- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Kim Briggs (picture via Metropolitan Police Service).PNGHusband of woman killed by cyclist calls for changes to law on dangerous cycling
The husband of Kim Briggs, who died in February 2016 from head injuries sustained in a collision with cyclist Charlie Alliston on London’s Old Street, has called for the law regarding dangerous cycling to be brought up to date.
Alliston, aged 20, was convicted at the Old Bailey of causing bodily harm through wanton or furious driving, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
He was acquitted of manslaughter in connection with the 44-year-old’s death, but has been warned by Judge Wendy Joseph QC that he may well face a jail term when he is sentenced next month.
> Charlie Alliston cleared of manslaughter of Kim Briggs – but guilty of wanton and furious driving
On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, Mrs Briggs’ husband Matthew urged that offences of causing death by carless cycling and causing death by dangerous cycling be created, similar to those that apply to motorists.
He said he wanted to see “not so much a new law as just bringing the current law up to date.
“If this were to happen again – which I inevitably think it will – the police and the CPS have a more coherent framework to reach for so that for the next family having to go through this it’s more straightforward.”
Mr Briggs, who said he cycles himself, emphasised that he was not engaged in a “witch-hunt against cyclists.”
He said: “This is dealing with a specific issue of reckless cyclists and those people who choose to ride fixed-wheel bikes without the additional front brake.
“With the fixed-wheel bike without the front brake the only means of braking is reverse pedalling … That’s totally inadequate and we’ve seen that with my wife’s death.”
Under The Pedal Cycle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983, a bike with a saddle more than 635mm above the ground is required to have “a braking system operating on the front wheel.”
Alliston, a former cycle courier, had been riding a Planet-X track bike with no front brake at the time of the fatal collision, and claimed at the trial that he did not know he was breaking the law by not having one fitted.
Mr Briggs pointed out that not knowing the law was “absolutely no defence”. He also said he often saw cyclists riding fixed-wheel bikes without a front brake, and believed the vast majority of them were couriers.
“There’s a degree of a fashion statement around that,” he claimed.“There’s almost a fetishism around this.
“But as we’ve seen with my wife’s death they [bikes without a front brake] are potentially lethal, not just illegal, they are potentially lethal.”
He also had a message for anyone thinking about riding a bike without a front brake.
“I would urge them to read my story to understand what happened to my wife,” he said.
“Mother of two, the most wonderful woman, the most fun-loving woman, went out to work and didn’t come back because of this.
“Why would you take that risk with somebody else’s life, and why would you endanger yourself?”
In 2011, Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom introduced her Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences) Bill, which among other things calls for the introduction of a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling, with a proposed maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, the same as applies to causing death by dangerous driving. The bill failed to get a second reading.
> MP's 'Dangerous Cycling' bill fails to get second reading in House of Commons
Following yesterday’s verdicts, Duncan Dollimore, head of advocacy and campaigns at Cycling UK anticipated calls that “laws on irresponsible cycling should be aligned with the laws on irresponsible driving.”
However, he insisted that the law as a whole needed to be brought up to date for all road users.
He said: "Riding a fixed wheel bicycle on busy roads without a front brake is illegal, stupid, and endangers other road users especially pedestrians. Charlie Alliston's actions had tragic consequences for Kim Briggs' family, and it was entirely right that this led to his prosecution.
"The fact that he has been convicted of an offence dating back to legislation from 1861, drafted in archaic language, will doubtless lead some to argue that the laws on irresponsible cycling should be aligned with the laws on irresponsible driving. The reality is that the way in which the justice system deals with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users has long been in need of review.
"In 2014 the Government acknowledged this when announcing a full review of all motoring offences and penalties, but then waited three years to launch a limited consultation last year which closed six months ago, with silence ever since.
He added: "To ensure that there is consistency with charging decisions, and with how dangerous behaviour on or roads is dealt with, it is vital that the Government ends the delay, and gets on with the wide scale review that politicians from all sides, victims' families and various roads safety organisations have tirelessly demanded.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 3 min 2 sec ago
Welcome - probably didn't show as they tagged it "not near miss of the day"?
- ktache 6 hours 15 min ago
The small frame, the aggressive posture, lots of standover height.
- David9694 7 hours 18 min ago
'Bad parking' blocks firefighters multiple times on same emergency call-out...
- David9694 7 hours 22 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- Adam Sutton 8 hours 8 min ago
Good stuff. Now do it on cycleway C9 through Hammersmith to Chiswick.
