The prospect of “dangerous cycling” laws being introduced in the United Kingdom in the near future looks increasingly likely, Labour joining the Conservatives in committing to introduce stricter laws if they win the upcoming general election.
In a fast-paced legislative push, the government had agreed to introduce tougher laws for “dangerous cyclists” who kill or injure — the matter attracting a great deal of political and media attention since a coroner’s court inquest earlier this month heard that a cyclist would face no charges for his involvement in the high-speed Regent’s Park crash which saw a pensioner fatally injured, the incident taking place back in 2022.
When Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week called a general election for July 4, it put the legislation in doubt, Parliament’s prorogation meaning it would not be passed in time, the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill proposed by former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith having been due to be debated in the House of Lords on 6 June.
However, over the bank holiday weekend both the Conservatives and Labour pledged to introduce “dangerous cycling” laws if they are elected, suggesting legislation will be resumed following this summer’s election.
“Labour will change the law to protect people from dangerous cycling, and we commend the families for their relentless campaigning,” a spokesperson from Labour told the Telegraph.
“The Criminal Justice Bill was meant to be a flagship bill for his government, but Rishi Sunak walked away from his promises to these families the moment it suited him. It’s understandable that the families of victims will feel let down.”
Likewise, a Conservative spokesperson stressed that the party remains “committed to delivering a new offence of dangerous cycling, ensuring cyclists who ride dangerously are brought to justice”.
A group of campaigners, made up of families of pedestrians killed by cyclists, had written to Sunak and Keir Starmer demanding the next prime minister passes the legislation.
“To be clear, each of us supports the idea to get more people cycling in the UK and we all recognise the benefits,” the letter reportedly stated. “This is about closing a legal loophole and not an anti-cycling endeavour in any way.
“However, with the increase in people cycling, there is a concomitant increase in risk and in a modern democracy, we need adequate laws to deal with all eventualities.
“We are therefore taking the unusual step of writing to you both together to ask you to commit to finalising this simple, non-contentious but important legislation in the first session of Parliament if you are to be successful in winning the election.”
It was penned by Matthew Briggs, widower of Kim Briggs killed by Charlie Alliston — the London fixed-wheel rider sentenced to 18 months for the current ‘causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving’ offence that can be used to prosecute cyclists in such incidents.
Mr Briggs has led the campaign, receiving support from Duncan Smith in the past three weeks, the Conservative politician’s amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill having already passed in the House of Commons when the election was called.
While the discussion around “dangerous cycling” laws has been thrust into the spotlight by widespread coverage across certain sections of print and broadcast media this month, the proposed changes have been questioned by some who say they will do little to have any meaningful impact on road safety, the number of pedestrians injured or killed by cyclists far outweighed by the number injured or killed in collisions involving the drivers of cars.
Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman pointed out that more people are killed by lightning and cows each year than cyclists.
“It’s important that we say that because there are three involving, not necessarily caused by, but three or less involving a bike rider,” he explained. “And as the Secretary of State [Mark Harper] said, this is such a tiny minority. More people are killed by lightning, or cows. And that same thing [cycling] is joyous. It’s good for society. And we put the focus on this minuscule, negative thing. Absolutely, everybody should obey the laws of the road. But is this really the best use of our time to be talking about this now?”
Road safety charity Brake called the attention and emphasis placed on cycling as “disproportionate”.
“It feels that the focus being given to this announcement – by both government and the media – is disproportionate given the true extent of road casualties across the UK, and the lack of commitment from this government to address road safety at a strategic level,” Brake’s CEO Ross Moorlock said.
“If the aviation or rail industry had the safety record that roads do, planes would be grounded, and trains would be stopped.
“Given the government is so eager to act on dangerous cycling, we ask that they now continue this trend, by introducing further legislation that ensures that we see a significant and sustained reduction in road death and injury both this year and in the years to come.”
And speaking in the same week that the government agreed to introduce tougher laws for “dangerous cyclists”, the UK’s head of roads policing spoke at-length about her wishes for making the roads safer and pointed to speeding, mobile phone use and a fall in the “basic standard of driving” as the main concerns.
Jo Shiner also made the case for stricter punishments for anti-social driving, arguing that drivers who kill or cause serious injury through their actions often receive lenient punishments when compared to other non-traffic crimes.
“If you actually compare some of the sentences the drivers who do kill people because of the way they drive versus other crimes in society, predominantly those sentences are lower and families don’t feel they get the justice they deserve,” she said.
110 thoughts on ““Dangerous cycling” law will be passed following election, Labour and Conservatives confirm”
Good to see that labour have
Good to see that labour have got their priorities right. I’ve previously posted that they couldn’t be as incompetent as the tories, but now I’m not so sure.
Worried about optics during
Worried about optics during the election campaign no doubt. Knocking it back would kick off the usual right whinge anti cyclist war on motorists BS.
Still, can’t wait for the dangerous pedestrianing laws next time a zombie looking at their phone steps out & ends up killing a cyclist (nobody mention Auriol Grey)
I presume that this is
I presume that this is because Labour and the Tories are trying to get the same (very) older demographic to vote for them, so they have to say similar things.
(Like how the Tories clearly want the over-90 vote, hence all that rubbish about national service over the weekend).
A group of campaigners, made
Horlicks!
What is this loophole I keep
What is this loophole I keep hearing about. Cyclists have been sent to jail when people have died as a result of their actions. Cyclists have also not been charged when it was determined that the death wasn’t their fault… Sounds like its all covered already.
