The husband of pedestrian killed by a cyclist in London in 2016 has raised concerns that his efforts to campaign for changes to the law to introduce harsher penalties for people on bikes who kill or injure others are being thwarted because ministers are scared of what he terms the “cycling lobby.”
Speaking to Telegraph.co.uk, Matthew Briggs, whose wife Kim died after cyclist Charlie Alliston crashed into her on Old Street, also insisted that the change to the law he is calling for “is first and foremost a legal matter.”
Because of that, he maintained that it “should not actually concern” cycling campaigners – even though the reforms he is calling for what exclusively impact upon people who ride bikes.
Briggs launched his campaign after Alliston was sentenced at the Old Bailey in 2017 to 18 months’ detention in a young offenders’ institution after being found guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving. The jury cleared him of the more serious charge of manslaughter, however.
The offence of which Alliston, then 20, was convicted is a crime under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
> London fixed wheel cyclist Charlie Alliston sentenced to 18 months in young offenders institution
Briggs is calling for cyclists to be subject to similar laws to motorists, with causing death by careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving carrying maximum jail terms, respectively, of five and 14 years.
While the Department for Transport (DfT) did hold a consultation in 2018 into reforming the law, nothing has progressed in the three years since then, with Briggs blaming issues such as Brexit and the coronavirus for taking up parliamentary time, but above all the influence of what he terms the “cycling lobby” on the government.
> Government opens dangerous and careless cycling law consultation
He said: “My concern is that the cycling lobby is too close to the government and ministers are immensely fearful of this cycling lobby.
“I was told by one minister whom I won’t name, ‘Maybe we need to wait for another death like Kim Briggs’. He added, ‘No offence’.
“But we had another death when Peter McCombie was killed in East London in 2020 when he was hit by a cyclist. But still nothing changes.”
In July, the cyclist involved in that case, Ermir Loka, was jailed for two years – the maximum available – after he was convicted of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.
> Cyclist who killed London pedestrian jailed for two years
“We have waited for the legal report, the consultation, the Scottish Government, for Brexit and Covid,” Briggs continued. “All these things have passed, so what exactly am I still waiting for?
“I sincerely hope it is not because the process has been hobbled by the cycling lobby because this should not actually concern them,” he added. “It is first and foremost a legal matter.”
A spokesman for the DfT told Telegraph.co.uk: “Any death on our roads is a tragedy, and though we have some of the safest roads in the world, the government is committed to making them even safer.
“We have launched a review exploring the case for specific dangerous cycling offences, and will soon publish our response.
“In addition, the Prime Minister’s ambitious Cycling and Walking Plan will deliver more continuous and direct cycling routes in towns and cities, physically separated from pedestrians and motor traffic.”
When the DfT launched its consultation in 2018, Cycling UK pointed out that the government had not yet (and three years later has still not) delivered a full review of road safety first promised in 2014, and highlighted that almost in almost all road traffic collisions that result in the death of a pedestrian, a motorist rather than a cyclist is involved.
The charity’s head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore, said at the time: “In 2016, 448 pedestrians were killed on our roads, but only three of those cases involved bicycles. And in the last 10 years 99.4 per cent of all pedestrian deaths involved a motor vehicle.
“Whether someone is prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving is often something of a lottery, as are the resulting sentences, leaving thousands of victims and their relatives feeling massively let down by the justice system’s failure to reflect the seriousness of bad driving,” he continued.
“Adding one or two new offences specific to cyclists would be merely tinkering around the edges.
“If the government is serious about addressing behaviour that puts others at risk on our roads, they should grasp the opportunity to do the job properly, rather than attempt to patch up an area of legislation that’s simply not working,” Dollimore added.




-1024x680.jpg)


















87 thoughts on “Husband of pedestrian killed by cyclist claims ministers are scared of “cycling lobby””
I can see his point, it
I can see his point, it really doesn’t make much sense to have a completely separate offence for cyclists, especially one so archaic.
