A London cyclist has been cleared of the manslaughter of pedestrian Kim Briggs, who died from injuries sustained when the pair collided as she crossed Old Street in February last year.
However, a jury at the Old Bailey found Charlie Alliston guilty of a separate charge of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.
The maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment, and the judge presiding over the case has warned him that “He shouldn’t be under any illusion” that she is considering a custodial term when he is sentenced next month.
The 20-year-old from Bermondsey had pleaded not guilty to both charges at the start of his trial last week.
Much of the prosecution’s case had been built around the fact that Alliston has been riding a fixed-gear bike at the time of the collision that led to the death of Mrs Briggs, a 44-year-old HR consultant and mother-of-two.
Alliston admitted during the trial that the bike, which he had bought second-hand the previous month, had not been fitted with a front brake to make it legal for use on the road and claimed he was unaware that it was required by law.
The jury began its deliberations on Monday afternoon, and were today directed by Judge Wendy Joseph QC that a majority verdict would be acceptable.
She said: “The time has now come when I can accept a verdict which is not the verdict of you all. I can accept a verdict on which all 12 are agreed, on which 11 are agreed or 10 of you are agreed, but nothing less will do.”
In a statement released via Twitter after the verdicts were announced, Cycling UK said: “Riding a fixed wheel bike on busy roads without a front brake is illegal, stupid, and endangers other road users, especially pedestrians.”
However, the charity called for the government to complete its review, announced three years ago, of road traffic offences and penalties to ensure they are brought up to date and that there is consistency in the way the legal system deals with dangerous behaviour on the roads.
Verdict in for Charlie #Alliston case – guilty of “wanton and furious driving” but cleared of manslaughter. Cycling UK’s reaction below. pic.twitter.com/kTIATyp2ST
— Cycling UK (@WeAreCyclingUK) August 23, 2017
Detective Inspector Julie Trodden, of the Metropolitan Police’s Roads and Transport Policing Command, commented: “This is a sad case where a bicycle that was illegal for road use has been used on London’s streets. The lack of a front brake resulted in Alliston’s inability to stop and avoid the collision resulting in the tragic death of Kim Briggs.
“This investigation has highlighted the necessity for all cyclists to have the required brakes on their bikes, whether they be a fixed wheel or free wheeling hub cycle,” she added.
“It should act as a reminder to all road users that they have a responsibility to look out for each other and to travel safely at all times.”

























122 thoughts on “London fixed-gear cyclist Charlie Alliston cleared of manslaughter of pedestrian Kim Briggs”
justice!!
justice!!
cant wait to see an equal media furore over the multiple daily road deaths caused by Highway Code and law breaking motorists!
Sounds about right.
Sounds about right.
Hopefully he will demonstrate sufficient learning and contrition that the judge will spare him jail time.
All this proves is the utter
All this proves is the utter inadequacy of the law with regard to vulnerable road users. A manslaughter conviction would have been disproportionate but politically could have been a milestone. Namely, kill someone whilst operating an unsafe/illegal vehicle and do time for manslaughter. Perversely vulnerable road users could have ended up benefitting from such a judgement and precedent (and yes, I know precedent doesn’t apply to criminal cases). All those dicks driving around without tax/insurance/MOT or on drink/drugs would have been at risk of a much more serious charge.
kil0ran wrote:
I do agree with you, but as I basically pointed out why has it taken a cyclist to be the bad guy before any attention has been thrown on this? Message boards all over the web are full of hate and death threats towards cyclists because of this, yet pretty much 100% of them were almost certainly posted by people who happily break the law as regards to speeding and who pick and choose which highway code rules they obey. Something like 28 pedestrians a year are killed by cars illegally on the pavement alone…or 14 or 28 times the number killed a year by cyclists on average everywhere (I think 300-400 of peds are killed yearly in total). This idiot deserves punishment, but so do thousands of drivers every year – currently a huge proportion get away with it.
StoopidUserName wrote:
Yeah, but, y’know, that’s different because, erm: cars!
Clearly riding a fixie
Clearly riding a fixie without a front brake in a busy city is stupid and dangerous, and if it results in harm, you should be punished appropriately. I think that is something that we can all agree on.
The worry I have reading all the coverage of this is the prominence given to this story, and the reporting within the story. It is the second item on the BBC news homepage at present. This would never have happened if he was driving a car with faulty brakes and killed a pedestrian. There is a ‘man bites dog’ element to it. But it is galling that in the UK, for every pedestrian death involving a cyclist, there are somethign like 4,000 involving cars. Additionally, much is made that this is a track bike, and the strong implication is that it is inherently inappropriate and dangerous to take on the roads, as if it were a formula 1 car. This is irresponsible reporting. Track bikes, so long as they have a front brake and either a rear brake or fixed gear, are perfectly legal for riding in a city.
I look forwards to further headlines about ‘lycra louts’, calls for cyclists to be banned from existence, and sundry fumings from newspaper columnists, whilst ignoring the real road killers.
the little onion wrote:
Agreed re coverage, which is similar to that for the other recent manslaughter charge over the faulty tipper lorry in Bath which resulted in 4 deaths.
Likely to see an increase in anti-cyclist hate crime as a result.
kil0ran wrote:
Would you consider yourself, as a cyclist, to be a member of an alternative sub-culture?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40628457
If you’re the victim of assault due to the galling indecency of wanting to go for a ride, this may be a useful extra to know
In my opinion this was
In my opinion this was manslaughter.
The bike wasn’t fit for use on the road, using it on the road was negligent.
With a front brake the collision may have been avoided or if not avoided the energy involved would have been lower.
I hope the sentence reflects the harm done, I’m not hopeful that it will.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think the operative word is *may*. The collision may have been avoided if he had front brakes. Likewise the outcome may be have been the same if he had front brakes. On a different day, he may have been the one who came off worse – and she may have been on trial.
