Kim Briggs’ husband says he would welcome wider debate on road safety

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

What is needed is legislation to ensure that those who lose a loved one in what it is now commonplace to call 'a tragedy', are prevented from any campaigning for a period of five years. 

I hope not, this one was a pedestrian killed by a cyclist, but very recently we have had 3 cases of killer drivers who slaughtered cyclists with their motor vehicles with no risk of injury to themseleves and who have had slight wrist slapping of suspended sentences.  The killings were all a tragedy the sentences a travesty, I would support any campaign by the greiving families for a change in these ridiculous laws.

steveswalton wrote:

Of all the publicity and coverage of this tragic case there is one rather large contributory factor which seems to be constantly ignored and, until its addressed will continue to cause accidents similar to this is, and which is the fact that it was reported Kim Briggs was transfixed with her phone at the time she stepped off the pavement and into the road.

I realise this could be seem as placing the blame on the deceased, but surely if this is true, its one thing we could all do to make the roads safer?

This was brought up by the Alliston's defence, but later found to be untrue.

One aspect that is ignored by most people (although mentioned in the Judge's summing up) is that Charlie originally started to brake, but then decided to abort braking and instead aim for the gap behind Kim (which she then unfortunately stepped back into). I believe the judge used Charlie's change of mind against him though the sentence was still ridiculously harsh compared to the treatment that many drivers get.

hawkinspeter wrote:

steveswalton wrote:

Of all the publicity and coverage of this tragic case there is one rather large contributory factor which seems to be constantly ignored and, until its addressed will continue to cause accidents similar to this is, and which is the fact that it was reported Kim Briggs was transfixed with her phone at the time she stepped off the pavement and into the road.

I realise this could be seem as placing the blame on the deceased, but surely if this is true, its one thing we could all do to make the roads safer?

This was brought up by the Alliston's defence, but later found to be untrue.

One aspect that is ignored by most people (although mentioned in the Judge's summing up) is that Charlie originally started to brake, but then decided to abort braking and instead aim for the gap behind Kim (which she then unfortunately stepped back into). I believe the judge used Charlie's change of mind against him though the sentence was still ridiculously harsh compared to the treatment that many drivers get.

Please show us where the prosecution said that Alliston aborted his braking.

The prosection said that Alliston was doing around 18mph initially and had slowed to around 10mph (jogging speed), his initial slowing down after seeing the pedestrian in the centre of the road was consistant with the vast majority of other road users, whether he shouted nor indeed what he shouted is relevant though this was used against him, yet honked horns are not taken into account for prosecution purposes.

That he did not come to a complete stop should not have being held against him, as I said pretty much every single road user will come past in the same scenario, at the slow speed he was doing he still did not have enough reaction time to come to a complete stop once he then saw the pedestrian change her course of action and step back in front of him. The police video was made up tripe for one thing and ignored many factors, it should not have being admissible in court it was so full of holes and did not represent thescenario in any way shape or form. The officer on the bike which did not replicate the same bike with the correct brake fitted also knew when he had to brake, unlike Alliston who was met with an unexpected event, not once but twice. We know from crash investigators that reactions in high stress situations can take much longer even multiple seconds longer than to those of an event we know is going to happen, this is an absolute fact.

Alliston did not want to collide with the pedstrian, on another day it could have being he that was dead and the pedestrian unscathed, we already know that pedestrians cause their own deaths (be at fault) 50% more of the time when in collision with a person on a bike (uncovered by the recent  report on introducing new cycling laws/cycling safety). He slowed to a speed far below that of motorists in the same scenario would have done.

We know that motorists are absolved all the time even when going much faster when someone steps in front of them, indeed people on bikes are attributed blame for an incident when coming from the side off a path/footway/cycle lane. He simply wanted to go past the pedestrian, his very action of slowing and veering away from the pedestrian is evidence enough of that, and as I said, this is exactly the same action as most would do including HGVs, buses, vans, cars, motorcyclists, cycles and indeed pedestrians.

To attribute his not braking to a full stop as an act of wilful negligence (manslaughter even ffs!) is wrong, does not follow the law and his actions are not below the standard of a competent road user, we all know what that standard is defined as already by case law (even if we do not agree with it the standard is set). That he could not even if a brake were fitted be able to stop completely for the last second action of the pedestrian was ignored because of the incompetence of the defence and the lies by the police re the video footage of them with their false equivalance test.

basically one big massive stitch up from start to finish, oh and the pedsetrian was seen in the video to have her hand near her head before the collision, it was not clear enough to see if this was a phone.

hawkinspeter wrote:

This was brought up by the Alliston's defence, but later found to be untrue.

I thought the distinction that had been made, was there was no evidence to support it. which might be subtle distinction but its quite an important one.

Awavey wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

This was brought up by the Alliston's defence, but later found to be untrue.

I thought the distinction that had been made, was there was no evidence to support it. which might be subtle distinction but its quite an important one.

From re-reading parts of the Judge's sentencing remarks, it looks like it wasn't necessarily introduced by Alliston's defence, but was stated by Alliston himself online and then later retracted.

I can only assume that he retracted it when confronted by the lack of evidence. If I were in his position and I had seen that the pedestrian was using a phone then I'd try very hard to get that included in my defence. My suspicion is that Alliston was using it in online arguments knowing it to not be true and then retracted it when he realised that he was digging himself into a hole.

I'd expect there to be eye-witness accounts, CCTV (apparently not clear though), phone records and a nearby smashed phone to corroborate Alliston's phone defence, so the lack of evidence does suggest to me that she wasn't using a phone.