However, had his Wife been killed by a motorist rather than a cyclist it’s quite unlikely the perpetrator would have got a harsher sentence.
Rich_cb wrote:
The times when a new cycling specific law would be of use are rare – it is telling that most people on this website would immediately recognise the names Briggs and Alliston. Additionally, there does not seem to be any loophole that cyclists are using to escape punishment which is a stark contrast to companies not revealing driver information and drivers getting vastly reduced sentences with excuses such as “dazzled by the sun”, “didn’t see them” etc.
I think Briggs should instead campaign for pedestrians to wear helmets as his wife may just have survived if her head was protected.
I’m not saying there are a
I’m not saying there are a huge number of such cases but given how easy it would be to sort out it seems like something that should just be done.
I do agree that we need a general overhaul of road offences and sentencing.
Some sort of review perhaps, I’m sure Burt has mentioned something about this once or twice…
I’m not against a cycling
I’m not against a cycling specific law per se, but from what I can tell, cyclists already get a rough deal from the MSM, so I think the net effect of such a new law would be detrimental to road safety. A better option would be introducing strict liability which would benefit pedestrians struck by cyclists and also cyclists struck by drivers which is a far more common occurrence (though I know you’re not a fan of strict liability and it wouldn’t affect criminal cases anyhow). Basically, the reason that there is no cycling specific law is that it’s not a good use of politicians’ time and it would just pander to the anti-cycling factions.
Rich_cb wrote:
she walked out into a busy road without looking. It wouldn’t have made it to court (regardless of whether it should or not) And it would have got zero lines of comment in the news – just like the 100’s of unnoticed pedestrian deaths by motorists every year.
if he was fighting for pedestrian rights in general I’d support him as would many others. His grief has led him to hate a group who are not the biggest problem.
apparently 6 cyclists are killed by at fault pedestrians walking out in front of them every year according to an article on here a few years back (so double the number of peds killed by cyclists). There is zero punishment available for that btw.
“His grief has led him to
“His grief has led him to hate a group who are not the biggest problem. ”
This is the – somewhat unfortunate – crux of the matter.
Completely agree Rich, and
Completely agree Rich, and nice to see someone addressing the central point of the article rather than throwing insults at someone who lost his wife to a reckless cyclist.
No point in saying “what about cars?”, laws around reckless cycling needs to be tightened up. We’re going to see a tsunami of similar cases against escooterists coming soon, and it would be useful to differentiate cycling as a law-abiding activity ahead of this.
Nigel Garage wrote:
why do they need to be tightened up, when its clear to all that the chance of conviction is higher? the sentancing is longer, with the additional possibility of a manslaughter change, which far exceeds what drivers are ever charged with.
Because the laws of cycling
Because the laws of cycling are based on archaic laws from a bygone age. By “tightened up” I don’t mean “made more strict”, I mean “made more legally rigorous for today’s travel reality”.
Nigel Garage wrote:
No one ever complains that the laws on GBH need bringing up to date … and they are part of the exact same offences against the person act as the wanton and furious cycling laws are.
That said … by all means get rid of that and bring in a careless/dangerous cycling law, with the same access to get-outs as drivers have, and penalties handed out in the same way.
I honestly fail to see how the 1861 act can be considered less legally rigourous than those acts given its record of successful convictions and prison sentences handed out to cyclists when compared to the modern equivalents applied to drivers who kill both pedestrians and cyclists.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
And I expect that is a major point in any new law. What is classed as careless and dangerous cycling going forward. Is 18 mph on a road careless or dangerous? Yes, a pavement/ shared space it is too fast, but a road? The recent death caused by the cyclist going through the red light is obviously dangerous and most cars would have been done for that. But as others have mentioned, if Aliston had a fully legally specced bike, would he have even been even arrested and charged? If a car was driven at 18 mph and collided with her, would it even have been a court case?
I’m sure Boo will pop up shortly with his list including riding in groups or on a TT bike but I would like to know if I’m cycling carelessly or dangerously by averaging 18mph on my 8 mile commute along road spaces only whilst abiding to all the road signs and traffic lights and Highway code recommendations. Or will that only be seen as that if a Pedestrian walked out on me.