The collision *would* have been avoided, if she had looked before stepping into the road. He was reckless, she was reckless, on the day she died and he survived.
There have been various reports of his speed in the press ‘upto 20 mph’, ‘nearly 18 mph’ however the last report I saw on the Daily Mail said 14 mph – how does 14 mph on a push bike with no brakes and only a fixed wheel, compare to a 30 mph (not sure of the limit on Old Street) car with working brakes?
With regard to the punishment reflecting the harm, does that mean that speeding/drunk/reckless motorists shouldn’t be prosecuted unless they injury someone or damage property?
I have brakes on my bike, and I am happy to use them. However, I have had my fair share near misses with careless, pedestrians – reckless even. So far I have managed to colliding with a pedestrian, but how much is that down to fortunate timing, I wonder.
jh27 wrote:
There will always be an element of uncertainty in cases like this. So ‘may’ is as good as you’re going to get.
If he had a front brake would he have been been able to slow down more quickly? Yes.
Would that have made a collision less likely. Yes.
If a collision had still occurred would that have made a fatal injury less likely. Yes.
So, in my opinion, his negligence contributed substantially to that poor woman’s death.
You ride to the conditions around you, if you’re in an area with lots of pedestrians be prepared for one (or more) of them to do something stupid.
When harm is done the punishment should fit that harm.
When no harm is done the punishment should reflect the risk that the behaviour posed to the public.
Rich_cb wrote:
Just wondering. How did he come to hit the lady? Did she step out in front of him (Genuine question)
madcarew wrote:
Just wondering. Is this the first time a pedestrian has ever stepped in front of a cyclist? Are you aware of this incredibly rare event ever happening before? (Genuine question)
This event wasn’t just predictable, it was inevitable. Anyone that’s ever spent any time cycle commuting around pedestrians will know that.
You ride according to the conditions, if you’re in an area with lots of pedestrians slow down and cover your brakes.
madcarew wrote:
Just wondering. How did he come to hit the lady? Did she step out in front of him (Genuine question)— Rich_cb
I think the story is that (1) she stepped out immersed in her phone, (2) he shouted to warn her, shouted again, (3) he began braking and swerved to go around her; and only then (4) did she look up from her phone, see him, and step back right into where he was aiming (to go behind her). And, (5) their *heads* collided (?) and they both hit the road.
Rich_cb wrote:
I don’t disagree, but at the same time I don’t believe for an instant that this would have gone the same way had Alliston been driving a car. Certainly there’s no way it would have attracted the same coverage, but I also doubt whether he’d have been convicted of anything at all.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You’re almost certainly right. A car driver in this situation would probably have got points and a fine at worst.
But, to coin a phrase, two wrongs don’t make a right.
I don’t think you can honestly advocate for harsher sentencing in cases of negligent driving without calling for the same in cases of negligent cycling.
I wish the CPS would apply the same zeal to prosecuting killer drivers as they have done in prosecuting this arsehole.
Well, that’s something. The
Well, that’s something. The time this has all taken, also shows that the jury actually thought about it and deliberated rather than just going “fixie cyclist – hang ‘im!” (at least, I hope they weren’t just spinning out their jury time off work…
). As others have said, I hope that this incident, and the associated coverage, finally makes the powers that be look into rationalising and revising the motoring/driving/cycling/transporting criminal charges system.
(Of course, he probably will get jail time: I note from the Grauniad that the judge is unhappy because he “has never shown any remorse”).
He should have used the ‘came
He should have used the ‘came out of nowhere’ defence used by the woman who mowed down & killed the guy on his bike in Regent St. One law for cars, one for bikes…
miken28v wrote:
Might have worked had he not been shouting at her.
According to the Daily Hate,
According to the Daily Hate, “Judge Wendy Joseph QC said: ‘If you want to rely on remorse, I am bound to say I haven’t seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all – at any stage.
‘Now of course he was facing an allegation of manslaughter for which he has been acquitted.
‘But in relation to the course of driving, I haven’t seen one breath of remorse’. “
Doesn’t look very good for him then.
On balance, I think that
On balance, I think that verdict is right.
It would be quite sad if he gets jail time, both from the perspective that it was simply unlucky that they collided in such a way that she died from her injuries, and also that car drivers rarely get jail time when it’s much more likely that their actions/inactions will cause harm.
He’s a dick, but I doubt before this that you’d think he’d be likely to kill someone just because he didn’t have front brake. I suppose at such a young age it depends on whether he has really learnt his lesson from this tragedy.
even in this regards we are
even in this regards we are treated more harshly its bizarre
http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/040669239-death-driver-escapes-jail-cyclist-killed-pedestrian-crossing-after-30mph-sign-
The Guardian has (what I
The Guardian has (what I think is) an excellent analysis: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge
jhudsy wrote:
Indeed. Martin Porter, sometimes known as the “cycling silk”, is a well known barrister and cycling campaigner who knows his stuff. He has a website, thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk, that highlights relevant cases.
I agree, most of that article
I agree, most of that article is good but it fizzled out slightly at the conclusion unfortunately. I agree that the charges were disproportionate in the context of charges against drivers of cars in similar situations, and that he was outmaneouvred legally with the analysis of braking distances. Using a completely different type of bicycle to evidence a proper braking distance is ridiculous, it would be like comparing a truck’s stopping distance to a VW Polo. However, he shouldn’t have been riding that bike on public roads and the pedestrian has right of way – so he is guilty of something, and there’s no careless or reckless driving charge that can be applied to a cyclist.