- mark1a 8 hours 17 min ago
It's technically allowed but it's not known as "London's Orbital Car Park" for nothing.
- Dogless 9 hours 25 min ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- mattw 12 hours 5 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 12 hours 22 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 12 hours 48 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
Add new comment
99 comments
(to nbrus)
Ah, but you are making the wrong comparison.
In a 20mph zone it's very likely a cyclist will not even reach 20mph (because speed is hard work). Whereas the norm for a motorist on such a road is to go faster than 20. The police even formally allow for this, giving a leeway for speed-limit enforcement (not to mention explicitly refusing to enforce 20mph limits at all). So the correct comparison is not 20mph with 20mph. It's the median speed cyclists go at on such a road with the one motorists opt for.
Particularly so because any supposed greater effectiveness at braking by the motorist is likely to be consumed by that motorist in faster speeds. If they can brake more effectively, then they will go accordingly faster _precisely because_ they know they can brake more effectively.
And it amazes me the speeds drivers reach on one particular road here. (I can tell the speed because just a bit further on there's an automatic digital speed readout sign).
And I don't believe they would face stiff penalties, not considering the sheer number of smashed-in road side fences, knocked down traffic lights, wrecked cars embedded in garden walls or being lifted out of the road by cranes, or large areas of broken windsceeen glass I've seen on that road over the years. I don't recall ever reading about a driver facing much of a penalty as a result of any of these regular altercations with street furniture. (It's seeing such aftermath regularly, along with the speeding cars themselves, that made me give up cycling that route.)
Just curious, could courier companies be seen as turning a blind eye to one back brake fixies if they are illegal... if their riders are doing so..... I have no idea if they are.
Much as I sympathise with the anger and distress that Mr Briggs must feel on losing his wife, I think that a campaign to toughen up the rules about or - more likely- against cycling is wrong-headed and aiming at the wrong target.
It doesn't matter if the law used to convict Mr Alliston dates back to the nineteenth century: it is clearly and demonstrably still fit for purpose because he was found guilty under it. Given the government's desire to remove so-called red tape whenever and wherever they can as we plough down the road into becoming a tax haven, I honestly can't see them bothering with writing new legislation that *might* be used once per year if the police and the CPS have the time and inclination to use it.
Even if there's a single pedestrian killed by a cyclist each year, I imagine that the majority of those are genuine "accidents" with no criminal behaviour suspected, and don't involve "wanton and furious cycling".
The Alliston case is a rarety among rareties, which I think counts as officially "vanishingly rare", and any time spent on reviewing and rewriting laws to deal with such an obscurity would be far better spent on looking at why *existing* traffic laws are so badly applied.
IMO
People will speed if they think they can get away with it. If they destroy street furniture they will be charged, if caught. Almost every car on the road is capable of going far in excess of the speed limit. Seems silly to manufacture cars that can do speeds far greater than is legal, but they do. People like speed. Those 20 mph zones don't really work and most will ignore them. Its only when there is an accident that the speed is noted. When I'm on my bike I tend to stick to cycle paths and quieter roads because its much safer to do so and a lot less stressful. If cycling for fun, then I'll try and go out when its quieter and avoid times when heavy traffic is present. I will mix with traffic when I need to, but I will avoid it whenever I can. I would highly recommend using a rear view mirror if you can fit one ... I wouldn't be without one now ... though I don't have one on my road bike as it would look naff ... but I might change my mind and fit one anyways.
He should have gone on Judge Rinder ... then we could all watch it ... bit inconsiderate of him.
Another tangent here but...
Taking the victim stepping out from the incident and the comparison to cars, surely he has been charged with the wrong thing and manslaughter is nearer the mark (or something involving negligence).
Wanton and furious cycling?
Wanton: adjective (of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked
His cycling was not cruel or violent (ok the outcome was a cruel misfortune) and nothing was deliberate or unprovoked.
If cycling on the road below the speed limit is wanton and furious then we are all guilty and often.
As for furious, he may have been exasperated, melancholy, miffed. Have they took a mental evaluation, he may need support for stress/depression or such issues if a jury has deemed him furious...