Nigel Garage wrote:
I’m all for that…. provided that cyclists can then have the same excuses as drivers accepted in their defense.
All of the above have been successfully used by drivers to avoid prison sentences in relation to pedestrian/cyclist fatalities, or to avoid bans for repeated offences.
How about the laws utilised against drivers who kill are also made more legally rigorous for todays travel reality?
I just found it funny him
I just found it funny him agreeing with Rich and stating “no point in saying “What about Cars”” when Rich used the “what about cars” in his opening point.
It is hard not to have some
It is hard not to have some sympathy for the guy. His wife was killed by someone who was subsequently a total d*ck about it.
But the chances are that were it a motorist, they would v likely have got a lighter sentence, despite their knowing they were in charge of a vehicle that had massively greater capacity to kill.
There is a worry to my mind that a vote-scrabbling, culture war obsessed govt would actually bring in laws that would tip the balance even further to bring even greater penalties to bear on the miniscule minority of cyclists who actually cause deaths or serious injuries, while the march towards ever broader excuses and lighter penalties for motorists who kill continues ever onward.
Velo-drone wrote:
He was cleared of manslaughter, so it’s not accurate to say that Alliston killed Kim Briggs.
hawkinspeter wrote:
He was cleared of manslaughter, so it’s not accurate to say that Alliston killed Kim Briggs.— Velo-drone
no, it’s fair as he was convicted of causing boldily harm (fatal head injury) by wonton and furious cycling. But even if aqquited of that too, I would say it would still be fair to say he had killed her, because by his actions she is now dead.
In the same way killer driver Helen Measures killed Denisa Perinova, despite convincing a jury of drivers that it was reasoanble to be overtaking on the wrong side of the road going round a blind bend, and then expecting peole coming the other weay not to be in her line of travel.
wycombewheeler wrote:
It might be fair to say that, but not accurate given the court verdict. Manslaughter was the charge for causing death (i.e. killing) and I’d guess (not being involved with the case or having a clue about law) that not guilty was returned due to the low expectation that cycling into a pedestrian would cause such a horrible injury. Alternatively there could be medical complications that would throw doubt on whether the collision directly caused her death a week later, though I’d agree that it certainly seems likely.
With killer Helen Measures, it’s much clearer that the collision was the direct cause of death; the manner of her driving was certainly more reckless than Alliston’s cycling and it beggars belief that the jury returned their verdict in the Measures case. I wonder what would have happened if Measures was charged with manslaughter instead of the driving offense.
Velo-drone wrote:
Was he though, really? From what I read he was pretty dickish on social media in the immediate aftermath when, a) he did not know the severity of injuries suffered by Mrs Briggs, and b) he felt very much like the wronged person.
On that second point, before we all get the pitchforks out again, if a pedestrian stepped out infront of you causing you to have an accident, would you naturally be all flowers and roses about it?
One thing that struck me about the case at the time, is that whilst Mr Briggs is happy to lobby for tougher rules for cyclists, there are seemingly no thoughts on the perceived leading factor in this case, namely the unroadworthiness of Alliston’s bike.
Whilst as cyclists we’ll know that bikes legally need two brakes, how many of the common man / woman are aware of this and the potential repercussions? In my mind, if there are lives to be saved, this is where the difference is more likely to be made.
I’m pretty sure Mr. Briggs
I’m pretty sure Mr. Briggs did go after anyone using / selling bikes without the legal brakes.
Again for anyone interested I’d highly recommend the following two articles (and the replies to some of the “whatabout” comments):
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/25/the-alliston-case-after-the-verdict/
Particularly the number of people who are certain that equal – if not more stringent – standards are applied to motorists.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
At the time of the case, I had no idea what the actual legal requirements were (but since I have never ridden a bike that didn’t have cable operated front and rear brakes, my ignorance is not really an issue), so did some homework, including a trawl through eBay, where I found quite a few of those track bikes for sale.
All were looking cheap as chips and not a single one gave a warning that they were not actually road legal in the UK, even though they were all UK sellers.
