The widower of a woman killed by a cyclist on a fixed wheel track bike has called on courier firms to check all their employees and ensure their bikes are road legal.
Kim Briggs, 44, was killed by former courier Charlie Alliston, 20, last year, when she stepped into the road in front of him.
He had been riding a fixedwheel track cycle which did not have a front brake and so was illegal to use on the road.
He was jailed last week for causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving but acquitted of manslaughter in relation to the death of Mrs Briggs, who died from head injuries sustained when the pair collided on London’s Old Street in February 2016.
Kim’s widower Matt Briggs wants companies to ensure that their staff use bikes that have front brakes on the handlebars and to issue spot checks to make sure they comply.
Mr Briggs has secured a government review into dangerous cycling with a view to creating a new offence comparable to death by dangerous driving.
He told the Express: “There are two types of fixed-brake bikes or ‘fixies’. There are those that have drill holes so front brakes can be attached and those that are Velodrome-style and don’t.
“The bike that hit Kim was one of the latter and they should simply not be on the road. It’s illegal.
“With the former, a lot of cyclists don’t bother to fit the front brakes so they can get about faster.
“When I come into central London for meetings 90 per cent of the people I see doing this are couriers. That’s why I’d like to sit down with the big courier firms and discuss ways of improving safety and ensuring the cyclists they use have road-legal bikes.
“Ideally, I’d like to see them not employ any rider who uses a bike without front brakes and to issue random spot checks at regular intervals to make sure those that do have brakes on their handlebars don’t just remove them when they think they’re in the clear.”
He also wants retailers like Evans Cycles and State Bicycle Co. to stop using images of bikes without front rakes in their advertising.
He said: “The police have a lot on their hands so I didn’t want to trouble them. I went to the source instead, the retailers.
“They’ve taken my points on board as ‘fixie’ bikes that are sold with front brakes are now shown in photos with the brakes attached. I’m just trying to find a way that’s better and safer for everyone.”
Alliston admitted in court during the trial that the bike, which he had bought second-hand the previous month, had not been fitted with a front brake to make it legal for use on the road and claimed he was unaware that it was required by law.
68 thoughts on “Kim Briggs widower calls for courier firms to check staff aren’t using illegal bikes”
We’ll have to go abroad to
We’ll have to go abroad to buy track bikes? Or the police could apply the law on brakes that already exists?
Mr Briggs grief is entirely
Mr Briggs grief is entirely understandable and something that many of us will fortunately never encounter. However, his new campaigning stance against cyclists is already starting to appear like persecution of all cyclists for the action of one.
Under BS6102 and the equivalent EU regulation all bicycles should have separate independent brakes on each wheel at the point of sale. If the customer chooses to remove those brakes there is nothing the retailer can do. If the bicycle is made for use on a velodrome, then it will be sold as not for road use and, again, there is nothing the retailer can do once the customer has left the store or recieved the goods if purchased online. Most cycle retailers are aware of this legislation and make sure they sell compliant bicycles. What the purchaser does afterwards is difficult to control. It is not the retailers responsibility.
Getting the cycle industry to do the work of police officers is not the way forward. Better police funding from central government might be better but in the current climate that is highly unlikely.
It’s all very campaigning to
It’s all very campaigning to say that bike shouldn’t have been on the road, when neither should his wife.
He seems to be missing the point that no matter what vehicle hit her, it could have been avoided by her stepping onto the road without looking.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Tell him that on Twitter and he immediately blocks you. He really isnt interested in hearing from anyone that doesnt fully agree with his myopic stance.
His campaign reminds me of that of Leah Betts parents crusade against ecstasy/MDMA.
Despite her dying from over consuming water (because she freaked and didnt want her parents to see her ‘rushing’ at her 18th birthday party), her parents went on a misguided crusade to enforce a prohibition, even though they are proven not to work, and got all manner of government people on board. The result: kids still die from dodgy pills whereas the Netherlands have been running testing stations inside clubs so at least people know what theyre taking.
