"Dangerous cycling" law will be passed following election, Labour and Conservatives confirm

anotherflat wrote:

Was he sentenced more harshly than an equivalently negligent driver? Undoubtedly

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:

anotherflat wrote:

Was he sentenced more harshly than an equivalently negligent driver? Undoubtedly

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.

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 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).

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 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.

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:

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.

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 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 media comments that were the main reason for the outcome.

Hirsute wrote:

I thought it was his social media comments that were the main reason for the outcome.

The judge states that it was the manner of Alliston's riding more than anything

I was thinking more about the jury.

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.

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.

And he had used his bike before on the roads, so knew what the limitations were.

Velo-drone wrote:

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.

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#:~...'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:

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#:~...'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

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 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 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).

Judge Wendy Jospeh wrote:

 I am satisfied that 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 your way. [...] Having heard your evidence, I have no doubt that, even now, after all that has happened, you remain obstinately sure of yourself and your own abilities. I have no doubt you are wrong in this assessment. You were an accident waiting to happen. The victim could have been any pedestrian. [...] On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident.

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:

Martin Porter wrote:

The requirement for a front brake is set out in The Pedal Cycle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983. Regulation 7(1) provides that every bicycle must be equipped with at least one braking system. Alliston’s bicycle satisfied this test. However because his saddle was more than 635mm from the ground, Alliston was also required by Regulation 7(b) to have "a braking system operating on the front wheel". He had no such front wheel brake and could have been prosecuted for a breach of this regulation, a summary offence resulting in a fine.

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.

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:

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

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:

... proportion to the risk or danger, rather serving dog whistle politics...

If humans were rational (quantitative) there are lots of problems we would have avoided!

What a disgusting take on a tragic situation

Mad Franky wrote:

Husband of darwin award winner gets to make legislation in vain attempt to keep right-wing nutjob press onside.

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 a "Darwin Award winner" is ever not disrespectful or disgraceful.

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.

Mr Hoopdriver wrote:

Just when you  thought it was safe to vote Labour

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 table - life is depressing enough as it is

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 those who will not see.

bensynnock wrote:

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.

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 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.