I would be very much in favour of sites like that requiring sellers to include such legal restrictions or have their listings removed.
I disagree as the onus is on
I disagree as the onus is on the end-user/cyclist to conform with laws. Those bikes are fine to ride on private land (e.g. velodromes) so they’re not illegal in themselves. It’s the same with private electric scooters although they have a more limited use case. I don’t see why sellers should be responsible for ensuring that buyers know about relevant law – car sellers almost never go into details about road speed limits and correct fog light usage.
Also, I’d guess that a careful rider of a track bike would be very unlikely to ever get caught riding on the roads as police are unlikely to be looking out for them (e-scooters are an easier, more visible target).
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Like shops or sites selling e-scooters…
But they are worse as they
But they are worse as they actively promote them as getting from A to B with shots of public routes to work.
I wonder if he himself would
I wonder if he himself would have found what happened less difficult to deal with, had it been a car?
This would be the same Mr
This would be the same Mr Briggs who blocked anyone who enquired about his feelings on “crossing a busy road looking at your phone and not looking up at traffic” being a valid reason for someone failing to avoid a collision with the pedestrian.
Alliston was promarily convicted not for the collision, but for the fact that his fixie lacked a front brake, meaning it was not street legal, and his attitude in the aftermath, and by shouting and aparently not doing enough to attempt to avoid a collision, rather than the actual collision. A police officer during the investigation did a test and stated that even with 2 good brakes, it was unlikely he would be able to stop.
and by shouting and aparently
and by shouting and aparently not doing enough to attempt to avoid a collision, rather than the actual collision. A police officer during the investigation did a test and stated that even with 2 good brakes, it was unlikely he would be able to stop.
Didn’t his shout make the situation worse, ie he went for the gap she was leaving and the shout made her step back? Still, his lack of braking effectiveness was the big issue as if he had slowed more, any collision forces would have been lessened. Her head might not have hit the kerb so hard for example or she might have been able to brace her landing.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Did they? I thought there was a stitch up where officers with a bike with disc brakes rode with hands on brakes awaiting an expected stop signal, to measure the stopping distance.
I was quoting someone else at
I was quoting someone else at the start. (badly). Should have just left it at the first line.
It is interesting to compare
It is interesting to compare with the recent case in Ireland where a similar observation was made about the liklihood of compliance with the law making any difference to the outcome. In that case Judge Nolan accepted in mitigation that it was “probably unlikely” that the collision would have been avoided had there been a licensed driver in the vehicle.
StuInNorway wrote:
Had he been driving a car at the time it seems likely he would have got away scott-free.
StuInNorway wrote:
The police reconstruction was a farce, using a completely different bike with completely different brakes and a rider primed for the pedestrian to step out and ready to stop, and any conclusions drawn from it are in no sense valid.
Not only that. The evidence
Not only that. The evidence was that the bike had less distance to the pedestrian when she stepped out than the highway code “thinking distance”. ie. it would have made no difference what brakes were fitted.
I did not hear in anything I read how this was explained by the prosecution.
I think Aliston was convicted more by his attitude (no-one has the ‘right of way’ to run someone over) and his poor defence, rather than the facts.
Insulate Britain (again)
Insulate Britain (again)
Any news on a prosecution for THAT incident?
David9694 wrote:
Please stop mentioning them, it confuses me every time I read that and have to work out whether it’s the reviled Isolate Britain movement bringing this country to its knees to make an ideological point or the widely popular Insulate Britain movement helping us take back control of our boilers (which will now be rated in proper British Thermal Units!)
StuInNorway wrote:
seems like a valid response to that sort of trolling of a man in grief. Even if he was persistantly hounded with “why do you want punishments for cyclists to be brought more in line with the leniency shown to drivers” it would be questionable.
I for one would like to live
I for one would like to live in his fantasy universe where ministers are so scared of the “cycling lobby” so they do our bidding.
I presume he’s going after his wife’s mobile phone provider and her Telco with equal vim?
