliston’s biggest crime appears to be that he’s an objectionable young man. I know lots of objectionable young men (who show no remorse about being objectionable) who appear not to have been incarcerated. I’m relying on media reports, but anecdote would suggest that you get a second chance (so “driver will have to live with this all of his/her life”) in a motor vehicle.
surly_by_name wrote:
I don’t dispute any of that, but it’s a separate issue.
Stepping out into the road without looking may be “idiotic” but we all make idiotic or careless mistakes; one doesn’t make us an idiot. Calling the victim here an idiot is callous and is the sort of thing that people will gladly seize on to attack cyclists.
tinguinha wrote:
Again, for the hard of reading;
If a cyclist pulls out into a busy road, part ways crosses, hears the sound of a horn, ignores it, still dawdles to cross (when it wasn’t clear to cross in any case but still let’s carry on with the similarities) then a second or so later hears a horn again, pedals backwards into the path of the car a few metres before the car would be at that collision point.
Firstly, the drivers brain cannot compute fast enough to even hit the brake, an unexpected scenario like a cycllist coming back into their path takes around 1.5seconds (this is the accepted timescale for a good/alert driver to react to an unknown event). You haven’t even taken into account mechanical action time (another 0.4seconds) before the brakes actually start to function.
So the car despite going only 10mph will continue to go 10mph until well past the collision point, say the cyclist dies, the cyclist is at fault for the incident and frankly is an idiot. Sad for the cyclist but they would be at fault for ignoring what was going on around them, not making normal progress across the road and for salmoning back into harms way.
The motorist has slowed right down, sure, honking the horn isn’t ideal but they’ve slowed to a very slow speed and trying to take avoiding action to avoid a collision. When many mistakes by one part occur in a short space of time it’s often too much for the other party to overcome even if they have the best brakes in the world and the best intentions, having being in a very similar situation (but I ended up being the injured party and the idiotic ped got off scott free) I know full well how things unfold and that you cannot always account for the stupid and idiotic decisions made by others.
He got exactly what he
He got exactly what he deserved, he killed someone and showed no remorse whatsoever.
Had the roles been reversed and a cyclist was killed by someone driving a vehicle there would be pyres being built and loads of you out with your pitchforks after the driver was sentenced to 18 months.
Stumps wrote:
Maybe he did ‘deserve it’. Two things bother me. First, many drivers kill at least as casually and are acquitted ( Measures) or not even tried (Purcell). Second, the Briggs vengeance campaign,band the way it and the reporting of this case encourage anti cycling sentiment and probably regulation.
One horrible accident is being used to justify sweeping, probably dangerous, changes to law. Does this not trouble you?
Stumps wrote:
Do please let us know when a person on a bike pulled out into oncoming traffic without looking, hung around so long that the driver having slowed (because they thought you were crossing normally) steers to avoid at 10mph and the person then salmons back into the path of the car inexplicably and is killed.
In that scenario the person riding a bike is at fault.
More importantly people on bikes are rarely if ever killed in that way in the UK. Certainly of all the cases ive read in the last few years (of cyclist’s being killed) none have been anything like that.
So whatever nonsense your spouting is exactly that.
Stumps wrote:
Cleared of manslaughter he did not kill anybody.
It’s a tragedy that this collision resulted in somebody’s death. Could have been his own if they’d fallen a little differently and extremely unlucky and rare outcome in any case. He deserved to be prosecuted for the negligence of not having adequate brakes. The contribution of this to the poor woman’s death is not as clear cut as the prosecution made out. You can die from a head injury falling from 5 foot high onto the pavement.
What people are angry about is the double standards, the biased media coverage and the anti cyclist / hipster BS which seems to have influenced the CPS and the judge in this case.
Interesting that you don’t address any of these issues in your response including the dodgy ‘expert evidence’ on braking distances, given by the police.
Stumps wrote:
The chances of a motorist driving well under the speed limit getting 18 months for killing a pedestrian who walked out into the road in front of them with six metres stopping distance = zero. Remember as a motorist you don’t even get charged if you drive right over and kill a cyclist riding in front of you in full compliance with the law and lit up with lights and hi-viz, and offer literally no explanation whatsoever for having done so.
My grandmother gave up
My grandmother gave up driving for a similar reason. Driving back to her’s after dinner at our’s one Sunday and drove into the back of a parked car she ‘didn’t see’ at 25 mph. I’m all for re-testing from 70.
It’s worth reposting this
It’s worth reposting this link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge beacuse it sums up well the bias and double standards that we are so sick of seeing.
kitsunegari wrote:
But that article is based on a flawed understanding of the case. Martin Porter claims “The allegation against Alliston essentially related to the absence of a front brake on his bicycle.” That’s just wrong. Sure, the unroadworthy bike was a key aspect of the case. But it wasn’t the only one.
Just as key was the fact that Alliston could have done more to prevent the collision but CHOSE not to. He initially slowed down but then maintained his speed when he could have slowed further. His primary motivation was not to avoid an accident, but that he felt “entitled” to go on (as he put it in court).
As the judge’s sentencing statement says: “On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident.”
rollotommasi wrote:
Well, he wasn’t smart enough to just use the usual motorist defence and just claim he ‘didn’t see’ the victim, and didn’t know what happened or why. Had he done so he’d presumably have gotten off, as in the Michael Mason or Daniel Squire cases.
The chap was apparently too thick to lie, and has been punished accordingly.
Cyclists should take a leaf out of the motorist’s book and cultivate the habit of just not looking where they are going. If you make sure you don’t notice the person you hit you can’t be held responsible for hitting them. If you foolishly look where you are going then you can. That seems to be how it works.
700c – just because someone
700c – just because someone is cleared of an offence it doesn’t mean they didn’t do it, you know that as well as anyone.
As for the braking distance test done by the Police i wholeheartedly agree its totally crap but if the defence are unable to show that then thats hardly the fault of the prosecution.
Behindthebikesheds – please dont try and twist things, you know exactly what i meant by my comments but if its to difficult to understand i’ll say it again-
“had a cyclist been killed by a vehicle and the driver was given 18 months people would be up in arms saying the sentence was to lenient.”
There now does that make it more simple for you to understand.
Stumps wrote:
And just because someone was convicted of something doesn’t mean they actually did it. Ask every victim of a miscarriage of justice, ever. Sometimes, someone is convicted because they fit into a convenient narrative (not just from the media, but the police, or the judiciary, or even the vigilante neighbours).
Stumps wrote:
But it does point to a problem with the justice system, that it is so dependent on a defendent having the financial resources (and, to be fair, brainpower) to challenge such pisspoor police ‘evidence’.
That’s not really true, unless you add the clause “on this forum” after “people”. The media in general would not give a toss.