Again, the Netherlanders lead the way while the UK rolls out the grieving family to beat others over the head with.
I’ve run out of sympathy for
I’ve run out of sympathy for this guy.
Quote:
This initially sounds like a vaguely plausible thing to say, but is nonsense. Unless your brakes are badly adjusted, their presence or absence makes no different to how fast you can cycle and, in fact, having an effective braking system allows you to enter corners faster, thus allowing greater speed overall.
“A lot of cyclists don’t understand physics and think it’s cool not to have a front brake”, I’ll accept. But thinking it makes you go faster is not even close.
I don’t know people spend a
I don’t know people spend a lot of money making their bikes lighter, removing the brakes altogether can save 200g for zero cost.
but otherwise agree.
Alliston bought his bike 2nd
Alliston bought his bike 2nd hand didn’t he ? not via a retailer, so what does this solve exactly chasing retailers as already pointed out conform to the existing sales laws.
Next stop carphone warehouse
Next stop carphone warehouse asking them to make sure nobody looks at their products whike crossing the road.
I wonder if Mrs Briggs would
I wonder if Mrs Briggs would be happy that her husband is using her unfortunate demise to emtionally blackmail the rest of us.
This is turning into a
This is turning into a vendetta by Matt Briggs, I’m sorry for his loss but his late wife did contribute to her own demise, he needs to admit this before he can obtain closure on his bereavement and should seek professional help before this takes over his life.
I think British Cycling et
I think British Cycling et all have been too quiet on this matter and are doing the cycling community a disservice. The sceptic in me wonders if this is due to BC expecting an uplift in membership for their insurance cover.
Grahamd wrote:
The cycling organisations can’t win on this one. If they point out that he’s being stupid, they will be criticised for failing to understand the grief-stricken widower. Pointing out the facts will just be ignored by the media and saying that she contributed to the collision will enrage them. They can’t even point out that motor vehicles pose a thousand times the risk on pedestrians, because it will be seen as trying to distract from the killer cyclists hysteria. They don’t have much option other than to keep quiet.
Next week it’ll be something else.
Im really bored of this chap
Im really bored of this chap now.
I bet the family of Jessica Weir would love weeks of front page headlines in the hope of stopping motorists driving down pavements and killed children. But seeing as it just one of thousands of death at the hands of motorists they only get a story in the local paper if there lucky.
Housecathst wrote:
Me too.
What this kid did was really
What this kid did was really stupid, and he’s now paying the price for it, an 18 month prison sentence and mass vilification in the alt right gutter press. His sentence is inline with top 15% of motorists convicted of death my careless driving.
Mr Briggs you’ve got your justice which is fair more than a lot of people who are killed at the hands of motorists. Not having a front brake is no more illegal or stupid than opening a car door with out looking but when was the last time a driver was given an custodial sentence for killed a cyclist with there car door.
I’ve heard Mr Briggs give
I’ve heard Mr Briggs give many interviews. Never has he even suggested that he has anything against legal cyclists.
He says, and I fully believe him, that he regularly cycles with his children.
He is not drawn on even commenting on Charlie Alliston let alone criticising other cyclists at all.
He merely wants steps taken to get illegal bikes off the road.
Plenty of people are using this case to vent their feelings about bikes but I am sure he is not one of them.
ooldbaker wrote:
There have, after all, been numerous cases of families who have been bereaved as a result of motorist actions, campaigning for various changes or reforms in road laws. E.g. changing when driving bans start.
You can’t really blame any of them for the very selective way the media choose who to give attention to.
I don’t see a problem in the police doing a bit more to actually enforce the existing law regarding bicycle front brakes. It might save some future Aliston from their own mistakes, for one thing. Though the police seem to believe they lack the resources to do anything much about road policing.
I am, in the absence of stats to show otherwise, a bit doubtful as to how common this is, or how far this is a problem specific to cycle couriers.
ooldbaker wrote:
He may well see it that way, but given the relative risk posed by a fixie without a front brake compared to any motor vehicle, his zeal is misplaced. If he was really interested in preventing pedestrians dying, he’d be campaigning about motors, not cyclists.