Honestly I just want them to pass this so everyone can pat themselves on the back and then realise that A) cyclists hurt and kill a vanishingly small number of people and most of the time it isn’t the cyclists fault B) That if cyclists are treated like drivers, there will be absolutely zero change to sentence lengths when they do kill someone through their dangerous cycling.
For cyclists to he treated as
For cyclists to he treated as drivers, the charge of “careless cycling” should he brought in. I’d like to see them pass that!!
LondonCalling wrote:
Careless cycling has been in the RTA since inception: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/29/enacted
Assuming it does get passed,
Assuming it does get passed, in a decade or so there will still be howls of outrage from Daily Heil readers that no-one has actually been charged with the offence in the 10 years since its introduction.
Well the way it was reported
Well the way it was reported when the election was called was a little more than it might put the law in doubt, the cycling media declared it deader than a Norwegian blue pining for the fjords.
It was always going to come back whoever forms the next goverment.
That would be a futile waste
That would be a futile waste of parliamentary and executive time and money based on the facts.
Tax payers should oppose such waste.
This needs to be set within
This needs to be set within an appropriate review of road safety, which we need to work for.
I odn’t think I see a Labour Government doing “Dangerous Cycling” as a separate piece of legislation. They will have too much on their plate, and Rishi’s wrecked national finances will need to be dealt with.
No good cyclists should have
No good cyclists should have a thing to be worried about!
I certainly haven’t.
Stephankernow wrote:
The two things you should be worried about are what the law will actually say, and about accidents caused by other road users.
It’s not hard to imagine a definition of ‘safe’ cycling that amounts to being able to save idiot pedestrians from themselves, and if one steps out a couple of metres in front of you then you could find youself on the hook for being ‘unsafe’ no matter how good you think you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…
I shouldn’t have anything to
I shouldn’t have anything to worry about, but yet I do worry. Why? Because I have had a pedestrian step backwards into the road 2m in front of me. Luckily I was doing no more than 5mph because I was worried about his dog (not on a lead) and was able to miss him, although I came a cropper as a result. My worry is that had I hit him I would have been classed as at fault by a jury of my driving peers despite there being absolutely nothing that I could have done and no way to have predicted that the idiot was about to take two steps back off the pavement right into the road.
This did happen to me. An
This did happen to me. An elderly lady (amongst many others) stepped into the road at a v busy Bristol junction and against the lights (i.e. light was red for peds and green for road traffic incl me). I came around the corner (on green) and, as she saw me, she jumped backwards – and directly into my path as I sweved to avoid her. Algthough I was travelling at probs 3-5mph at the time of impact she was knocked over and her head hit the road with an awful thud. She was not fully conscious as a result and received hospital treatment (scan) before being discharged. That could of course have been much worse.
Police took witness statements and checked condition of my bike (esp brakes and lights) at the scene. It was clear I could not have avoided her, but perhaps might have been a different outcome on a fixie…
Stephankernow wrote:
I had a near miss with a pedestrian the other day – video here.
If I had collided with them and they’d died, under the proposed law I could be looking at 14 years in jail. That ought to worry you as a cyclist.
I don’t think my cycling was careless, let alone dangerous. But who knows what a jury of Telegraph and Mail readers would make of it?
Appreciate the view from a
Appreciate the view from a camera lens can distort things, particularly distance perception and thus apparent speed. However, bearing in mind there are pedestrians about, including on both sides of that pathway (don’t know it so don’t know if it’s a shared path, private road or whatever) and they do generally have priority to me it looked like you were going too quickly for the conditions.
Nice reactions though.
Jakrayan wrote:
It’s a private road, with speed bumps. It forms part of NCN 23 – https://maps.app.goo.gl/Srxq7jmbVgmFYHUM8
This is the speed from my Garmin. I’m doing about 20kph, I slow down as I approach the 2 pedestrians and I slam the brakes on at the point marked with the blue arrow.
Thanks for the clarification,
Thanks for the clarification, good to have the GPS evidence obviously ?
Tom_77 wrote:
I had a near miss with a pedestrian the other day – video here.
If I had collided with them and they’d died, under the proposed law I could be looking at 14 years in jail. That ought to worry you as a cyclist.
I don’t think my cycling was careless, let alone dangerous. But who knows what a jury of Telegraph and Mail readers would make of it?— Stephankernow
You did manage to avoid the pedestrian, so were cycling carefully enough, but you would have given them a shock.
It’s worth calling out or sounding a bell and making sure they acknowlege you before passing, even if this means slowing to their pace and waiting behind for a few seconds. You might still give them a shock though!
If you had collided with her
If you had collided with her it would have been largely your fault though, surely?
This is largely bullshit,
This is largely bullshit, surely?
Disappointed (but not
Disappointed (but not surprised) by Labour’s comments.
In particular, I would disagree with the suggestion that the current state of the law represents a legal “loophole” for cyclists. Rather, I would suggest that motor vehicles and the “death by careless/dangerous driving” offences are the exception. The offence of death by dangerous driving was created because car drivers were killing people regularly and juries were reluctant to convict those drivers of manslaughter (this Hansard archive is quite interesting – some shocking comments in there but also the statistic that in 1953, 62 people were charged with manslaughter after killing someone with a motor vehicle; of those 12 were convicted of manslaughter and 29 had their charge reduced to dangerous driving).
In all other areas of life, manslaughter remains the appropriate charge when someone kills someone else through gross negligence or unlawful acts.
So the fact that no “death dangerous cycling” offence currently exists is not a loophole; it’s the default state of the law. The need for a separate “death by dangerous driving” law was demonstrated by the number of dangerous drivers killing people and getting away with a slap on the wrist. No-one has provided a convincing argument why cycling needs its own comparable specific offence, given the numbers are approximately zero (~2 or 3 pedestrian fatalities per year involving cyclists, of which some the cyclist will be entirely blameless; others the cyclist will be at fault but below the “dangerous” threshold).