On a slight tangent, between this and Welsh police forces accepting dash cam footage as ‘solid, reliable evidence’, that’s two things now where it comes across that car drivers are protected by the law in ways that cyclists are not. (Referencing how action-cam footage of illegal passes and careless / reckless driving has been consistently ignored by police forces in the past)
jhudsy wrote:
jhudsy wrote:
Just got around to reading that. Martin Porter’s analysis is excellent, as always. Particularly interesting is comparing how many motorists get away with “careless driving ” even if someone dies or is injured and yet even though there was an administrative charge available (a fine for not having the front brake – the only strictly illegal element in this incident) the state decided to go for manslaughter charges and a crown court. He also asks how 18 mph can be considered “speeding” in an urban environment given that all the motor vehicles would have been going faster than that, and suggests that is a bit of a double standard.
The jury’s finding appears
The jury’s finding appears pretty sensible to me, but the question now is what sentence will he get? If it is more than a driver in similar circs would get, then it demonstrates bias in the judiciary against cyclists.
burtthebike wrote:
We could use this case maybe as a guide, strangely overlooked by the mass media http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-woman-who-killed-pensioner-by-speeding-is-spared-jail-by-judge-at-old-bailey-in-london-1-5157495
Awavey wrote:
The jury’s finding appears pretty sensible to me, but the question now is what sentence will he get? If it is more than a driver in similar circs would get, then it demonstrates bias in the judiciary against cyclists.
— Awavey We could use this case maybe as a guide, strangely overlooked by the mass media http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-woman-who-killed-pensioner-by-speeding-is-spared-jail-by-judge-at-old-bailey-in-london-1-5157495— burtthebike
We could, and we will wait and see. But to the extent there is bias, among the public, media or anywhere, one has to ask, why? Cyclists only relieve congestion, reduce pollution, reduce health care costs, save road wear, increase transport safety and other benefits. One can only conclude that we’re an out-group, and therefore going to receive irrational hatred whatever benefits we contribute to society as a whole. Perhaps we could try to get the hate crime laws amended to include us, but I’m not holding my breath.
burtthebike wrote:
This has been the fasciniating thing with the whole case, anything done against Alliston MUST be translated across to drivers in similar circumstances (hence the focus on the brake). I think I would have preferred guilty as it would have opened the flood gates against drivers. We already have the motor being used as a weapon, even though plod try to avoid this. Manslaughter is the next natural step.
He could have been sacrificed for the greater cause.
don simon wrote:
I think the focus is on the brake and the illegality of the bike purely because then there is no translation whatsoever to motorists.
If he’d had a front brake and chosen to attempt to swerve around her, would they have attempted this prosecution with such zeal? I very much doubt it, they’d have then had to apply the same actions to drivers who kill, and who wants that?
Motorists can sleep easy because they can carry on killing pedestrians and cyclists and just say “I didn’t see them.”
Idiot. No sympathy.
Idiot. No sympathy.
That poor woman…
I have to agree that he
I have to agree that he sounds like an arrogant prick, certainly wouldn’t want to go to the pub with him, but the charge seems excessive and if he’s locked up how long before he appeals?
I wonder what sale Planet X
I wonder what sale Planet X can make out of this? 120 hour community service sale?
Glad he got off with manslaughter but also glad he got done for something as no brakes on the road is daft, fixed rear braking or not (ran no brakes up and down my street and quickly realised i needed a front one on my fixie).
I’ve been guilty of watching fixie vids and thought it was cool as fuck but being able to really ride fast and stop fast on a fixie is a lot harder than I ever imagined. Brakes may spoil your asthetics but you can’t really do without them.
Finally, we are allowed to
Finally, we are allowed to comment on this story.
I just don’t understand why this guy was charged with manslaughter and countless motorists who kill cyclist are charged only with careless driving and can fear, at most, a small fine and some points on their license.
It is blatent dual standards.
(I’m not defending the cyclist BTW. Just expressing exasperation at our “justice” system).
Christopher TR1 wrote:
It’s not dual standards (in the way you describe) because the countless motorists who kill cyclists are, in generally, careless- they are not deliberately driving cars with no brakes which are illegal and obviously unsafe for the road. If a motorist drove a care with no brakes and killed someone, i have no doubt at all that a manslaughter conviction would follow.
rjfrussell wrote:
I don’t accept your distinction between ‘careless’ and ‘deliberate’. Driving carelessly is a choice (usually a cultivated habit), just as much as riding a bike without a front brake (while apparently being unaware that it’s illegal to do so)
And your last sentence requires some supporting evidence if you expect anyone to believe it. Sounds to me that you just made it up and it is, in fact, nonsense, so it seems a bit odd that you have ‘no doubt at all’ about it.
I don’t see any manslaughter conviction in this case, for example, even though he killed someone while driving after dark with no headlights (though he did at least get a longish sentence, but then just look at the catalogue of crimes he committed in a very short space of time)
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2017/06/30/hit-and-run-driver-jailed-for-10-years/
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Agree in that general substandard driving isn’t merely ‘careless’, and there has to be scope for a temporary lapse, a suggestion that your driving momentarily slipped below the standards expected. That’s how I’d read careless.
Unfortunately, given it’s a ‘stickier’ charge and an easier conviction, it’s become the default in all but the most concrete of ‘dangerous’ cases. Actually fixing what’s wrong there seems too difficult for anyone to manage.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
It’s not dual standards (in the way you describe) because the countless motorists who kill cyclists are, in generally, careless- they are not deliberately driving cars with no brakes which are illegal and obviously unsafe for the road. If a motorist drove a care with no brakes and killed someone, i have no doubt at all that a manslaughter conviction would follow.