We all understand his grief and pain, but he needs to understand that his campaign is misplaced and is just making things more dangerous for the other vulnerable road users, cyclists, which I hope is not his intention; it is however, the effect.
ooldbaker wrote:
I guess if he says this we have to believe him, but I wish he would apply his brain for long enough to realise what effect his campaign is actually having. Yesterday I was accused of being a killer because I was riding a fixed wheel bike, despite the presence of brakes both front and rear. I struggle to believe Briggs is not bright enough to see this, and worse, is a likely consequence of his campaign. As a cynic, I suspect he wants it.
ooldbaker wrote:
Maybe he should also be campaigning for pedestrians to look before crossing the road reither than looking on their phone. Track bikes represent a minority of bikes sold anyway.
He seems to be saying that
He seems to be saying that people who employ cyclists (presumably even freelance ones working under disguised employment so that the employers can evade their other responsibilities) should take responsibility for the condition of their bikes, just as road hauliers should take responsibility for the condition of their drivers’ trucks.
Seems reasonable to me, an idea I’m very much for, along with other ideas for making employers take their responsibilities seriously and not dodge them with legalistic tricks.
Where does the money for enforcing this come from? Is someone going to pluck it this fine autumn day from the magic money tree that should be in fruit by now, or is it going to come from the budget for checking that lorries are safe?
If the latter, who is going to explain to the families of the people killed by illegal lorries that the police were busy checking bike brakes rather than lorry brakes?
He’s not saying that track bikes shouldn’t be sold, he’s saying they shouldn’t use them in advertising – presumably where they’re shown being used illegally, rather than in say a track racing magazine.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Here’s one – years ago I worked for the NHS, and was required to have my own vehicle to use for work to get to and from various locations in Essex as part of my role. I had to sign a form stating that I had the required insurance to cover me for business use (as I could be carrying a large value in IT equipment at times) but at NO time in 5 years did anyone ask to see any documentation for my vehicle, nor check it over to see if it was in fact roadworthy…
I can only immagine how we
I can only immagine how we all would be equally appalled if it had been a car without front brakes that killed a wandering cyclist.
franta wrote:
How about if it was a car that was traveling in excess of the speed limit. just as illegal as a bike without a front brake and effects the brake distance in the same way.
I wonder how many cyclists have been killed by motorists breaking the speed limit, I bet it more than one, and I bet it wasnt front page news in daily mail for weeks.
Housecathst wrote:
Here’s one
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/15319412.No_jail_for_cab_driver_who_knocked_down_and_killed_Eltham_dad_in_front_of_daughter/
And, to be fair to the Mail, and ironically enough, the above and the Daily Mail seem to be the only places the case was reported at all!
Another
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/engineering-student-who-killed-man-while-speeding-in-sports-car-spared-jail-because-he-has-survivors-a3589326.html
No jail time served in either case of course.
Housecathst wrote:
There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits. Immagine there was a movement amongst mototrists to drive unroadworthy cars because that is how they like it. Would you be OK with a campaign to prevent that ?
franta wrote:
and how successful have they been ?
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-10/over-half-of-uk-drivers-admit-to-breaking-the-20mph-speed-limit/
There already a movement of motorists driving unroadworthy vehicles. I don’t see any campaign which is getting as much news as Mr Briggs.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3275472/Some-1-2-million-admit-driving-cars-unroadworthy-condition.html
do you think there are 1.2 million brakeless fixies on the road ?
franta wrote:
Don’t be ridiculous. Have you actually _seen_ any roads?