She was found to have a phone
She was found to have a phone in her hand, but there was no evidence that she was using it at the time.
He’d have better off keeping quiet on social media or saying the sun was in his eyes which if you drive at 44 in a 30 and kill someone is a get out clause.
He seriously thinks that the
He seriously thinks that the govt is cowed by the evil *cycling* lobby? Well, that’s his credibility down the drain, isn’t it?
While I sympathise with his
While I sympathise with his situation it certainly seems like he’s out for vengeance. Plus, the careless driving defence is inadequate for use against motorists and should be abolished – so trying to apply it to cyclists is a bit odd anyway – since it’s routinely used to avoid the worse “dangerous driving” charge.
Death by Careless driving
Death by Careless driving should be removed completely from the statute books.
It’s impossible to cause a death by driving safely; this is proved pretty much every second of every day.
Death by Dangerous should be opened up to include all types of users of the infrastructure.
As we’ve seen, pedestrians are more likely to kill cyclists through their behaviour, so they should be charged under the same Laws as any other road user.
Tariffs could be in line with the licensing and skills needed to operate that form of transportation, say:
2 – 5 years for pedestrians, unpowered scooters and skateboards
5 – 10 years for cyclists, unmodified ebike, escooter, eskateboard, moped and L plated motorbikes provided that they are with the required restricted period
10 – 15 years for non-commercial car drivers, motorbiker, modified e-bikes, escooter or skateboard, mopeds being ridden on full driving license
15 – 20 years for all commercial vehicle drivers, including taxi, minicabs, Uber, LGV, PSV, company cars, car-derived vans and vans
20 – 25 years for anyone who is operating a vehicle that they are not licensed to operate.
Maybe even make jury’s up of the defendant transport peer-group; that way they really are getting judged by their peers, and make judgements to be on majority decision and not unanimous.
All road users have a duty of care to all other road users and enforcement should be done with parity.
Mr Briggs might reflect that
Mr Briggs might reflect that between 4-500 peds are killed each year by motorists (not to mention the 100 or more cyclists killed in the same way) and the perpetrators rarely prosecuted let alone imprisoned.
Indeed Mr Alliston was pursued (and treated by the courts) far more vigorously without this legislation than he ever would have been if driving a car when tragedy struck.
I’d be interested as to his theory as to why the all-powerful “cycle lobby” allow this state of affairs to go unaddressed…
Captain Badger wrote:
This is not to say that I’m unsympathetic to his loss. However I am becoming less and less sympathetic to his “campaigning”, which increasingly looks to have FA to do with road safety, and more like an axe that needs grinding against a group of people who can be distinguished only by their election to adopt the mode of transport that presents the second-lowest risk to the general public.
I wonder what the average
I wonder what the average prison sentence is for a motorist convicted of death by careless driving or dangerous driving, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s less than 18 months.
If his wife had been hit by a motorist in the same circumstances they would’ve got a suspended sentence.
Actually had the poor woman
Actually had the poor woman been hit by a motorist travelling at 18mph into the path of whom she stepped when the motorist was going through a green light and obeying the speed limit, no charges would ever have been brought.
Rendel Harris wrote:
i was going to suggest the driver would be aquited, but you are probably right.
After all here we have a case https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/aug/08/nottingham-police-cyclist-video where use of the horn proves the driver coming from behind was well aware of the cyclist, but instedd of taking any action to slow or avoid the cyclist, they just drove into him. If the brake had been applied for as long as the horn there would have been no impact. Whereas CA was pilloried for shouting instead of stopping, even though shouting is instant and instinctive and applying brakes requires a decision and may require moving hands which takes time and distance.
Perhaps this is the standard he wants cyclists held to, but somehow I doubt it.
They also gave an audible
They also gave an audible warning and the pedestrian having crossed in front of them stepped back into their path.
I agree the CPS wouldn’t have brought charges against a motorist as they wouldn’t have a reasonable expectation of getting a conviction.
tarquin_foxglove wrote:
the stepping back into his path bit is key to this and something that was only really covered in the judges summing up which can be found online. The reason she step back into his path was there were two car approaching her in the opposite lane. So not only had she failed to notice the cyclists as she ran into the road(not totally unreasonable) but she hadn’t appreciated the two cars either.