— rjfrussell I don’t accept your distinction between ‘careless’ and ‘deliberate’. Driving carelessly is a choice (usually a cultivated habit), just as much as riding a bike without a front brake (while apparently being unaware that it’s illegal to do so) And your last sentence requires some supporting evidence if you expect anyone to believe it. Sounds to me that you just made it up and it is, in fact, nonsense, so it seems a bit odd that you have ‘no doubt at all’ about it. I don’t see any manslaughter conviction in this case, for example, even though he killed someone while driving after dark with no headlights (though he did at least get a longish sentence, but then just look at the catalogue of crimes he committed in a very short space of time) https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2017/06/30/hit-and-run-driver-jailed-for-10-years/— Christopher TR1
Careless on my part, as causing death by dangerous driving is an alternative offence to manslaughter which is available to prosecutors in motor cases (it is often seen as being equivalent to the US “motor manslaughter”). Given the conviction for causing death by dangerous driving and the 10 year sentence (more than the tariff for some murderers) I think that case supports my position, not undermines it.
rjfrussell wrote:
No, they deliberately drive in a manner that is well known to kill and maim, a far greater crime against society, unlike braking and slowing to 10mph (offered up by the prosecution as a potential impact speed) and trying to steer around a person dawdling/daydreaming in the middle of a busy road which is not careless or reckless.
rjfrussell wrote:
For the sake of accuracy, the bike had a rear brake through the fixed wheel, that is very different to no brakes.
What is obvious to you, and many of us is not necessarily obvious to all. It would be obvious if there was some form of mandatory learning around cycling, which there isn’t.
The prosecution went into great detail (as I understand it) to demonstrate the shortcomings of the missing brake, so I’d say it certainly wasn’t obvious to all. I certainly didn’t know the finer points of the ruling around brake systems until this case.
I’d also say that if a driver, having a valid MOT was driving a car with defective brakes there would be no case to answer. Motorists are protected by a piece of paper that say on one day a year the vehicle they are driving was road legal. 360 days later however, how valid is that document in real terms?
Truth is, this is a freak accident, which highlights that more could be done to deliver safer cycling… however with less than three pedestrian deaths a year , you have to question the need to do anything at all.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
For the sake of accuracy, an MOT is required to be undertaken one day each year but the elements that are checked during the MOT are required to be of a road worthy standard 365 days of the year and you can be prosecuted if they are not up to that standard.
ClubSmed wrote:
This is true – however I think it is fair to say that in such a case, if the defendant had a valid MOT certificate, that would be presented as strong mitigation, and they would likely be treated pretty leniently as a result.
dp24 wrote:
I am not convinced. I would think that if a motorist was driving around with say bald tyres and had an accident that the fact that they had a valid MOT would not be looked on as strong mitigation or result in them being treated pretty leniently as a result
ClubSmed wrote:
3 bald tyres and excessive speed on an icy road, ending in the death of 4 people on bikes, the ‘justice’ system deemed that 50mph on an icy road and the bald tyres were not a contributing factor. The driver was fined £180 for defective tyres, a life therefore is only worth £45 if you’re a killer motorist driving at ridiculously excessive speeds in known treachorous conditions with 3 defective tyres, if the victims are cyclists.
The differential in standards are shown time and time and time again and will continue to do so because of the hate and vitriol shown towards people who chose to ride a bicycle. That government don’t act makes them culpable and responsible for the deaths and serious injuries of thousands of cyclists, pedestrians and indeed innocent motorists.
Someone should bring the government to account and take them to human rights court as their complete reticence to do anything is basically a terrorist act.
I have often commented that
I have often commented that our friends in Australia are Kings of calmness when they receive 3 digit fines for not having a bell, brakeless bikes just don’t belong in the road
So “wanton or furious driving
So “wanton or furious driving” is riding a bike within the speed limit without a brake fitted? thats a whole load of hipster cyclists knackered then. There’ll be a whole load of them searching for a front brake fitting tomorrow
“The lack of a front brake resulted in Alliston’s inability to stop and avoid the collision resulting in the tragic death of Kim Briggs.”
I have some serious doubt as to whether a front brake would have made the slightest difference. I keep seeing this quoted figure of 3m, being the distance he would have been able to stop in, if he had a front brake. A mtb with real grippy tyres and good hydraulic discs and a half decent rider may have been able to stop within 3m from 18mph, a fixed wheel roadbike with non-grippy tyres and front brake i doubt could have stopped anywhere near 3m.
SteveAustin wrote:
I suspect the rider in the test was also
A) expecting the stop command
B) covering the brakes in anticipation.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I suspect the rider in the test was also A) expecting the stop command B) covering the brakes in anticipation.[/quote]
I doubt the test replicated the situation because the test rider knew what was going to happen unlike the rider in the accident. If they had told the test rider to ride along at 14mph as quoted by some media sources and react to something that might or might not happen and do this several times to get a reliable figure then the test would be more accurate, as it is I don’t feel it it.
How ever distasteful a
How ever distasteful a character he seems to be I for one would be happy to fund an appeal. Isn’t this after all what the cyclist defence fund is for?
Zjtm231 wrote:
No.
Duncann]
No.
Why not? Whilst he is not a particularly nice character he has been treated far more harshly than a motorist would and my natural justice warrior thinks this is wrong.
However; I am more concerned about a motorist mowing down a cyclist and saying well he was going more than 18mph and was on a track bike and therefore that’s “Wanton and furious cycling” just see this legal judgement..
A lot of comments ignoring
A lot of comments ignoring that he was riding an illegal bicycle. I think any credible defence stops there, really.
Goldfever4 wrote:
I presume you have never ridden a bike without reflectors on the pedals.
Bikebikebike wrote:
Don’t let the public get wise to that one. It’ll be a licence to run us down.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Only after dark, not required in the day.
Goldfever4 wrote:
Does anyone know if he was actually charged with that particular offence? And what is the punishment?
Goldfever4 wrote:
The outcry from the cycling community is not for his defence, but the OTT determination and prejudice displayed by the CPS. They dusted off an rarely used, and mostly forgotten law, levelled it along side the accusation of manslaughter for the apparent reason of requiring a higher level court to issue higher levels of penalty.