There’s no enforcement of speed limits – ergo nobody pays much attention to them. Just yesterday I stopped to watch a ‘check your speed’ readout sign on a road with a 20mph limit, for a few minutes during the morning. The lowest speed displayed was 27mph, the highest was 37. To be fair, the sign did make a frowny face at all the speeders though (that is, at every single vehicle that went past). The frowning didn’t seem to be having much effect.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Don’t be ridiculous. Have you actually _seen_ any roads? There’s no enforcement of speed limits – ergo nobody pays much attention to them. Just yesterday I stopped to watch a ‘check your speed’ readout sign on a road with a 20mph limit, for a few minutes during the morning. The lowest speed displayed was 27mph, the highest was 37. To be fair, the sign did make a frowny face at all the speeders though (that is, at every single vehicle that went past). The frowning didn’t seem to be having much effect.— franta
I live opposite one. It’s a badge of honour. Buses are massive offenders. Double decker fucking buses, doing 30+ in a 20.
Good job there’s not a school down the road. Oh, hang on…
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
There already have been plenty of campaigns reminding motorists to respect speed limits.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Don’t be ridiculous. Have you actually _seen_ any roads? There’s no enforcement of speed limits – ergo nobody pays much attention to them. Just yesterday I stopped to watch a ‘check your speed’ readout sign on a road with a 20mph limit, for a few minutes during the morning. The lowest speed displayed was 27mph, the highest was 37. To be fair, the sign did make a frowny face at all the speeders though (that is, at every single vehicle that went past). The frowning didn’t seem to be having much effect.— franta
Thinking about this… I was a young man when those little illuminating signs started appearing on the road.
And they were effective. Suddenly our speed was being made real, and excessive speed pointed out.
On reflection, there was probably a bit of fear too that someone was watching me and can see my excessiveness.
Fast forward the best part of 20 years and for me, they are still effective. I see a sign flash up, I look at my speed and slow it down.
I have been programmed… that initial surprise back in the day, adn that initial ‘big brother’ fear lasts on, and it contains me.
I am sure if does for other people my age or older who lived through the introduction of this technology.
However, those learning to drive / growing up with this technology in place will have far less of an affiliation with the tech. To these people its just a totally pointless sign to be ignored.
Sad times.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Not sure the frowny face works – suspect it just reduces speeding to an emoji. Should call them nasty insults.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
The signs might work for you, but that makes you unusual. The evidence shows that initially, they have an effect, but when the drivers realise there is no penalty or punishment, they just ignore them.
franta wrote:
I missed the extended media campaign and questions in parliament about the movement amongst motorists to have illegally tinted windows after the death of this cyclist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496
franta wrote:
Immagine there was a movement amongst mototrists to drive unroadworthy cars because that is how they like it. Would you be OK with a campaign to prevent that ?— franta
if there were such a “movement” then it’s certainly not being perpetrated by the targets mentioned here – neither retailers nor courier companies are part of any movement to encourage this practice
the fact that you’d be hard pressed to find even 20 cyclists riding a brakeless track bike on the road suggests this perception of a “movement” is due to looking at this issue through a microsope and so lacks all perspective
equally, a quick google on avoiding speed cameras links me to comercially available radar detectors and sprays to avoid cameras identifying number plates – one might even argue that any car capable of exceeding the national speed limit is also unsuitable for retail in this country
beezus fufoon wrote:
This last point. If the fastest you can legally drive on the public roads is 70mph then any car that can go faster than that is clearly intended for race use on closed tracks and should be illegal.
franta wrote:
But every single person knows: THEY DON’T WORK.
In my local paper this week four of the eight advertorial features were about high performance cars. No-one needs to drive that fast, whether on the motorway or winding country lanes with tall hedges, but the manufacturers and dealers know that speed sells.
Do you and Mr Briggs really think that if Evans et al remove track bikes from their websites then no-one will buy them to ride on the road? Just like cigarette adverts on TV were banned decades ago so no-one smokes fags any more.
There are far too many unroadworthy cars out there, and let’s not forget the more than 1 million uninsured drivers on the roads now (source).
Meanwhile at the top of today’s news is a headline:
“Up to 9m drivers using mobile phones at wheel”
Choosing to indulge in a dangerous and unnecessary activity while driving. What about them?