He didn't get charged with manslaughter because she's a woman, but he did get charged with 'wanton and furious driving' despite the fact he was cycling ... makes no sense at all ... no wonder he's furious.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for Mr Briggs (how could you not!) and I can't even begin to imagine to grief he must feel right now but - as peverse as this may sound - he's "lucky" his wife was killed in an accident involving a push bike:
He's been spared what must be utter hell on earth, as weasly characters like "Mr Loophole" take great delight in showing off to the court and the media as they attmept to diminish the responsibility of the killer (I'm not referring to the accused having a defense lawyer here BTW)
He's not had the judge insult his wife by suggesting she was to blame due to her choice of clothing that day
He's not had to endure thousands upon thousands of selfish, thoughtless drivers tell him she "deserved" it somehow, because she was using a phone, or verbally attack him for the actions of other pedestrians who may have done something wrong.
There is no easy way to go through what he's having to endure and will continue to have to endure for the rest of his life and Mr Allison's behaviour and attitudein all this is almost weirdly appaling. To attempt to make better something you perceive as being at fault is only natural, but perhaps a moment of reflection and a look at the bigger picture once the initial shock and early stages of grief are come to terms with would be more helpful if he truly wants to help prevent fatalities on the roads.
It's a tragedy that this lady died crossing the road but are we in danger of getting to the point that 18mph is dangerous if you can see a pedestrian on the pavement? If one stepped in front of me giving me too little time to stop, would I be prosecuted for dangerous riding even though I have 2 working brakes but no bell and reflectors?
@davel - I second your call for strict liability; it would be the biggest shake-up in road safety since drink driving was made socially unacceptable.
I think the persecution of cyclists (in the UK at least) needs to be examined objectively. Do we, as a society, want to encourage or discourage various forms of transport? What are the "hidden costs" of different modes (e.g. air pollution from vehicles causing respitory diseases; fixie riders going at extreme speeds of up to 18mph; slow walking pedestrians causing intense anger flare-ups to people behind them)? Just imagine what a pervasive ad campaign could achieve if it encouraged everyone to walk/skate/cycle more or at least 10 minutes a day.
And I think this is part of the problem: according to a report the other day, 6 million adults in the UK don't get exercise equivalent to brisk walking for 10 minutes EACH MONTH.
God knows how many more who aren't quite as sedentary as that, but have a similar mindset. Even when you've allowed for people who are incapacitated, that's a huge chunk of the UK population who hold a completely different worldview from people who cycle regularly (like posters on here); to them, cyclists are weird and alien. And they outnumber us significantly.
Just imagine...
bikesharingchina.jpg
Probably not much - the type of sofa-bound reality-TV-obsessed lard bucket (yes, I'm stereotyping) who doesn't even muster ten minutes of brisk walking per MONTH (yes, I know, unbelievably the actual stat is that 6m Brits don't even manage ten minutes of brisk walking per month) is unlikley to go out and get on a bike because the advert told them to. They're not going to get out for a walk and some fresh air, either.
I'd like to see the public information budget spent on some simple reminders of the rules of the road. Stuff like:
"Cyclists don't take the middle of the lane to annoy you, they do it to stay safe"
"On the motorway, if you are not overtaking, use lane one"
"The speed limit isn't a target. Drive at a speed that allows you to stop inside the distance you can see."
Post-watershed, the films could be hard-hitting, like the various drink driving ads aired over the last decade.
@Velovoyeur: I just don't see parity being reached 'organically'.
It would take too much of a cultural shift, in addition to tinkering with charging and sentencing guidance. It would take 'columnists' to stop pandering to the moton cheap seats. It would take an emphasis on actual statistics regarding the danger of cycling, as opposed to perception, and it will probably take a lot more people cycling.
I just can't see that happening via nudges, and waiting for society to wake up and 'do the right thing' isn't really happening, is it? Society wakes up and uses a cyclist killing a pedestrian as a vehicle for slating cyclists regarding responsibilities and aggression; it uses a cyclist being killed by a driver as a vehicle for slating cyclists regarding taking responsibility for their safety; it uses a fast-moving pedestrian pushing a slower pedestrian into the road as a vehicle for slating CYCLISTS regarding aggression.
In another country, or in another time, or with another outgroup, we'd call this what it is: persecution.
When you look at shifts in cultural attitudes towards fairness and objectivity (anti-discrimination - 'parity') in the last couple of generations, they've been on the back of a fair dollop of legislation. There is already a law governing Alliston's lack of a front brake. As we've seen, there are already laws (albeit including an archaic one) and a willingness to prosecute regarding Alliston's riding. I can only see one single action that could shift the balance to about where I think it needs to be, and to where I think Mr Briggs probably thinks it needs to be regarding the cyclist-pedestrian relationship, too.
Time for strict liability.