I’m glad he was not found
I’m glad he was not found guilty of Manslaughter, and somewhat pleased he was found guilty of only the lesser charge.
However he should not have been charged with Wanton and Furious driving he should have been charged with breaching The Pedal Cycle (Construction and Use) Regulations as the Cycling silk says.
I also think the judge missed an opportunity to point out how monumentally stupid it is to use a mobile phone crossing the road not to mention that checking for traffic is essential before stepping off the curb
It was interesting that the
It was interesting that the prosecution spent so much time talking about the social media comments. They did little more than confirm the statement made by the cyclist in court. it was just about making the jury hate the cyclist and hopefully they would over look the somewhat doubtful stopping distance testing.
I hope the next time police deal with a speeding motorists that kills they spend some time trawling social media looking for a reference to them watch fast and furious.
He got what he deserved.
He got what he deserved.
His complete lack of morality in the social media comments he made shows he’s nothing more than a dick and i would put him in the same bracket as the young lass who posted all over social media about knocking a cyclist over. .
.
Stumps wrote:
Is that the law – or justice, though? If you’re a dick we’ll screw you over way beyond the realms of normality?
Did the 3m stopping distance
Did the 3m stopping distance include the 5 second reaction time?
So, let me get this straight,
So, let me get this straight, every time a cyclist goes more than 15mph, that is wanton and furious driving?
FML
So what is it when a car goes over 18mph? Dangerous driving?
This is so much bull shit.
kie7077 wrote:
Nope.
The prosecution throws what they can at you to get a conviction using what laws they can.
If he had a front brake, hadn’t posted on social media and a proper defence barrister then he would have got off.
Apparently the pedestrian was
Apparently the pedestrian was 6.53m away when she stepped out into the road.
According to the Highway Code (126, stopping distances) at 20mph, you need 6m for reaction time, and 6m to stop. By that logic, a car would have flattened her with a roughly 10% chance of being killed.
Even with the complete b****cks stopping distance of 3m provided by the prosecution, he would have stopped 2.5m after hitting her.
As per usual the press have whipped the story out of proportion. As unlikeable a chap he appears to be, in my eyes he is the victim of a withchunt. Yes he should have had a front brake, but it seems it would have done sweet F A.
WillRod wrote:
Coming to a complete stop may not have been necessary. Had he slowed down more because of better braking, it could have (i) given him more time to think and scope to take avoiding action, and/or (ii) her time to get out of the way, or better brace herself for collision; and/or (iii) the collision would have been at a lower speed and perhaps less likely to be fatal.
That’s speculation, of course – we can’t know what the alternative outcome would have been. What did happen was a tragic, freak outcome. It might have happened at 5mph.
But he wouldn’t have had to go through this had he not been riding an illegal machine that couldn’t slow down as quickly as a legal one. And he might not have been facing jail had he shown a better attitude: even if the pedestrian was partly at fault for her fate her kids and husband weren’t.
Duncann wrote:
If she stepped out 6.5m away as reported, and it takes 6m to react at 20mph, he would still have hit her whilst braking anyway as he would have had about 1/10th second of actual braking time.
I agree that had he been riding a legal bike, he wouldn’t have had to go through this, mostly because he wouldn’t have committed any crimes. Of course, he could have been doing 30mph on a fully legal bike, still killed her and the furore in the press wouldn’t have happened and the court case might never have occurred.
The moral of the story is double check when crossing the road, don’t use a phone while crossing the road, and make sure your bike is fully legal.
WillRod wrote:
no that was the distance that he noted her and shouted at her, ie he’s noticed her and it is a quite doable stopping distance. lot of the papers reports seem to have made a bit of mess of the few facts that do exist.
rogermerriman wrote:
I’m a bit dubious of the reported distance when she stepped out, if he reacted in line with expectations that means he would have had to have shouted twice and taken evasive action all in about 0.2s.
Seems highly unlikely.
If he had time to shout twice he had time to brake.
Rich_cb wrote:
no that was the distance that he noted her and shouted at her, ie he’s noticed her and it is a quite doable stopping distance. lot of the papers reports seem to have made a bit of mess of the few facts that do exist.
— Rich_cb I’m a bit dubious of the reported distance when she stepped out, if he reacted in line with expectations that means he would have had to have shouted twice and taken evasive action all in about 0.2s. Seems highly unlikely. If he had time to shout twice he had time to brake.— rogermerriman
BBC had a diagram showing Alliston approaching a crossroads with the green light, and Briggs stepping out into the road on the other side of the crossroads as he went into it. So two lanes of traffic width plus a bit.
One point which doesn’t seem
One point which doesn’t seem to have been considered is what would the pedestrian have been charged with if the cyclist had died? It would appear to have been an equally likely outcome, and she would appear to be at least equally responsible for the collision, so would she have been charged with manslaughter?
burtthebike wrote:
If it was proved she was texting and the CPS wanted to make an example of her.
Cyclists have been done before for killing people, but pedestrians haven’t been done for texting and causing injury/death.
Texting pedestrians are a menace to every other form of road user whether they are motorised vehicle, bike,another pedestrian or horse rider.
According to the numbers I
According to the numbers I have seen 14mph which is 6.2 metres per second.
She was 6.5metres from him when stepping into the road
So 1 second to react and stop. I would suggezt that few cars could stop in that time/distance.
On that basis not guilty of manslaughter seems correct. Furious and wanton? For doing 10mph below speed limit through a green light? Custodial sentence seems harsh.
If he hadn’t shouted she would have continued walking and his swerve to pass behind her would have been successful.
And now he is being punished more than any killer driver the family of the pedestrian are allegedly calling for tougher cycling laws.