We all understand his grief
We all understand his grief and pain, but he needs to understand that his campaign is misplaced and is just making things more dangerous for the other vulnerable road users, cyclists, which I hope is not his intention; it is however, the effect.
Why would someone who has just suffered a tragedy due to a bike, however much a freak accident this was, want to campaign about something else even if related
Surely it is up to the politicians to decide where priorities lie and in that I would agree that this is next to insignificant. Blame them for jumping on the bandwagon not him for putting it there.
If he was really interested in preventing pedestrians dying, he’d be campaigning about motors, not cyclists.
True and if you were interested in saving lives you would ignore road safety and campaign for a cure for heart disease and cancer. Just because there are bigger issues does not mean there is not something to gain in his campaign.
ooldbaker wrote:
I think there is already significant effortbin those two fields, neither of which will be solved by legislation.
Ironically both could be significantly reduced by more people taking up cycling.
Maybe legislation that every prospective driver must cycle for two years before being allowed to use a powered vehicle.
These will have many benefits 1) the biggest obstacle to bike use is the view that it is somehow difficult to get around d. 2) every driver will have seen the other side of the fence, so should have a better understanding of passing cyclists. 3) health benefits 4) pollution and congestion reduction.
ooldbaker wrote:
There is a cure, or even better, prevention of heart disease and cancer; cycling. His campaign is not helping anyone, and it is actually making things worse.
burtthebike wrote:
I feel quite strongly about this as someone who spends a lot of time trying to encourage exercise, but of course as soon as I tweeted this on Briggs’ feed he blocked me – clearly disagreement is not to be permitted.
No jail time, there’s a
No jail time, there’s a suprise.
You’ve done well to find cases which have been reported by national press rather than just the local papers. I was over the view than generally a motorists need to kill multiple people to make them nastional press, like those lorry drivers who managed to conspire to kill 8 people in one go.
Housecathst wrote:
Though in fairness, the great irony is the Mail is more likely to report such stories than other national papers, because their general outrage about law-and-order stories spills over into car-related deaths and even into racist violence (though the comments by their readers usually show a far more selective outrage).
I’m bored of this.
I’m bored of this.
Next story please.
Someone just posted a reply
Someone just posted a reply on the express site pointing out that the bike cited as being sold by Evans without brakes is explicitly listed as being for use on a velodrome only!
You couldn’t make it up
Edit – it’s disappeared!
spen wrote:
Yep. Briggs is contacting every retailer whose site pictures a cycle without brakes and asking them to remove it, regardless of the description *rolls eyes*
Pretty sure every news story
Pretty sure every news story referred to Mrs Briggs as a mother, wonder what their father is up to…
Anyway all of this pretty
Anyway all of this pretty pointless if there is no police to enforce the laws whether you’re on foot, cycling or driving. In Nottingham I see everyday cars going through red lights but I have not yet seen police taking action.
I thought the Daily Mail did
I thought the Daily Mail did their own research and found out that he was a courier for about a month? You can hardly call him an ex courier with so little experience.
He was stupid and is paying for it right now but the chances of such an accident reoccurring are quite rare. The chances of a pedestrian not looking and wandering into the street in front of a vehicle? A hell of a lot higher with many people distracted and not paying much attention before crossing streets in London.
A focus/campaign on this aspect would save a lot more lives.
You are not meant to just
You are not meant to just respect laws you are meant to obey/abide by them. Franta, your use of words is quite telling.
In the interests of fairness
In the interests of fairness and equality, is Mr Briggs going to campaign for the “green cross code” TV adverts to be broadcast again. He is very sure of what needs to be done to cyclists. Hopefully,he will also give attention to making pedestrians more aware and, hence safe, when they cross the road.
This is exactly the style of
This is exactly the style of campaigning that went through NZ in the 80’s and ended up with our mandatory helmet laws.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4031829/Aarons-tragedy-spurred-Helmet-Ladys-crusade
RPK wrote:
Frankly I think it will be a bloody miracle if mandatory helmet laws are the worst thing we end up with.