It’s dog whistle politics of
It’s dog whistle politics of no merit based on the facts.
Cycling should be made a Protected Characteristic to counter such bias.
Interesting Hansard extract-
Interesting Hansard extract- even back then there were some ridiculous pro-car opinions. Overall I think you are right. Really it is motorists who have the benefit of the loophole. When I studied law (which admittedly was (a) a long time ago and (b) not in the UK) manslaughter was “an unlawful and dangerous act causing death” and it was pointed out to us that there was no requirement that the act be somehow “very” unlawful and/or “very” dangerous. But clearly juries have pretty much always seen unlawful and dangerous driving as somehow falling short of some non-existent threshold, unless the act was particularly egregious, so they have created a de facto threshold that was never meant to exist.
Every Dangerous Driving case
Every Dangerous Driving case requires a driving examiner as expert witness to the DVSA standard of competence expected to pass the test.
The CPS are negligent in prosecution without the proper expert witnesses.
As a polling expert said to
As a polling expert said to the Guardian: “There’s three times more people who voted Conservative and are undecided than voted Labour and are undecided, and where these voters end up going will make a big difference”. Labour need those undecideds, and are sounding like Tory-lite to get them.
Looking at the article in the
Looking at the article in the Telegraph it looks like yet another made up story to me, that they have written to keep the anti cycling rhetoric going.
The Telegraph have a habit of doing this lately
The article doesn’t tell you anything new and is very much built on assumptions with no detail at all.
The carbrains were well pissed off when the election meant the pointless anti cycling legislation was cancelled and this is just another opportunity to stick the knife in again.
We should be used to all this crap by now, don’t let it trigger you.
It would be good to know the
It would be good to know the name of this “spokesperson” from the Labour camp. Probably doesn’t exist, though.
Of course they exist, they
Of course they exist, they will be someone in the press team or a campaign adviser.
Just when you thought it was safe to vote Labour
I keep remembeing ‘Tony Blair MP’ is an anagram of “I’m Tory plan B”.
It seems as if thing’s haven’t changed much in the Labour party.
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
Downside of a first past the post system.
If you want the Tories out, you basically have to vote Labour even if you don’t want to, because otherwise you are just splitting up the “not Tory” vote and they’ll get the seat with 15% or something…
Stop bringing reality to the
Stop bringing reality to the table – life is depressing enough as it is
It wasn’t true of Blair and
It wasn’t true of Blair and it isn’t true of Starmer. The idea that Labour are just red Tories feeds the far right narrative of Reform.
There are none so blind as
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
bensynnock wrote:
The earliest reference (a quick web search comes up with is 1994). This predates Brexit, Reform and UKIP being called UKIP so it’s at best, a great stretch of the imagination to say that it’s feeding their narrative.
There has been nothing of substance released by the labour party as to what they are planning to do if they form a government. They have rowed back on a lot of things e.g. their green/climate promises, that I personally think are more important than petty point scoring against the conservatives. Currently, there’s not a Rizzla paper between the two parties and neither one of them appeals to me and the more I see, the less likely I am to vote for either of them.
“The earliest reference (a
“The earliest reference (a quick web search comes up with is 1994). This predates Brexit, Reform and UKIP being called UKIP so it’s at best, a great stretch of the imagination to say that it’s feeding their narrative.”
That’s some pretty strange reasoning. What happened thirty years ago is beside the point. Look at what’s happening now.
And to say there is virtually no difference between Labour and Tories is just weird.
As others have said FPTP may
As others have said FPTP may have certain consequences.
Even discounting Keith’s recent campaign of “hug my enemy closer” if you look across all the parties (from the Greens, via the measured approach of Count Binface to the George Galloway Party to Farage’s “worried about Johnny Muslim?” group) then Labour and the Conservatives (and the Liberals AFAIK) definitely seem to be sitting at the same table.
A long-ish period of political stability in the UK has meant that it often seems to be a question of “degree” or “tone”. This “managerial” look to politics actually may be a win for most. Bureacracy and stability have their uses and not many people are fans of anarchy (the condition or the doctrine).
Anyway, it’s all fine; so the UK has ended up with a two-party system* – but that’s probably almost twice as good as a one-party system! Or something.
* Which seems to be a main party (blue), with a backup for the times when the main one has been hanging about too long and looks tired.
The problem is we have ended
The problem is we have ended up with a party system but with an electoral system based on individual independent mps representing their area.
john_smith wrote:
There have recently been a few defections from blue to red so at least some of the insiders seem to think there isn’t a big difference.
The red team have kicked out their former leader and are kicking Diane Abbot about something rotten, the blue team are quite happy for this as it takes away focus from their own leadership problems.
The red team will continue with the Cumbrian coal mine.
The red team will continue with the North Sea Oil licences.
Both teams have come up with uncosted soundbite policies.
And finally, the red team have just said they’ll implement this dangerous cycling law.
The devil is probably in the detail that we haven’t seen yet from either party (another similarity – neither have produced a manifesto) but looking at what we already know and see, weird is not being able to see the striking similarities.
350 million a week for “our
350 million a week for “our NHS”
Brexit
Lockdown parties
Let the bodies pile high
Unelected spad being given use of the No 10 rose garden to make excuses for crimes unrelated to work
“F*** business”, unless it’s owned by someone you’re having an affair with.