One more scenario occurs to
One more scenario occurs to me. Would a driver with an illegal tyre be charged with manslaughter or causing death by dangerous driving if they hit and killed a pedestrian whilst driving at 14mph when the pedestrian walked out in front of them while texting on their mobile phone?
burtthebike wrote:
This driver had 3 illegal tyres:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525561/Driver-fined-180-for-defective-tyres-after-killing-four-cyclists.html
I’ve seen him on the news 3
I’ve seen him on the news 3 times now and each time I’ve wanted to punch him. He oozes arrogance and he was smirking at the camera. He’s shown no remorse and tried to blame the victim. Cnut. Hope he gets as much jail time as the judge can give.
I’ve just watched the BBC
I’ve just watched the BBC News at Ten, and apparently the husband has announced that he intends to campaign for “tougher laws around cycling” (despite the cyclist in this case being treated far more harshly than any motorist). Young Mr Alliston does come across as s bit of a d!ck, but this whole affair comes down to bad luck and the whole Man bites Dog media thing. IMO.
brooksby wrote:
Maybe we need jaywalking laws like other countries. I know it may be seen as victim blaming but walking into the road, mind deep in phone land, perhaps needs looking at the same way as driving whilst on the phone.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Noooooo – think of what you’re prioritising there.
We need more space for people to walk, absent-mindedly, and less space for cars containing one person to charge through neighbourhoods.
Tonight at our club ride we
Tonight at our club ride we were sworn at by a passing car when meeting and later had a filled litre water bottle lobbed at us from a passing car whilst we were riding. This hasn’t happened before. A coincidence it’s on the day of this story surfacing?
If this sentence is
If this sentence is commensurate with those given to drivers that hit pedestrian-phone-zombies then this seems reasonable. If not then let’s get a petition running
Can somebody please direct me
Can somebody please direct me to the legal definition of ‘carriage’, pursuant to the legislation ‘Offences Against The Person Act 1861’, please?
I don’t mean press cuttings, or other cases that have used the same offence, unless they define ‘carriage’. I’m looking for the LEGAL definition of ‘Carriage’, pursuant to the legislation under which this this cyclist was found guilty.
I personally do not know the FULL facts of the case, and these would not have been presented in Court either, but on face value, there does seem to be grounds for appeal of conviction, let alone sentence…when that does occur.
My heart felt condolences go out to Mrs Briggs’ family and her friends.
skidlid wrote:
I’m sure the Q.C. defending would have checked that the charges laid against his client were satisfied; here’s an article by Carton Reid to start you off – http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact/
I keep reading these accounts
I keep reading these accounts and i also cycle across this roundabout daily … I am aware that there is a higher likelyhood of a ped stepping out so I slow…. irrespective of what bike I am on, on that day (it’s old st roundabout ffs)….
..to kill someone you have to be going some and not be able to react because of speed, anticipation or inadequate equipment (lack of braking mechanism)..
..I don’t know the intricacies, but it seems to me that to end up hitting a ped at speed and kill them, that you have to have a disregard for the damage that you are able to cause on a bike …
…imo, therefore rightful that this guy is brought to bear for his failings, but a shame if his naievity ruins his life (assumption)…
….he has however taken the life of another and hopefully the law will be applied as we wish it was applied to motorists…
It will of course not happen in the short term, but I hope they throw the book at this guy
Rip
50kcommute wrote:
All perfectly reasonable, but tell me, do you apply the same standards to drivers of much heavier vehicles travelling much faster? Because the law doesn’t.
I keep reading these accounts
I keep reading these accounts and i also cycle across this roundabout daily … I am aware that there is a higher likelyhood of a ped stepping out so I slow…. irrespective of what bike I am on, on that day (it’s old st roundabout ffs)….
..to kill someone you have to be going some and not be able to react because of speed, anticipation or inadequate equipment (lack of braking mechanism)..
..I don’t know the intricacies, but it seems to me that to end up hitting a ped at speed and kill them, that you have to have a disregard for the damage that you are able to cause on a bike …
…imo, therefore rightful that this guy is brought to bear for his failings, but a shame if his naievity ruins his life (assumption)…
….he has however taken the life of another and hopefully the law will be applied as we wish it was applied to motorists…
It will of course not happen in the short term, but I hope they throw the book at this guy
Rip
I know they both carried
I know they both carried elements of fault as it stands but say we had a situation where he did have brakes and he died, would she have been liable for his death?
I’ve seen a couple of
I’ve seen a couple of comments suggesting he should have known the brake law but note from the linked article:
“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”. ”
Who knew?
alansmurphy wrote:
I did not know that.
With regards to people commenting about other cyclist being illegal (fixies without brakes; no pedal reflectors at night), no-one really cares as long as you’re responsible. This bloke wasn’t at all careful and ended up killing.
(They should amend that pedal reflector law – my pedals don’t have reflectors, but my shoes do).
alansmurphy wrote:
I certainly didn’t. I occasionally ride a fixed gear bike for training and hill climbs. I hate riding it in traffic and try to choose quiet ways out of town. It doesn’t have a front brake; I didn’t realise it was a legal requirement. Think I should fit one?
barbarus wrote:
Sadly I can imagine a situation where the police would now pull you over to check your brakes. Having spent time on a motorbike, imo the police like nothing more than to lecture those on two wheels. I remember one initiative in North Yorkshire in which there where randomly pulling people just to tell of the dangers of speeding. They weren’t doing anything wrong yet (the aforementioned speeding) the police seemed to think they could effectively hold them to give them a good talking to about something they’d not done. As people never realised if you ride fast and crash you may die!
Imagine your horror when you leave you bike chained up in town and some fat slob PCSO is waiting for you having noticed you don’t have a front brake.
Maybe we should do as
Maybe we should do as Honolulu has:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/28/hawaii-law-targets-smartphone-zombies-with-crosswalk-ban
SimpleSimon wrote:
That would be Honolulu which is still fine with motorists using a handheld phone while driving, but wants to stop pedestrians crossing the road and using one?
