- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)London fixed wheel cyclist Charlie Alliston sentenced to 18 months in young offenders institution
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.”
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
- Sriracha 3 sec ago
Ventoux wine from Lidl is half the price, has a bike on the label and probably just as good - or why not buy both and have a blind tasting?...
- Kapelmuur 5 min 16 sec ago
So the Dutch reach doesn't apply to a country adjacent to Holland and in a region that speaks a Dutch dialect?
- mdavidford 15 min 24 sec ago
Maybe it hasn't finished yet...
- hawkinspeter 16 min 15 sec ago
I'm not a fan of trying to use a touch screen when it's raining and especially if wearing gloves too. They're great for some things, but you can't...
- Bigtwin 26 min 5 sec ago
Sorry - was anyone thinking that bike theft is something that gets invistigated these days? Hahahaha - good one!
- chrisonabike 53 min 38 sec ago
Well I defer to your local knowledge. I note that Richmond Park apparently has quite a few parking spaces (7 car parks - numbers here suggests...
- Velo-drone 1 hour 34 min ago
At least the police did something here....
- Mr Blackbird 2 hours 23 min ago
In defence of the suv driver, he was probably angered by the fact that the ebike didn't have numberplates. He may have been implementing the...
Add new comment
130 comments
Death by (insert) was a direct consequence of it not being at all simple or easy to charge as manslaughter or murder.
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??
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.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remar...
perhaps if he had used his brakes instead of shouting and swerving...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-ki...
Hopefully the same reasoning will apply the next time a motorist uses their car horn.
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.
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.
He KILLED someone or have you forgotten that? How would you feel if that was your wife/mum/daughter?
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
What part of what I wrote was untrue?
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.
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.
He did not KILL someone. He was aquitted of that.
And I would feel quite angry that he had been aquitted of that.
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.
Pages