The judge went on to suggest that cyclists should have been aware of this and that and nothing other than a total emergency stop was expected of a carefully and competent cyclist. So in the less that 4 second between her stepping off the curb, into park bay (with a large van down stream of the cyclist. So he would have seen her until she was right in the lane) he need to work all this out and do it. Total BS, it’s also a dangerous precedent to say that a cycling and a pedestrian can’t safely be in a lane of traffic, it isn’t ideal obviously but it isn’t inherently unsafe either.
but yeah if had a front brake, even if he had used it, it would never have gone to court
For all moaning about there
For all his moaning about there being nothing to charge cyclists with he should be careful what he wishes for. There is currently a 100% conviction rate for cyclists charged with wanton and furious driving and until last year it had a 100% custodial sentence rate too. Even cases where the cyclist has admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity, we all know how many motorists walk free in those circumstances.
we can only dream those kind of rates for people killed by motorists.
The existance of a cycling
The existance of a cycling lobby at the heart of government which sets ministers quivering is clearly the stuff of paranoia. Thankfully I’ve not lost any family members to crashes so I’ve not been put to the test of seeing if my grief and anger would overwhelm my rational side. Particularly having to contest things in court and then coming out with a sentence which seems no compensation at all for a life lost.
However – those of us not in the throes of grief can see that sadly this is if anything a rather stiff sentence for being instrumental in the death of another on the road. (As has been pointed out – plenty of examples of no penalty at all doled out for leaving someone dead in the wake of your vehicle). He also cites two deaths – in 3 years – where cyclists were involved. There may well be others (too lazy to check) but I think that’s a fair representation of the scale of the problem.
He could have simply taken aim at hipsters, or fixie-riders.
Anyway I’m sure the government’s long-awaited review will sort out any knotty tangles in the law…
chrisonatrike wrote:
And we all thought the velominati were just a joke
I really don’t kn ow what this guy wants, Charlie alliston was charged with manslaughter FFS, whereas no matter how extreme the offences commited by drivers are, the most they are charged with is death by dangerous driving.
He was convicted of causing bodily harm by wanton cycling and sentanced to 18 months, how many drivers convicted of death by careless driving recieve an 18 month sentance or greater?
I just don’t see how cyclists are getting away with anything here, and of course, over 400 cyclists will have been killed by motorists in between Kim Briggs and Peter North, and yet the review into road safety promised by the government in 2014 has still not happened, meanwhile the review into dangerous cycling that Mr Briggs managed to get fast tracked was concluded already.
Too right nothing changes, everyone is still blind to the dnagers of motor vehicles.
I support those who have
I support those who have already pointed out that the usual punishment around the British Isles for a motorist who kills a cyclist is a suspended sentence and a collection of spurious mitigating factors. If the courts were fair we could be comforted by laws treating a motorist killing a cyclist in the same way as a motorist killing a pedestrian or a cyclist killing a pedestrian. However, we all know that the juries largely consist of motorists who haven’t cycled in decades who will forgive drivers almost any offence.
I suspect the main concern is
I suspect the main concern is that they couldn’t change it without reviewing road laws in general. Something they promised would happen in 2012 iirc!
I don’t have much objection to this change (well other than the general objection that the charges should be manslaughter or murder – just because you were negligent with a vehicle instead of something else shouldn’t change that).
The major issue is the assumption that it will result in greater punishments. Sentencing already says the vehicle should be considered (so bad driving in HGV’s are punished more than in cars due to hazard presented) So judges would have a hard time sentencing to jail at all given historical sentences for motorists unless we drastically change (and increase) sentences in general. Hopefully in the long run this being changed would force driver sentencing to be increased because a good chunk of the public won’t stand for at fault killer cyclists not being jailed…
This guy is out for revenge.
This guy is out for revenge. He needs to get grief counselling and to stop wasting the courts time.