VIP fast lane
Test ‘n’ trace
Eat out to help out
Gold wallpaper
Truss.
Etc., etc.
No, Labour are not the same as the Tories.
But but PFI, spin, dodgy
But but PFI, spin, dodgy dossier, gulf war 2, war on terror, light-touch banking regulation and bailing out banks “too big to fail”.
Not defending this current lot, and there may be system biases favoring more outrageous behaviour from the party of the priveledged and sharper-elbowed. But all the “flexible attitude to the facts”, graft, favoring your pals, lying about sex and drugs shenanigans – seems that applies across party lines. And perhaps there is indeed a corrupting effect of being the party in power and the money that comes with it.
Possibly if you took a random sample of that number of people in the UK you’d find similar? It’s maybe just writ larger in the elites and commands more attention (we love stories with powerful beings, heroes and villains).
john_smith wrote:
Oh, I don’t know. Back in the late 90s, a party donation of £1m was enough to secure the newly elected prime minister’s personal intervention in exempting Formula 1 from a ban on tobacco sponsorship. Probably a coincidence.
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
There might not be much between Kier Starmer and John Major, but if you think this current group of xenophobe disaster capitalists steering the conservative party off to the far right in pursuit of UKIP voters is in the same space as the labour party you are not watching them.
Husband of darwin award
Husband of darwin award winner gets to make legislation in vain attempt to keep right-wing nutjob press onside.
What a time to be alive.
What a disgusting take on a
What a disgusting take on a tragic situation
Mad Franky wrote:
The poor woman died. No, I don’t necessarily agree with the conviction and I 100% don’t agree with her widower’s obsessive campaign (though there but for mercy, I can’t guarantee if my wife was killed I’d remain totally rational and non-vengeful), but at worst she went to cross the road without looking properly, something I’m sure we’ve all done occasionally, and made a panicked decision to jump back when a cyclist shouted at her. Calling her “a Darwin Award winner” – meaning someone who, to use the Wikipedia definition, has “supposedly contributed to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool by dying or becoming sterilized by their own actions” – for that is disrespectful and indeed disgraceful. For shame.
I don’t think calling someone
I don’t think calling someone a “Darwin Award winner” is ever not disrespectful or disgraceful.
That’s an absolutely
That’s an absolutely disgusting take on what, however you look at it, was a tragedy for all involved. Show a little human compassion instead of being some big keyboard warrior.
When will this anti-cycling
When will this anti-cycling narrative recognised as the hate speech that it is, out of all proportion to the risk or danger, rather serving dog whistle politics…
Mobile phone zombies, not looking where they are going, are a 21st century problem with a root cause of selfishness (my interest is most important) that should be as socially unacceptable as drink driving.
Briggs takes no accountability for the fully avoidable error of his partner phone zombie.
It was correct that the cyclist was accountable for riding a defective vehicle on the public highway.
No evidence she was using the
No evidence she was using the phone.
She should have used the crossing though.
“He also insisted that brakes
“He also insisted that brakes would not have made any difference when he saw Mrs Briggs come into the road with a mobile phone.”
https://news.sky.com/story/fatal-crash-cyclist-charlie-alliston-tells-court-front-brake-would-not-have-saved-kim-briggs-10992493
Other witnesses did not
Other witnesses did not recall seeing her on a phone when she crossed the road.
This was covered in some detail during the trial, as you would expect, and independent witness evidence is generally going to be more compelling than a defendant’s claims
(before we even get onto the considerable difference between “with a mobile phone” and “on a mobile phone”)
With is not the same as on
With is not the same as on her phone as was claimed earlier.
In court it said she was
In court it said she was looking down and did not check for oncoming cyclists. Although it did say she was not using her phone. So as I said at the time, it could have easily been a bus instead of a cycle.
While the new law is
While the new law is unnecessary, this take is weird, callous and vaguely misogynistic. I’ll give benefit of doubt that the latter is due to being badly worded, but …
1) Matt Briggs should not and cannot “take accountability” for his wife’s actions, whatever they were. They were her own actions, and she was not his robot or his pet, she was his wife
2) The problem with the law is not on itself per se – there’s nothing inherently bad about criminalising death by dangerous cycling.
3) As has been noted, there is no evidence the pedestrian was on a phone.
4) the cyclist was not riding a ‘defective’ vehicle. It was a fixie, which brakes by back pedalling rather than by clamping on the rims – there is no evidence it was in anything but good working order – albeit strictly physical brakes are required for a bicycle sold for use on the road.
In the particular case, it was alleged that the cyclist saw her crossing and yelled rather than slowing down – and then collided when she kept back as he tried to swerve behind her.
We can’t re-try the case here, but I think it’s safe to say that if a motorist , observing a pedestrian crossing ahead of them chose to blast the horn and not slow down, and then hit and killed the pedestrian when they could have stopped then they would most likely have taken at least an 18 month sentence.
Velo-drone wrote:
IIRC it was also alleged that Alliston yelled and went to go behind her as she was crossing, at which point she didn’t so much “keep back” as “leap backwards” (right into his line).
Yes that was a typo, and
Yes that was a typo, and should have read “leapt”.
But this is an entirely normal and common reaction to being yelled at, or just being startled by suddenly realising danger.
Anyone who cycles regularly in the busier parts of London will have seen this sort of reaction many times and be aware that pedestrians crossing when they shouldn’t are liable to behave unpredictably.
The issue that was at question is court was whether or not it is an acceptable course of action to yell, not slow down, and declare that it’s entirely their responsibility to get out of your way.
He said braking wouldn’t have made a difference. The court clearly wasn’t convinced – or at least wasn’t convinced that it was not worth trying.
