- 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
- levestane 37 min 20 sec ago
I'm not sure what the advantage of the hollow "technology" is. I thought it was reduced weight and this automatically reduces longevity, but even...
- Rendel Harris 36 min 41 sec ago
Could you let us know where you have found the exact details of what happened please Tony, I've been curious and you obviously have some inside...
- kingleo 1 hour 25 min ago
There are about 7.4 million cyclists in the UK, so there are not a few. The roads are paid for via the national and local taxation system—everybody...
- quiff 1 hour 37 min ago
I was going to suggest the Fairlight Strael too, and went to check if it came in on budget. While there, I finally ordered the frameset I've been...
- The_Ewan 3 hours 53 min ago
Presumably they could also have been saved if the council had just reduced the carriageway width without residents' agreement....
- quiff 4 hours 33 min ago
"No darling, I said a cactus bike holder, not a bike cactus holder."...
- Andrewbanshee 6 hours 47 min ago
I have visited Guernsey and my wife goes there a few times a year for work. This act of premeditated violence shocks me. There are quite a lot of...
- hawkinspeter 7 hours 14 min ago
You could well be right. Personally, I think Avonvale Rd is just a disaster for having two way traffic. So many drivers think the traffic calming...
- hawkinspeter 7 hours 20 min ago
Although Muller Rd isn't great to cycle on (the north end, anyhow), it's certainly not the worst. I'm definitely in the "brave and bold cyclist" at...
- OnYerBike 9 hours 13 min ago
Meh, he said "about" 75psi which is fair enough - ETRTO use 5 bar (72.5psi) as the limit, so 75psi is well within the error margin of the gauge on...
Add new comment
130 comments
Okay, she stepped out at a non-designated crossing. Like me at least a dozen time today.
In that case the car slid on black ice and the bald tyres were irrelevant, they did not cause the accident.
What? Every over 70?
Plenty of shit drivers throughout the whole age spectrum.
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.
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 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.
I see what you done there.
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.
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.
They should all be retested more frequently, and the older ones should probably have to pass a rigorous medical (not just self-certifying themselves).
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.
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. 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.co.uk/news/15167954.No_jail_for_woman_whose_...
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__in...
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..?
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.
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!
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
Pages