Edit @hawkinspeter - yes, it could be worth us calling that out. We're generally a reasonable bunch: we have Chris Boardman instead of Jeremy Clarkson; we try to look at evidence (even on here) instead of just shit-headed opinion. But yes, in the absence of logic on the other side, taking any platform to make the same offensive and ill-judged arguments that are made about 'us' repeatedly, even ironically, might make a point. It's a race to the bottom, but we're not even in that race at the moment.
This regrettable incident has really highlighted how poorly protected pedestrians are.
We must call for mandatory helmet laws for pedestrians - anything less will just lead to more avoidable deaths.
Throughout this thread there has been an ongoing debate of responsibility and blame.
As "road users" cyclists should take on the same responsibility as any other road user ie: responsible action, safe vehicle, abiding by the laws, courtesy and responsibility towards others. That is a fair expectation but in return, if these are done, then it is fair to expect in return parity with others in the eyes of the judicial sytem meaning that a motorist who kills a pedestrian or cyclist would receive the same penalty as a cyclist who does likewise. This isn't happening.
The accused in this instance has wilfully neglected his responsibilities as well as being remorseless and arrogant beyond belief. (As an aside, it offends me greatly that this prick is viewed the same as myself and millions of other responsible riders. He is not representative of most people who ride bikes and yet his actions are causing legislation to be reviewed and will affect us all) Therefore his actions contributed towards the death of the pedestrian and his subsequent arrogance further compounds the dislike towards this individual.
There are also responsibilities for pedestrians. Who remembers the "Green Cross Code"? The fact that the pedestrian was on the phone when she stepped in front of the cyclist seems to been skimmed over in the court case.
I can't believe that nobody has mentioned what difference wearing a helmet would have made. It could have been very beneficial for one party indeed. Let's not go there.
There are always going to be incidents between road users and pedestrians but the likelihood of fatal outcomes can be lessened if everyone is responsible and vigilant. If you observe people (cyclists, pedestrians, motorists) at any major road junction especially in the capital you will see that this doesn't happen. There is a lesson for all to come from this unfortunate case which, rather than a change in the law, requires education of road users.
Moving slightly OT, the Grauniad has another op-ed piece today https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/24/kim-briggs-cyclists-traffic-bike-charlie-alliston about how cyclists need to remember that they are traffic too and therefore should act responsibly (the same as every motorist does (...?)).
The author of that misses the point that most adult cyclists have always considered themselves traffic, and are fully aware that they can hurt those further down the food chain.
Unfortunately, they are generally not treated as "real traffic" either by motorists (who think they're just annoying people who should take their toys off to the park) or by pedestrians (who are more than happy to walk out in front of an oncoming bike when they would (generally) never dream of doing so in front of an oncoming car).
To top off the absurdity of the double standards, I think I'm the only one so far who's mentioned the ridiculous idea of her wearing a helmet, insofar as I pointed out the lack of discussion about it. We're not discussing her PPE, which is right: we've gone straight to 'was she paying attention to hazards as she crossed the road', which is, at least, a debate.
Contrast that with the usual nutjob sections of society kicking off discussions about mandated cycling helmets and hi-viz whenever a cyclist dies of a head injury in similar circumstances. Contrast that with it being referenced by the defence of the 'killer'.
One segment of road users (us, brothers and sisters!) is expected to take responsibility for their safety WAY more than others, therefore society accepts a degree of victim-blaming in their deaths. We've got to change that.
Edit: just seen hawkinspeter's post in another thread. Took a while, though, didn't it - and even then it's done to highlight the double standards.
Nbrus and fuffy kitten - I'm just wondering how you manager to absolve Mrs Briggs when she did something that she had surely taught her own children not to do. She made a poor choice, saying she couldn't hear a bike merely goes towards supporting my point, she should have looked. To lay the blame on one party is fallacious
I think the bulk of the responsibility lies with the party creating the hazard (and bringing the kinetic energy). The penalty for momentary lapses of attention by the vulnerable shouldn't be death.
(Though, again, I would say that it seems unlucky and hopefully very rare, that such a low-speed collision results in death - presumably the cyclist had slowed to well below the 18mph starting speed by the time of impact, so the outcome seems disproportionate to the speed involved)
The issue for me remains the double-standards illustrated by the media coverage. I don't agree with your point, but it's significant that it appears to be only on a cycling site that anyone has attempted to make it. Whereas had he been a car driver variations on your post would have appeared in multiple incarnations on every single story about it on the web, and probably on every radio phone-in, etc. And if the victim had been a cyclist crossing against the lights, it would have been wall-to-wall victim blaming and blather about helmets.