And of course, the new Highway Code and hierarchy of road users is considerably more explicit than then that both motorists and cyclists owe a higher level of care towards pedestrians – but the principle was always in there, even before the changes.
Velo-drone wrote:
Really? Try a quick Google of “motorist killed pedestrian escapes jail”:
A speeding motorist who ran into and killed a pedestrian as she crossed the road has escaped jail because there was no official 30mph limit sign on the road. Michael Campbell, aged 40, was travelling at 41-49mph in a 30mph zone when he knocked down 44-year-old Jaye Bloomfield in Manchester, who was wheeling her bicycle across a pedestrian crossing.
https://tmsconveyancing.com/news-updates/general/7567/Speeding-motorist-who-killed-cyclist-escapes-jail
A driver who ran a red light and killed a cyclist who was riding on a pedestrian crossing has escaped jail after being found guilty of causing death by careless driving. Rouguiatou Fofana was sentenced to nine months in prison suspended for two years at Coventry Crown Court on Friday for causing the death of Craig Mulligan. Fofana, 34, was originally charged with causing death by dangerous driving after hitting 34-year-old Mr Mulligan on November 1, 2012. The court heard that she was travelling at 32-38mph in a 30mph zone and made no attempt to slow down when the lights on the crossing turned red.
https://road.cc/content/news/labour-and-conservatives-pledge-dangerous-cycling-law-308553#block-node-comment-block-node-comments
A motorist found guilty of causing the death by careless driving of a 79-year-old man in a low speed accident on a pedestrian crossing has escaped jail. Last month, a Swansea Crown Court jury cleared Matthew Gealy, 34, of Port Tennant, Swansea, of causing Ghalib Saleh Abdullah’s death by dangerous driving but convicted him unanimously of causing death by careless driving. Judge Keith Thomas banned father-of-two Gealy from driving for three years, gave him a 40 week jail sentence suspended for two years and ordered him to do 250 hours unpaid work for the community.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/motorist-disqualified-after-10mph-zebra-9104500
I am of course aware of many
I am of course aware of many outcomes such as these. However you have missed my point entirely, as none of the summaries you give make any reference to whether the motorist saw the person the road, but decided to blast their horn at them rather than making any effort to brake.
Velo-drone wrote:
I understand your point entirely, and I refute it because it is entirely invalid. You have made up a situation that does not correspond with the reality of the Alliston/Briggs incident. A comparable situation for a motorist would be seeing a pedestrian crossing the road, slowing, sounding their horn and then, when the pedestrian has passed across in front of them, going to drive round the back of them only to find that they had jumped back into their path. The allegation that Alliston ploughed on regardless doing nothing but shout is simply untrue; even the judge conceded in her sentencing remarks that “you did indeed swerve and slow to between 10-14 mph as you went through the yellow-box at the junction of Old St and Charlotte Road”, so your scenario of a car driver who saw a pedestrian and decided to make no effort to brake and only sound the horn instead is in no way comparable.
Unfortunately I think Aliston
Unfortunately I think Aliston would make some type of spectrum. Anyone, no matter how innocent would still show remorse at injuring or killing someone. The supporters of Auriel Grey are still using her physical and mental disabilities as a defence, so I’m pretty sure a case could have been made for Alliston. It did sound like he kept shouting louder rather than braking harder.
If I remember rightly, his
If I remember rightly, his shouting made her look up and notice the traffic approaching in the next lanes, so she stepped or jumped back. If he had not shouted, he would have missed her, and she may have been killed by a lorry from the other direction.
“He also insisted that brakes
“He also insisted that brakes would not have made any difference when he saw Mrs Briggs come into the road with a mobile phone.”
https://news.sky.com/story/fatal-crash-cyclist-charlie-alliston-tells-co…(link is external)
Velo-drone wrote:
But a bike isn’t a car. It’s far narrower and handles very differently. While a motorist faced with a pedestrian dead ahead will have little choice but to brake as hard as possible, it might be more appropriate for a cyclist to attempt to steer around the pedestrian. Really hard braking on a bike will generally result in the rear wheel lifting off the road or the bike sliding, and makes steering difficult, if not impossible. So while braking might slow the bike down, it could turn avoiding a collision with the pedestrian into a game of chance over which the cyclist has little control.
He attempted to avoid the
He attempted to avoid the collision and made an audible warning. Emergency braking with only a rear brake would almost certainly resulted in a rear wheel skid and the bike carrying straight on. He was negligent in not having a fitted front brake. Was he sentenced more harshly than an equivalently negligent driver? Undoubtedly
anotherflat wrote:
Well if you can find a case of a driver using a vehicle with only a handbrake and no working footbrake who then killed someone and got a lesser sentance, feel free to share.
Alliston chose to use a bike on the road without the legally required brakes. By his own words on social media prior to the incident he did this for the thrill. IMO the absence of a brake was not critical in the outcome of this incident, there was little time to react, and his first response to slow and pass behind was the natural one any cyclist would make.
The police evidence that he could have stopped was a stitch up taking no account of reaction time as they were rolling along with their hands on the brakes expecting a call to stop. While alliston would not have had his fingers on the levers, did not expect Briggs to step into his path and then had to decide whether action was neccessary and whether to emergency stop or go around. However by chosing to go out on the road without a safe bike he opened himself up to prosecution.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Well if you can find a case of a driver using a vehicle with only a handbrake and no working footbrake who then killed someone and got a lesser sentance, feel free to share.
Alliston chose to use a bike on the road without the legally required brakes. By his own words on social media prior to the incident he did this for the thrill. IMO the absence of a brake was not critical in the outcome of this incident, there was little time to react, and his first response to slow and pass behind was the natural one any cyclist would make.