RPK wrote:
And their head injury rates went up post helmet laws, it didn’t do dick except push people off bikes and allow motorists to continue to drive like cunts.
The slight drop in adult head injuries despite the 90% use (from circa 40%) doesn’t tell the tale of those that simply gave up cycling altogether,. They also shouted about how great it was for kids now that the numbers of injuries as a total dropped, again ignoring the fact that kids simply stopped cycling in massive numbers, something that NZ has never recovered, same as Aus.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
And the unintended consequences were massive and entirely negative, with fewer people getting regular exercise, resulting in getting sick with chronic, avoidable illness and shortening their lives and costing billions in health care. There have been examinations of the economic effects of helmet laws, and they cost a hell of a lot more than they save.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Can see on that chart how the decline in head injuies to cyclists simply carried on along the same trend. Really did make no difference
I’m pretty wary over this….
I’m pretty wary over this….. it seems Mr Briggs is being assisted by others with an interest….but who… several of us in the Bike world and beyond have questioned the motives and who is behind this chap…. I know he lost his wife and that is very sad but the event was a sad accident and it doesn’t matter how you apportion blame from whichever side of the argument you sit, a pedestrian stepped out onto a 30 mph road, in front of a cyclist who was doing an alleged 18mph on a bicycle which had a fixed wheel drive train and no front brake.
That might sound simplistic but that is as it was…… why she stepped out, why he had no front brake etc. are questions of which some will never be answered. The no front brake is an issue too with the construction and use regs/Sale of bikes….but there are loopholes too….. one thing to also remember the dutch/belgians have cyclists who only have one rear coaster brake on their bikes and millions of them cycle every day without incident.
The UK government have been promising a review on road safety and laws since 2015 and one is yet to get underway. Mobile phone use in vehicle penalties were increased earlier this year, but whenever I am out there seems to be little impact on the need for drivers to use their devices at the wheel. Enforcement of current road laws is needed and if cyclists jump red lights, are not lit up at night or ride in a dangerous manner these need to be punished with the relevant fines and warnings. The same applies to the car drivers who speed, jump lights etc. but the issue is since the government cuts of funding to public services, the Traffic policeman is always the first target on the hit list for expenditure cuts.
So we are left with the condundrum of what to do?….. for me if it comes to pass that the government leaves the problem (as they seem to these days) to local authorities (also with no government cash from the next financial year) then nothing will happen and the conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on these pathetic shared cycleway facilites will continue, as will the conflict between drivers and cyclists. Cycling provides an answer to congestion, obesity and air pollution but needs the barriers to its adoption as a civilised and accepted transport option in the UK and not looked at as you are a pauper because you cycle, when those who already cycle to work and back or cycle locally instead of using their car have already woken up to the benefits of using a bike.
Lets hope if there is any review on cycling safety and road laws that the conversation is wide ranging, adult and not just a knee jerk campaign with a failed and poor law change like the 1991 dangerous dogs act.
I just wish pedestrians wouldn’t step into the roads in front of me (2/3 on mobiles to their ears or looking down at) as my Cortina Milo dutch transport bike is a heavy beast without being loaded and if I hit one…. it’s going to hurt
huntswheelers wrote:
I’d guess it went something like this:
– Bloke going through unimaginable grief chooses the easy target in the pointless and avoidable event that killed his wife. Finds a cause; runs with it. From the number of people who seem to latch onto a campaign, or create one, when they suffer something similar, I’d say this is Perfectly Normal Behaviour.
– The usual shitrags, safely in the car lobbyists’ pockets, have happily stepped in and provided a platform. MPs who have to be seen to be doing something, and are scared of being seen as callous, give him representation. Broadcasters that should know better predictably lack balance when covering the story.
This latter aspect is sinister: outlets with some sort of authority or voice aren’t tempering the lack of logic in his campaign the way they should be. The momentum isn’t being used to make roads safer for all: it’s potentially being used to restrict one of the most vulnerable sections of users. These are the largely unadulterated wailings of a bereaved husband, and instead of being given a cup of tea and a pat on the head, he’s being given a megaphone and representation in parliament.