If Charlie Aliston had been driving a car instead of riding a bike, he wouldn’t even had gone to court. There would have been no case taken to the CPS.
LondonCalling wrote:
I’m not sure he seeks revenge so much as a sense of “If this can prevent one death, at least she did not die in vain”. I think we see that sentiment quite often after a tragic death, the bereaved throw themselves into some cause they believe will prevent the same happening again in a bid to make sense of their loss on an “if this can save one life” basis that ignores all other logic. I think a mother in NZ got helmet laws introduced on the same basis.
Sriracha wrote:
Should definitely be campaigning for pedestrian helmets, then.
In the last 10 years, within
In the last 10 years, within a mile of where I live in a small Hertfordshire town, 4 pedestrians have died after collision involving motor vehicles including a 5 year old girl killed by a drunk and a man killed by the driver of a fire engine. As far as I am aware no injury caused by cyclist of any sort has been reported in the local press. Whilst I have every sympathy with Mr Briggs for the loss of his wife in extraordinarily unfortunate circumstances, the fact that Charlie Alliston was held accountable and sent to prison does prove that the justice system can deal with such circumstances and even a cursory review of the weekly toll of injury and death on local roads reported in the local papers would indicate where road safety legislation should be focussed.
We should have some sympathy
We should have some sympathy for Mr Briggs; his wife is dead, killed by a cyclist.
However, that does not excuse his unwarranted attack on all cyclists, and his seeking to have draconian laws to persecute cyclists when much worse offenders who kill many more people go unpunished. He is a man who cannot move beyond his perception that all cyclists must suffer for the mistakes of one, someone who is obsessed with vengeance on the class of people that person belonged to. Except he didn’t.
Charlie Alliston no more defined cyclists than the average, crass, law-breaking driver defines all drivers, and Mr Briggs is to be pitied rather than scorned. He should seek treatment for his obsession and some sort of therapy to regain his hold on reality, not his distorted vision of it.
eburtthebike wrote:
Indeed, I agree with all of your sentiments there eburtthebike.
Most of us here do have sympathy for him because he lost his wife as a result of the actions of a careless cyclist, however, attacking all cyclists for the misdeeds of a few is poor at best.
I have no issues with a comprehensive review of penalties in place for all road users, but singling out cyclists as being the big bad is wrong.
I am just wondering if he has the same level of concerns about the motorists lobby having influence on the penalites which can be levied against motorists, as opposed to the big scary cyclist lobby. It smacks of a conspiracy theorists logic tbh
Perhaps, for some balance, he
Perhaps, for some balance, he should read this
The Charlie Alliston case: the real story | Road Danger Reduction Forum (rdrf.org.uk)
spen wrote:
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/
That’s a really good article
That’s a really good article and very balanced.
spen wrote:
Great recommendation, thanks
The comments below the line
The comments below the line on that post are quite interesting, too. RDRF actually took the time to reply constructively to people out to troll them.
If there is a secret cycling
If there is a secret cycling lobby which has put the fear of hell into government, why is British cycling infrastructure so rubbish? And why do all those pop-up cycle lanes seem to get ripped out rather than made permanent?
I’m confused. Does he want
I’m confused. Does he want cyclists properly punished or treated like motorists…
Says it all in one sentence..
Says it all in one sentence…
The guy sounds entirely
The guy sounds entirely reasonable.
Now, let’s see the Road.cc comments – should be fun!
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Entirely reasonable would be calling for a comprehensive review of penalties for all road users not just for cyclists.
I assume you edited this post
I assume you edited this post for it to appear around 1015
There were around 50 posts already so what is your point?
So which bits of the comments
So which bits of the comments don’t you agree with?
That if Charlie was driving and she walked out in front of him, he would have got away with not even a slap of the wrist but that it is “one of those things”?
That he wasn’t brought to justice because the current laws couldn’t do that? Bearing in mind that drivers actually done for dangerous driving don’t have 18 months and sometimes get away with suspended sentences.