The police evidence that he could have stopped was a stitch up taking no account of reaction time as they were rolling along with their hands on the brakes expecting a call to stop. While alliston would not have had his fingers on the levers, did not expect Briggs to step into his path and then had to decide whether action was neccessary and whether to emergency stop or go around. However by chosing to go out on the road without a safe bike he opened himself up to prosecution.— anotherflat
He had time to react, but possibly not come to a stop in time. His real problem was that although he initially started braking/slowing (and shouting IIRC), he then changed his mind and went for the gap. Mrs Briggs then stepped into his path and hit her head (pedestrian helmets FTW).
I expect Alliston would have had a different court result if he’d continued trying to stop. It’s an important part of the Highway Code that people should do all they can to avoid a collision, despite having priority.
hawkinspeter wrote:
His real problem was the shouting, I have easily avoided many pedestrians crossing, but when they see you at the last minute they do something unpredictable. Although I guess it should now be completely predictable, but only based on experience of paniced pedestrians, not logic.
I had a collision with a pedestrian a few years ago, I was riding around a bend when I encoutered a pedestrian crossing the road without looking, I adjusted line to pass behind her, but her family who had already crossed called out to warn her, at which point she jumped back into my new path. Slammed on the brakes, rear wheel off the floor our heads touched ever so slightly (she didn’t even stumble due to the impact, never mind fall) and my bike ended in a heap on the floor. Apologised, Checked she was OK, suggested in future not changing course to avoid a cyclist, we will avoid pedestrians as there is lots of space. Everyone went about their day, but it could easily have been much worse.
wycombewheeler wrote:
His real real problem was arguably going onto his socials afterwards and ranting about it – his apparent insensitivity to the whole incident didn’t help him at all once he was facing a jury.
brooksby wrote:
That certainly didn’t help.
Here’s the judge’s sentencing remarks: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf
My closest shave was a two
My closest shave was a two lane one way. Ped crosses about 2/3 of the way and then did a 180 as I passed on the left – just missed him. And it was raining !
I thought it was his social
I thought it was his social media comments that were the main reason for the outcome.
Hirsute wrote:
The judge states that it was the manner of Alliston’s riding more than anything
I was thinking more about the
I was thinking more about the jury.
And he had used his bike
And he had used his bike before on the roads, so knew what the limitations were.
wycombewheeler wrote:
You’ll struggle to find like-for-like (I’m sure it’s happened – multiple times – but you’re relying on news coverage), however choosing to ride the bike in that manner was a consious choice, similar to (IMO) choosing to drive too fast for the conditions or choosing to drive when your eyesight isn’t up to it, or choosing to use a mobile phone:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
All suspended sentences, as you can see. I was looking for a specific one from about a year ago that would have been a little more like-for-like because it involved an unlicenced (I think he was actually banned), uninsured, driver hitting and killing teenaged cyclist with a pickup (that, if I recall correctly, wasn’t MOT’d – therefore not roadworthy and comparable to Alliston) before fleeing the scene. He also got a suspended sentence, for being an “upstanding member of the community” or some bollocks.
Like I said in my forum comment, you’ll struggle to get like-for-like cases due to how rare cyclists killing people is – Alliston being the last high-profile case. However, you don’t have to look far to see pretty extreme cases of driver negligence being excused by the courts. I maintain that if Alliston had been driving a Ford Focus at 2/3 of the speed limit when Briggs stepped out in front of him, he wouldn’t have served a day in prison – faulty brakes or no.
He would not show any remorse
He would not show any remorse. I still accept his innocence, and think it was a kangaroo court. But he didn’t help himself, and can only assume that he has some kind of autism. The anti cycling lobby were rubbing their hands with glee when they got him into court.
Beachboy wrote:
Whilst I’d agree that he received an unreasonably severe sentence, I don’t think he was innocent of furious cycling as he didn’t take the necessary precautions to not hit her at speed. If he’d continued braking as he had started to do, then I think he would have got off completely – as it was, the jury found him innocent of manslaughter, so the court wasn’t entirely rigged against him.
Whether or not he’s autistic should have no influence on the case as people have to be held responsible for their actions on the public roads. I also think that judges shouldn’t excuse dangerous driving by classing it as a moment of anger or the other excuses that they love making for drivers.
Beachboy wrote:
There were some concerns raised about the evidence and how it was presented – and indeed the bigger picture of who we choose to prosecute. And as often the case in incidents more than one thing went wrong (eg. had Mrs. Briggs’ movements been different …)
However it seems there was ample evidence that Mr. Alliston was an “accident waiting to happen” through his choices (over time) and disregard of consequences. He hadn’t apparently changed much even by the time of the trial (see the judge’s remarks in full).
Was he as potentially dangerous as a “boy racer” with a motor vehicle? No, because of the force-magnifying effect of those. Similar attitude of “I’m skilled, I can deal with situations with more risk and I’ll seek those out and set my own rules”, leading to disregard of the law? I think so.
Also – that case really doesn’t have much that connects it to the Auriol Grey case.
Ultimately I’d like us to be setting conditions to avoid setting up “conflict” between those cycling and walking, and better manage it where interactions will occur.
Velo-drone wrote:
I think it’s the case that having two working brakes is required for using a bike on the road, not just for selling a bike to be used on the road. So Yes, the bike was missing a legally required second brake.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike#:~:text=%E2%80%8BIt's%20an%20offence%20to,the%20front%20and%20rear%20wheel.