Those providing this platform, without any modification to the message, deserve contempt.
davel wrote:
At the risk of being very unfair to the deceased and her widower: Allison claimed that he called out twice loudly to warn the deceased. I’m wondering whether the deceased and her family were already part of the “bloody cyclists” mindset and she took it so far as to play chicken.
Speculation, based on nothing, but stimulated by Mr.Briggs’ interventions.
Ush wrote:
knowing that stretch of road, it seems more likely that the motor traffic just kept going, thereby squeezing the space for her crossing and the cyclist to a space of a metre or two in the middle of the road – and of course nobody really noticed that or even thought to mention it, it just goes unquestioned and unchallenged.
Ush wrote:
I wouldn’t speculate too much. I just think his grief has clouded his judgement and the rest of the media has reported what he said without constructive criticism.
According to the judge, shouting at pedestrians who jump in front of a cyclist is illegal. So now cyclists will have to stay quiet and brake really hard.
Alex26c wrote:
Indeed.
Mr Briggs needs to close his twitter account, take a deep breath, and spend sometime with his family.
His continued persuction of cyclists is not the answer to his grief.
At the risk of appearing
At the risk of appearing callous, just because Mrs Briggs was killed after a collision with a cyclist doesn’t mean Mr Briggs is an instant expert. Anecdote isn’t data. I have a lot of ill informed views on a whole range of things I don’t know all that much about but no one pays me any mind. I wish the same was true of the Mail/Express and Mr Briggs.
If this campaign garners any
If this campaign garners any traction, is Mr Briggs going to campaign that Track Day Cars are also banned from being sold in the UK?
All of the retailers selling fixies already have notifications on their websites saying that the bikes are not road legal without fitting a front brake, and more often than not the bikes are sold with a front brake that needs to be mounted what more can they do?
Why doesn’t he also campaign for all cars to be fitted with GPS speed limiters, which automatically restrict the speed of cars to the maximum speed limit for the road they are travelling on. With technology available in the world at the current time it is an entirely feasible option, as many Sat Nav devices automatically advise you of the speed limit for any given road. And they could be fitted in such a way that if the vehicle owner attempts to disable the device the engine is immobilized.
craigstitt wrote:
Because he isn’t actually campaigning to improve road safety, only to remove ( front brakeless ) fixed wheel bikes. Three easy predictions – the sales of fixed wheel bikes will fall (probably regardless of brake status), the number of fixed wheel bikes on the roads will fall, the change in pedestrian KSIs will be lost in the random noise.
At best, his campaign is an exercise in misplaced zeal, intended to relieve his grief. At worst it is a cynical act of vengeance seeking. I suspect the truth is in between, and he probably doesn’t really know himself. The likeliest result is a fall in rates of cycling, and a corresponding reduction in public health.
But really the blame lies not with one grieing guy, but with the lawyers, journalists and politicians, who should have sympathised, and then asked him to shut up and ignored his twitterings.
I’m going to start
I’m going to start campaigning against pedestrians after TWO in less than 150 yards walked off the pavement in front of me this morning. Second one apologised. First one yelled at me because I made him jump.
Wanton and Furious walking or do we need new dangerous walking laws to protect vulnerable road users from distracted pedestrians?
Qhat happened to ‘Jay Walking’?
Ryder wrote:
No such thing as jay walking in teh UK… and that is a very good thing.
Alas, we are going to see a huge surge in peds walking out in front of bike as someone (read UK mainstram press) has strongly inferred that cyclists alone are responsible for avoiding pedestrian collisions.
People are idiots.
Looks like someone needs to
Looks like someone needs to see his name in the headlines. Even if he clearly has no idea about riding a bike with fixed gear – I mean, saying that cyclists ride brakeless because they want to go faster makes no sense whatsoever.
And I really would love to see him talk to the courier companies in London and tell them to check all the employees. Like they can force them to ride with brakes – if they say NO, what do you want to do? Without couriers those companies will run out of business very, very soon.