Personally, I think any sort of jaywalking laws would be a really bad idea, and a very slippery slope indeed.
(In my more tinfoil hat moments, I wonder whether this case was brought for precisely that reason – lets face it, it would make driverless cars a lot easier to design…).
Didn’t the chap admit under X
Didn’t the chap admit under X-exam that the lady was not using her mobile?
Interested to hear the
Interested to hear the unfortunate husband on radio 5 this morning calling for new laws or more specifically for bycycles to be included in the road traffic acts to “put them on a level footing”.
I am not quite sure why a guilty verdict under existing laws shows a need for change but if the same laws were applied to bikes and cars then it might lead to more equal decisions on whether to bring specific charges.
People claiming that a cyclist being wanton or reckless whilst travelling at 18mph on a 8kg machine might be a little hard pushed to argue against 20mph speed limits or justify the actions of drivers travelling twice as fast in a machine weighing 100 times as much with longer stopping distances, whether one or two brakes are fitted.
The husband should be
The husband should be cautious about what he wishes for with regards having cyclists treated the same as drivers. If Alliston was in a car travelling at 18mph with dodgy brakes, rather than a bike, and the same thing occurred, he would have been LESS likely to be brought to court, charged with a crime (death by careless driving) with a LESSER punishment than manslaughter, he would have been LESS likely to be convicted, and the punishment would have been LESS strict.
the little onion wrote:
That was my point exactly.
Is the problem that we have two sets of rules and would motorists face stricter charging if we eliminated the differences?
There seems to be a lot of outrage aimed at this cyclist but no-one comparing the outcome with similar offences by drivers. If they both were held to account by the same basic offences it would be impossible to ignore the inconsistency.
the little onion wrote:
We do require cars to have regular tests that include brake functioning, and drivers who remove their front brakes because they think it makes their car look cool are probably non-existent.
But a driver with functioning brakes who didn’t use them and said “I didn’t see her in time to do anything” almost certainly would have been treated much more lightly.
armb wrote:
I wouldn’t put it past them, many darken the glass so they can’t see…
alansmurphy wrote:
or lower them, or fit the wrong size tyres, neither of which are automatic MOT failures, I saw one on my ride the other day which had been lowered so much that even on a reasonably flat road, every time they changed gear the front of the car nose pitched and grounded out on the road. it was semi comical if not for the fact every time it was grounding out the driver was basically not in full control, add a sudden flash flooding downpour, or a much bumpier road and needing to emergency brake, and the thought of that car trying to overtake me seemed alot less funny.
ooldbaker wrote:
A cyclist was prosecuted a few years ago for “furious riding” because he was doing 20mph in a 30mph zone. Don’t expect equal treatment, and a cyclist’s place is in the wrong. Always.
Do you know what… I kind of
Do you know what… I kind of sympathise with (ok understand) the viewpoint of the cyclist here.
In his eyes, he was riding within his limits, on a bike that was fit for purpose, when a woman stepped out in front of him, knocking him off his bike. Sadly she died, but now, in the eyes of the cyclist, he is about to lose his civil liberties because of this woman’s actions.
I get why remorse is fairly low on his agenda.
However…
On balance, he was not riding within suitable limits… as mentioned by someone else, idiot pedestrians have a habit of walking out in front of cyclists, you need to be prepared.
His bike was not fit for purpose… not legally, and whilst we can argue the toss about braking distances all we like, if you have time to shout, you have time to brake, so it wasn’t fit for purpose practically either.
I hope he comes to understand the importance of those two points in time.
But this does raise an important point for me and that is cyclists knowing their legal obligations.
If a front brake had been present, this would have never gone to court… wanton and furious cycling charges look pretty stupid when you are shown to be riding a legal bike at 14mph on a public highway with a speed limit of 30mph.
So the lack of brake is utterly key here.
Now I am sure some hipster dudes are riding about fully aware that they are being edgy and illegal on their track bikes, however I am equally sure many are acting in blissful ignorance.
How do cyclists learn their legal obligations? How did each of you learn? Now its easy to say common sense says you should have two brakes, but common sense is all too often learned sense and not so common. Hence why we have driving licenses and highway codes… to ensure sense is gained.
My point here is that this chap is going down for legal failings on his bike… failings that he had no legal obligation or prompt to know about.
For me the takeaway for this shouldn’t be stricter laws for cycling (although I would be all up for having the same legal protection currently afforded to car drivers), it should be how can we ensure that all cyclists have a better understanding of their responsibilities moving forward.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Agreed and as to a point below, I don’t think he removed the brake I think he bought it without one (I stand to be corrected). I have a fixie and considered going brakeless because i read about it and it seemed cool, never saw a thing on the laws.
A good prompt would be bike shops selling track bikes to advise they are for Track Only, maybe even sign something to say so. This would merit the sale of such new bikes (though maybe not second hand).
Whilst we bring about this change, I think all cars with the ability to exceed 70mph could be labelled Track Only and not be used on the road, as a helmet was mentioned by the prosecution maybe make them wear one too.
Sorted.
alansmurphy wrote:
Now, that is a good idea.
What’s the point of advertising (or advertorialising – I’m looking at you, Clarkson!) a car which can do the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs when its not legal to drive faster than 70mph anywhere on public roads in the UK, and on the vast majority of roads in the nation no faster than 60mph, and a significant number of those are urban with a 30mph or 20mph speed limit…
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
as far as I recall – it was over 50 years ago – we were taught all this at school during cycle training, and by my father – lights, reflectors, brakes, not cycling on the pavement, cycling on the road and so on.