It is an offence to ride a bike on a public road with two efficient braking systems.
Whether a fixed rear wheel is an efficient braking system is another question. I am not entirely convinced it is having ridden a track bike on the track
wycombewheeler wrote:
You probably meant “without two efficient braking systems”.
A fixed rear wheel does generally count as a rear braking system and is arguably more effective than those crappy reverse-pedal brakes you get on European commuter bikes. I guess it takes some skill/practice to get good at though, but you’re more likely to get a cool skid/slide out of one.
My reading of the Cycling UK
My reading of the Cycling UK article and linked Regulations is that a fixed rear wheel is explicitly counted as a braking system (or, pedantically, if one of the wheels cannot rotate independently of the pedals, only one braking system is required. Not strictly the same meaning, but close enough).
I believe the issue was that
I believe the issue was that he didn’t have a front brake [1] plus he didn’t take any effort to even look like a careful rider. I think a fixed rear does count as a braking system, but probably doesn’t “look good” to the less informed. Plus it requires more skill to use effectively, and rear braking is definitely not as effective as front braking on a bike.
I think he compounded this with his comments. Some of those were approving of a culture of not having any brakes other than using the fixed wheel (also IIRC there was talk of even removing brakes from bikes which had them?)
If so that might have spoken to the “deliberately chose to be dangerous” and the judge made reference to this (eg. even if he didn’t know the law he understood – and sought – the more “dangerous” bike design).
The police may have muddied the waters with their “tests”. It does seem possible that a driver with an illegal machine who was nevertheless driving within the speed limit might not have been so convicted or even appeared in court.
As others have said “apples and oranges” – though the chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum suggested a few in an article after the case (the comments there have a lot of people who weren’t with him, at all…). The one I recall offhand was the driver who lost control of his car on black ice and collided with a group of cyclists, killing four. It was later found his tyres were illegally worn, but because it was determined that this didn’t make any difference because the purpose of the tyre pattern is to displace water and that wouldn’t have helped. On the other hand he’d not maintained his car and chose to drive in potentially dangerous conditions.
[1] is possibly worth quoting almost in full:
Front brakes are important on bicycles. […]
Studies in David Wilson’s seminal work Bicycling Science demonstrate that a deceleration of 0.5g is the maximum that a seated rider can risk before he goes over the handlebars. Unlike a car driver, a cyclist cannot safely achieve the limit of adhesion of the tyre to the road, which in the dry is typically about 0.8g. Braking with the rear wheel alone can achieve only 0.256g before the rear wheel locks up and skids. […]
Expert evidence from the police for the prosecution was that Alliston had been going at 18mph (8 m/s) and that his braking distance was 12 metres. From experiments on other bicycles, including a police mountain bike, it was alleged that with a front brake he would have been able to stop in 3 metres. In cross-examination, it was suggested to him that with a “butcher’s bike” with good brakes, he could have avoided the collision.
[…] The 3 metre braking distance is frankly absurd. Newtonian physics using Wilson’s calculated 0.5g yields 6.5 metres with the front brake and 13 metres without it. The difference is a factor or two, not four.
Given that the prosecution case was that Alliston was 6.53 metres away when Briggs stepped out, this difference is crucial. The Highway Code gives a typical stopping distance of 12 metres for a car driving at 20mph, suggesting that if Briggs had stepped into the path of a “slow” moving car, the driver would not have been able to avoid her.— Martin Porter
This is what Pirelli say
This is what Pirelli say about tread patterns and ice.
“The deeper the tread depth on your tyres, the better the performance on ice compared to a more worn tyres, especially if its compound and tread pattern are optimised for winter driving.”
and by performance, they mean performance of the tyre, ie its grip in those conditions, but I guess no one bothered to ask them.
wycombewheeler wrote:
A fixed wheel counts as an efficient brake in law and may be more effective than a rim or disk brake as a skilled rider can control the braking force to avoid locking the wheel (almost like anti-lock brakes) in adverse conditions. Track bikes used on an actual velodrome generally come with higher gearing than fixies used on the road which makes the braking less powerful.
lonpfrb wrote:
If humans were rational (quantitative) there are lots of problems we would have avoided!
It’s very clear that the
It’s very clear that the Crown Prosecution Service, Courts and Sentencing Council are responsible for the ease with which a motor vehicle may be used to kill people with little accountability in practice for that driver.
That’s where the problem is and needs urgent action. 100 years of big auto and big oil propaganda has caused this death and serious injury cost to be accepted.
Cycling must be made a Protected Characteristic to defeat that bias.
#VisionZero
lonpfrb wrote:
It seems to me that if that happened then in about thirty seconds flat “driving a petrol powered motor vehicle” would also become a protected characteristic “out of fairness” and thirty seconds after that, the first court cases would be going through saying that clean air zones and the congestion charge were a breach of said protected characteristic.
Be careful what you wish for.
I’m not worried about this.
I’m not worried about this. Easy promise to make, but they’ll have much bigger fish to fry for years when they get in. Bet it doesn’t get a mention in their manifesto either.
I’m not so sure.
I’m not so sure.
If the Criminal Justice Bill is going to be taken up by the new govt, chances are the dangerous cycling stuff will be in there.
I think this legislation
I think this legislation makes little difference to anyone., that is providing they bring it in in line with motoring law. There are a number of reasons for this. Cyclists kill pedestrians very rarely. It is often is not the cyclist’s fault so again it will have no impact. To qualify as dangerous it will usually require you to be doing something that you know is significantly wrong . Such as riding without a full set of working brakes. Derestricting your electric bikes limiter or making it non pedal assist. So of the three deaths a year it is likely that considerably more than a decade will pass before anyone is convicted of this crime.