She was jaywalking, so not on
She was jaywalking, so not on a crossing, and not looking where whe was going. And there were reports she was or had just been distracted by her smart phone. Sounds like Mr Briggs needs to move on. No accident is 100% attributable to one person or circumstance. It is always more complicated than that. He should put his energy elsewhere, like on the distracted and substance impaired drivers causing 99% of the road deaths…
No such thing as jaywalking
No such thing as jaywalking in the UK.
Phone claims are hearsay.
He was foolish to use such a bike in London and his actions after and social media comments went against him. I have no doubt he was hung out to dry and made an example of but he shouldn’t have used that bike and should have made more effort to stop.
As others note, in a car he would have faced little or any action.
joe9090 wrote:
There is no such thing as jaywalking in the UK (thankfully) and it’s up to Mr. Briggs where he spends his campaigning effort. I certainly have no objection to him campaigning about front brakes on bicycles (given that it is the law for most of them).
I do wonder – aside from this being a very rare and therefore notable occurrence – why this particular campaign has been given such prominence. (Compare here – for 2016 – deaths and injuries involving cycles and without).
joe9090 wrote:
Nope, she was in Britain. Jaywalking isn’t a thing here. And even in the States it carries a fine, it’s not a capital crime.
I note jaywalking is not a
I note jaywalking is not a crime, thank you repliers. That was not my point. The victim (like many peds in London) likely crossed a road without looking and not fully on a crosswalk.
Maybe it should be a low level misdemeanour punishable with a fine… maybe we should not have major thororoughfares cloogged up with dangerous motor vehicle traffic making it had for other road users to cross roads. Its all maybe’s…
Speculation – how does that
Speculation – how does that help anything?
Crosswalk – this is the UK – You can cross anywhere you like in the UK.
Insulate Britain?
Insulate Britain?
David9694 wrote:
Yes please! Can you do next Thursday?
Captain Badger wrote:
Maybe this chap could help? Although I heard since switching to a bike to move stuff he was no longer lagging as much.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Load a nonsense. How’s he supposed to carry a boiler or plumber tools… oh
joe9090 wrote:
I personally think the introduction of jaywalking laws in the UK – as in, “don’t cross except on a clearly marked ‘crosswalk’ (which we also don’t have in the UK)” would be a terrible idea.
Unfortunately, the matter of Mrs Briggs looking or not looking wasn’t the issue. There’s case law (since the Alliston/Briggs case) where someone who had definitely not been looking was awarded damages because it was deemed that the oncoming cyclist should have taken better (or some) evasive action.
The default position in the UK, except on motorways, is that you do your very best not to drive/run/cycle into someone else, even if they’re not looking and even if you think that they’re crossing in a stupid place.
Jaywalking laws were only introduced in the US to get all those stupid pedestrians out of the way of the clearly far more important motor cars. ‘Pedestrian safety’ was just the beard for the whole exercise.
The case you mentioned was a
The case you mentioned was a civil one because the lady in question had a small scar which meant she lost some earnings or something. The civil judge decided the fault was 50-50 but because the cyclist didn’t have representation and so didn’t counter-sue before the case, he lost out as he wasn’t claiming (rightful) damages to himself.
joe9090 wrote:
No, safety has to be the duty of those with teh ability to cause harm. A driver who will hit an adult and hurt them, is equally likely to hit a kid and kill them.
Fining adults for stepping into the road won’t prevent drivers from killing kids, rather encourage a “my right off way” mentality that if anything makes it more likely.
Captain Badger wrote:
Very much agree. I believe there’s a good case for a law that, as I understand it, pertains in some jurisdictions in Canada, whereby if a pedestrian holds their hand out to indicate they wish to cross anywhere on a residential/low speed road all traffic (including cyclists) is legally obliged to stop if safe to do so and let them across.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Excellent policy
KILLER DRIVER WALKS FREE. –
KILLER DRIVER WALKS FREE. – every week, somewhere – that’s what you need to work on
given that jail sentence, what more do you want from cyclists?
Given that Mr Alliston served
Given that Mr Alliston served a custodial sentence under existing law which is more than many motorists would receive for knocking down a pedestrian with their car I don’t see why why we need any new laws at all