Ignorance of the law is not a defence. As an adult you have a responsibility to acquaint yourself with the laws relevant to whatever you’re doing. If you’re a child of the age of legal responsibility you must hope that your parents do the right thing
ConcordeCX wrote:
And this is kind of my point… when I were a lad, we had cycle training in school…. not so these days.
So taking your examples, you are now left relying on someone having devent parentage to either provide the information required, or instill the sense of respnsibilty to seek it out.
I’m sorry, but for me the above is not enough. As I’ve said elsewhere, its all well and good punishing those that fall foul, but to me a better result would be, as Cycling UK were saying, to understand the behaviour and failings and address them.
The answer to the brake situation seems fairly simple, all bikes supplied with short manual outlining the responsibilities, maybe retailers obliged to remind purchasers of bikes without a front brake that they are not road legal.
Very sad case – on both sides
Very sad case – on both sides, at least 2 lives ruined by 2 stupid people. 1 cavalier cyclist travelling too fast for the conditions (unable to stop in time). 1 person walking into the road while using their phone and not paying attention. Had the pedestrian been a driver, they would have been breaking the law…
I wonder if the pedestrians use of a phone will be taken into mitigation for sentencing. Had they been paying attention and looked before crossing it wouldn’t have happened, so she does hold some of the responsibility. Also “18mph” may be “fast”, but it’s just over half the posted limit. That may be an absolute and you should drive / ride to conditions, but he was under the limit, she stepped out without looking – it’s not just about the brake or lack thereof…
Was she or was she not in her
Was she or was she not in her phone while she walked out onto the road – did this then contribute to her attention to his shouts – I have not seen much if any critical comment focused on her contribution to the accident.
It would be interesting to look at how many convictions coming from deaths for car drivers v cyclists expressed as a proportion – anecdotally we are familiar in these pages with seemingly obvious wrongdoing by car drivers resulting in the death of a cyclist resulting in an inadequite feeling responce via the justice system.
The sense of equivelance feels out of balance and so if anything good is to come from this then a proper ground up look at how behaviour is policed for all drivers/cyclists/pedestrians would make this whole thing feel more fair and us feel protected consistantly by the law.
That said I think the jury came to the only sensible conclusion given the choice before them – I hope that in the end he is given some comunity based punishment and is allowed to get on with his life in peace. Society would not be served by his incarceration in my opinion.
While the sentence he
While the sentence he received is probably about right, you do have to ask why motorists carrying out similar offences seem to receive much lighter sentences as a rule. This article gives a good perspective:
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/
OldRidgeback wrote:
Thanks for the link – that sums up why cyclists are getting enraged by this incident.
OldRidgeback wrote:
He hasn’t been sentenced.
DrJDog wrote:
True.
The BBC reported that he was advised yesterday he was likely to receive a custodial sentance which is as much as we know.
A rather more factual report
A rather more factual report here, but still far from balanced.
“Edward Small, a crash investigator who studied CCTV of the incident, concluded that Alliston, who was then aged 18, would have been able to stop and avoid a collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake.
The defendant had been travelling at an average of 18mph before he noticed Briggs step into the road, jurors heard. He was a minimum of 6.65 metres (21.8ft) away when he swerved and tried to take evasive action.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/23/ex-courier-charlie-alliston-convicted-for-mowing-down-kim-briggs-on-his-track-bike
This seems to be a fairly wide main road, and has light controlled crossings, and some reports have said that the lights were green for the road, so would have been red for pedestrians. If this is true, then the pedestrian is at least equally responsible, if not more so.
People saying there is no
People saying there is no equivalence, motorist would not have been convicted of this charge etc.
I think if a motorist had driven on the road, knowing that his/ her front brakes were not working at all/ non-existent, and had then killed someone, the manslaughter conviction would have been inevitable.
This is not a case of negligently running someone down- it is deliberately going out in/on an unsafe and illegal vehicle/ bike.
Given the circumstances of
Given the circumstances of the collision, and what looks like a bit of a witch hunt by the police and family, I’m half inclinded to set-up a crowd funding page to see if Charlie Alliston wants to appeal the case – if he’s not already.
gcommie wrote:
I’m forced, somewhat reluctantly, to agree. If he gets a custodial sentence, count me in for a few quid.
We were all teenagers once, and full of it. Well, I was anyway. He should be given a chance to change.
Rjf – if you think your black
Rjf – if you think your black and white view (that became very grey and murky) has been supported, just look for anyone that has been given a 10 year sentence.
I can easily find you a drunk driver killer walking free (and driving), a mobile phone using driver walking free (and driving 12 months later) and one with 3/4 illegal tyres killing 4 and driving free (harsh 9 points).
The witch hunt doesn’t need your support, they’ve already got millions of delusional supporters…
Quote:
It has been mentioned within these pages that the bike didn’t have gears either. I wouldn’t put too much expectation on folks knowing the finer details of brakes when something so obvious is missed.
There is a significant amount
There is a significant amount of double standards being bandied about here. A cyclist kills a pedestrian who stepped out of the road in front of them and they were being charged with manslaughter, but convicted of a reduced charge.
Compare with the case of Jessica Wells
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4809520/Jessica-Wells-killed-pensioner-crash-spared-jail.html
A motorcyclist who killed a pedestrian as they stepped off a bus is convicted of causing death by careless driving.
Wait…WHAT???? Careless driving…. undertaking a bus, whilst speeding, as it is at a bus stop is careless???? And she gets off with a 4 month suspended sentence. Careless….definitely not…. Dangerous driving… at the very least.
If a cyclist had undertaken a bus, and knocked an elderly pedestrian down as they stepped from the bus they would be publicly flogged, before being sentenced to jail time before being hung drawn and quartered.
To be fair though the police
To be fair though the police did use a matchbox car and a hotpoint freezer to prove beyond all doubt that the car couldn’t have stopped even had the tyres been snow tyres and the speed been 10mph…