JLasTSR wrote:
Don’t bet on it. The dangerous driving law requires a standard of driving far below that expected of a reasonable driver. This is one of the reasons convictions are difficult – most people drive more than they walk and many take the “I am a reasonable driver” and “there but for the grace of…” approach to determining what falls far below the standard.
Given few people cycle, all will be pedestrians at some point, the same “there but for the” process will lead many juries tasked with deciding what falls well below the standard expected of a reasonable cyclist to give all benefit of any doubt to the pedestrian. I can see them blaming the cyclist for most situations.
Derestricting an electric
Derestricting an electric bike makes it a motorbike and could (and should) be prosecuted under death by dangerous driving rather than dangerous cycling law
JLasTSR wrote:
No, it will require doing something that the majority of the Jury think is wrong, like riding at excessive speed (20mph) having a hand of the handlebar (even if for signalling) not riding with fingers covering brake levers at all times. Looking behind (life saving shoulder check). Who can say what a jury or drivers who have been primed by the media to consider cyclists as reckless scofflaws who have been getting away with it for twoo long by the media will consider to be far below the level of a careful cyclist?
However, with the increase in
“However, with the increase in people cycling, there is a concomitant increase in risk’…… No there isn’t, there isn’t, there isn’t, there isn’t.
An increase in cycling brings a concomitant decrease in risk to all pedestrians and other cyclists.
I’m fed up of this fatuous bullshit. Even as they pretend to support cycling they fall for the worst type of anti-cyclist bias.
Increase in risk due to increase in cycling, my arse. This is just more of the new phenomenon of using the promise of laws to win votes, and that practice always supports culture wars and the worst kind of societal schadenfreude.
Agree. That Briggs bloke is
Agree. That Briggs bloke is on a revenge path. And the bloke who caused his wife’s death dod actually go to prison. Imagine if he hadn’t!!
LondonCalling wrote:
Quite, he says the law doesn’t work as it stands yet Alliston served a far more severe sentence, effectively on a technicality, than some drivers who have killed people whilst driving drunk.
What technicality is that?
What technicality is that?
I am sure you’re aware that “Wanton and furious driving” offence of which he was convicted is assessed by the manner of driving, and has nothing to do with the point about brakes that was fussed over incessantly in the press
Velo-drone wrote:
That is not the case, Alliston was charged under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, the offence being causing death by “wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect”. The “wilful neglect” aspect was heavily stressed by the prosecution and in the judge’s sentencing remarks and referred to the fact that he did not have a roadworthy machine under the law due to having no front brake. If he had a front brake it’s unlikely he would ever have seen the inside of a courtroom, as he was cycling below the speed limit through a green light when a pedestrian stepped in front of him, no “wanton or furious driving” was involved. “Wanton and furious” was stressed in the press as it sounds more fearsome, but it was the “wilful neglect” aspect that did for him.
So how many lives a year will
So how many lives a year will the new law save and how much money will it save the NHS and government? the number 0 comes to mind.
If anyone expected Labour to
If anyone expected Labour to act differently than the Tories on this legislation they should give their heads a good wobble.
Starmer is so concerned at not being seen to be anything but Tory-lite that anything the Tories do or say will be followed too.
Starmer is probably buying shares in oil based businesses as we speak.
Both Labour and the Tories need fucking off this time round.
If both Sunak and Starmer are
If both Sunak and Starmer are swayed by a widower hell bent on avenging his wife’s death, perhaps we could demonstrate the difference in numbers and bring a campaign to ensure all drivers who kill or seriously injure others are actually prosecuted. A campaign to ensure that police forces have a target to take positive action on x% of close pass reports, and remove the 2 week limit and 2 minute video requirement which is simply a police tactic to see if the ‘cyclist deserved the close pass’.
Won’t work because ….
Won’t work because ….
cyclists.
If anything this will
If anything this will backfire on the anti-cycling brigade. They’ve basically introduced presumed liability for any accident involving a cyclist and a pedestrian (even though it’s almost the opposite case when a car is involved), and consequently there’s no chance I’m going to use a shared pedestrian / cycle path after this, knowing that in an accident that’s not my fault the system is biased to try to send me to prison for more than a decade.
I think what you’ve described
I think what you’ve described might be not be a “backfire” but a beneficial side-effect in the eyes of the “anti-cycling brigade”. They seem to be generally unhappy with cyclists in pedestrian spaces. (And I’d largely agree although from a different perspective).
Getting more conspiratorial you might say that the idea of “get the cyclists on the roads” is also anti-cyclist. I think it’s clear to most who’ve considered it for a second or two that “push cyclists to only use the roads” would be consistent with “discourage cycling”. After all “you can use the road!” has seen cycling decline to a very niche form of transport over the years – because the vast majority of people won’t cycle in fast / high volume traffic.
It will also keep the negative attitudes of those in cars towards cyclists (“getting in our way!”).
I hope they remove the death
I hope they remove the death by inconsiderate cycling bit. While I abhor inconsiderate cycling, it is however holding cyclists to a considerably higher standard than other road users.
karlssberg wrote:
Much as I feel the proposed new laws are unnecessary fearmongering and pointless, there is already an offence of causing death by inconsiderate driving (Section 2B RTA 1988) with a maximum custodial sentence of five years, so we wouldn’t be held to a higher standard.
Will they be bringing a death
Will they be bringing a death by dangerous pedestrian law. We know Briggs stepped into the path of Aliston without checking for cyclists, and it could easily have been him injured or killed. So what punishment for a dangerous pedestrian.