If Allistons fixie had had a front brake and he had been travelling at a more relaxed pace with due care and attention to his surroundings, then he wouldn't have had a case to answer. The whole event would simply have been an accident and Mrs Briggs would likely still be alive. It wouldn't even have made it into the media.
However, Alliston was not in full control of his bicycle as he wasn't able to react properly to unexpected events. Mrs Briggs didn't suddenly throw herself out into the path of an oncoming bicycle, she simply stepped out into the road. Riding a bike with no front brake (illegal) and at a pace that made it difficult for him to react in any meaningful way to someone stepping out in front of him was reckless and that is why he is responsible for the accident. Hence the 'wanton and furious driving' charges and not manslaughter. Seems a very fair verdict to me, though his sentencing may not go so well due to his apparent lack of remorse.
I still don't really agree with you (even though I don't agree with spen either).
What would be a 'more relaxed pace', considering most motorists on that road would have been doing over 20mph? 18mph isn't outrageous on a road where motorists will regularly go much faster than that.
On most 20mph limits round here the lowest car speeds tend to be significantly over 20, and, on one in particular, not infrequently (in the early hours or on weekend evenings) they can hit 50 or 60.
As for "at a pace that made it difficult to react..." that would apply to most motorists most of the time, good brakes or not.
Certainly none of those who zoom along the road (that I used to cycle on before deciding I couldn't stand it any more) at 60mph would be able to react to someone stepping out 6m in front of them. Yet if they'd hit a ped in that situation there is no way it would have become such a major story, and I'm not convinced they'd have faced particularly serious legal penalties.
Alliston screwed-up badly by not having a legal braking arrangement (the one time a pedestrian stepped out right in front of me like that I didn't manage to stop but nor did I hit them, I just toppled over sideways and collected a lot of grazes and bruises. So, I'm not particularly sorry for him.
But the relentless double-standards in attitudes to this case vs cases of motorists continues to depress me, in the way it demonstrates how irrational most people are.
This is only my opinion (from watching a lot of episodes of Judge Rinder
), but here goes...
20 mph is pretty slow for a car, and an alert driver would be able to react, change direction and/or stop quickly from that speed. An old lady could do this.
20 mph on a fixie with no front brake is pretty fast and the rider would not be able to react, change direction and/or stop quickly from that speed. An old lady couldn't do this.
So its not so much the 20 mph speed that is the issue, but the consequences of that speed on your ability to react to a situation given all the factors involved (e.g. fixie with no brakes, pedestrians nearby, etc.). Doing 20 mph on fixie with no brakes on a quiet road is quite different to doing 20 mph on a fixie with no brakes in an area where pedestrians are present ... both are illegal, but the second example is also reckless (lack of due care and attention).
I would like to think any motorist involved in an accident while doing 60 mph in a 20 mph zone would face stiff penalities for doing so.
Sometimes it can seem as if there are double standards, one for motorists and another for cyclists, but its more likely down to differences in how the law judges offences ... every incident is unique, so its difficult to compare.
What does this mean? A vehicle's top speed has no bearing on how fast 20mph is for its operator.
Are you saying that the complexity of the operation of the vehicle is a factor in how quickly the operator reacts?
Just to point out that Old St is not particularly pedestrian friendly, it is quite a wide (3 to 4 lanes), busy thoroughfare for traffic with many pedestrian crossings expressly put there for the purpose of safely crossing this busy street, and so not in the least bit reckless or inattentive to cycle at 20 mph along it with no expectation whatever of any pedestrians attempting to stroll across without looking or waiting for the lights.
20 mph on a fixie with no brakes resulted in the death of a pedestrian.
Pedestrians don't have to use pedestrian crossings just as cyclists don't have to use cycle paths.
ah I see - so your logic is that "an area where pedestrians are present" is entirely circular - were you to wander blindly across a busy A road and cause a collision resulting in your death, pedestrians would have been present by the mere fact that you used your feet and legs to wander out into fast moving traffic
If you kill a pedestrian wandering across an A road and your car had no brakes ... you'd be convicted and probably with manslaughter.
very good, it still does not make Old St an area where pedestrians are generally present - I take it you have no experience of the area - it is a major traffic and cycling thoroughfare where 18 mph is a fairly reasonable speed, and so as you said, the absence of a front brake is illegal but not reckless.
Pages