Then again, I wasn't there or involved in the case, so my opinion is just that.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Pah to your arguments. If I had the money I'd be v8 rollin and guzzling petrol. I'm like an american that won't give up guns.

if I had the money I'd get a helicopter gunship with minigun mounts on both sides and one at the front... for safety purposes of course

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Pah to your arguments. If I had the money I'd be v8 rollin and guzzling petrol. I'm like an american that won't give up guns.

My replacement was a mustang GT

But this is the only photo in existence where she looks like a nurse!  When it comes to engendering the sympathy of a public interested mainly in headlines and photos, nurse is about as good as it gets.</cynic>

srchar wrote:

But this is the only photo in existence where she looks like a nurse!  When it comes to engendering the sympathy of a public interested mainly in headlines and photos, nurse is about as good as it gets.</cynic>

I have to say, your nurse fantasies are very different to mine

SingleSpeed wrote:

some really uncalled for bollox...

Jesus Christ man. If the Daily Fail gets hold of this comment.
Your comment is well out of line. Please think on and delete it.
The guy is upset - as well he would be. It was a crappy situation and two families have been wrecked by it. It's good that retailers shouldn't sell illegal bikes for the road. We'd hate it if VW came out and sold dangerous cars for the road.

fenix wrote:

SingleSpeed wrote:

some really uncalled for bollox...

Jesus Christ man. If the Daily Fail gets hold of this comment. Your comment is well out of line. Please think on and delete it. The guy is upset - as well he would be. It was a crappy situation and two families have been wrecked by it. It's good that retailers shouldn't sell illegal bikes for the road. We'd hate it if VW came out and sold dangerous cars for the road.

You mean more dangerous than cars which emit even more noxious chemicals than permitted by the already lax standards, and that have a top speed vastly in excess of the legal maximum? More dangerous than the cars that are used to kill hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists each year?

Yes, I'm sure Mr Briggs is upset. What I really don't understand is what he hopes to achieve.  Alliston has been punished, at least as severely as drivers convicted of death by careless, weve all been reminded that bikes must have two brakes. What, apart from vengeance by damaging  cycling rates, is left to achieve?

fenix wrote:

We'd hate it if VW came out and sold dangerous cars for the road.

Every car they make goes faster than 70mph. If this is what the law states is the maximum safe speed for a car to go, in the same way as the law says a bike must have brakes to be safe, then all VW cars are unsafe.

Municipal Waste wrote:

fenix wrote:

We'd hate it if VW came out and sold dangerous cars for the road.

Every car they make goes faster than 70mph. If this is what the law states is the maximum safe speed for a car to go, in the same way as the law says a bike must have brakes to be safe, then all VW cars are unsafe.

Jesus Christ, not this rabid anti-car crap again. I've got a car that can go more than twice the speed limit but oddly enough I don't drive around at that speed. It's also got better brakes than a shopping car, grips the road better and guess what else? I can overtake large groups of cyclists quicker. Seems safer to me.

Name me a car that hasn't been able to do 70 In the last 50 years. A car's top speed isn't some sort of danger marker. I'd rather drive around with whollops of torque on hand than thrashing the crap out of it to get up a decent hill.

Do you also release that all laws surrounding cars and their limitations were set decades ago when brakes were made of cardboard and 100 was seen as really,really fast.

Hopefully the government will bring in max gearing ratios to stop cyclists going over 18mph. Seems reasonable?

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Municipal Waste wrote:

fenix wrote:

We'd hate it if VW came out and sold dangerous cars for the road.

Every car they make goes faster than 70mph. If this is what the law states is the maximum safe speed for a car to go, in the same way as the law says a bike must have brakes to be safe, then all VW cars are unsafe.

Jesus Christ, not this rabid anti-car crap again. I've got a car that can go more than twice the speed limit but oddly enough I don't drive around at that speed. It's also got better brakes than a shopping car, grips the road better and guess what else? I can overtake large groups of cyclists quicker. Seems safer to me. Name me a car that hasn't been able to do 70 In the last 50 years. A car's top speed isn't some sort of danger marker. I'd rather drive around with whollops of torque on hand than thrashing the crap out of it to get up a decent hill. Do you also release that all laws surrounding cars and their limitations were set decades ago when brakes were made of cardboard and 100 was seen as really,really fast. Hopefully the government will bring in max gearing ratios to stop cyclists going over 18mph. Seems reasonable?

So essentially your argument is that you (and all other drivers) can be trusted not to break the law, or at least only to do so when it's safe.. Choose whether you're right or not, surely you can see this is the exact same argument about whether retailers shouild offer bikes for sale without front brakes? The "danger" resides in the use, not simply in the machine.

Edit: you're at least not right about some other drivers  http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/driver-caught-doing-111mph-in-40mph-zone-...

oldstrath wrote:

So essentially your argument is that you (and all other drivers) can be trusted not to break the law, or at least only to do so when it's safe.. Chose whether you're right or not, surely you can see this is the exact same argument about whether retailers shouild offer bikes for sale without front brakes? The "danger" resides in the use, not simply in the machine.

Edit: you're at least not right about some other drivers http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/driver-caught-doing-111mph-in-40mph-zone-...

There is no need to trust any driver, what is required is government to take action. Ever increasing numbers of cars have sat navs and boxes to manage the engine. A friend who I can only describe as an electronic genius (was featured on Tomorrow's World) for any old enough to remember; advised how he deemed it simple to synchronise these with speed limits; he would just have to be taken up on his offer.

oldstrath wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Municipal Waste wrote:

fenix wrote:

We'd hate it if VW came out and sold dangerous cars for the road.

Every car they make goes faster than 70mph. If this is what the law states is the maximum safe speed for a car to go, in the same way as the law says a bike must have brakes to be safe, then all VW cars are unsafe.

Jesus Christ, not this rabid anti-car crap again. I've got a car that can go more than twice the speed limit but oddly enough I don't drive around at that speed. It's also got better brakes than a shopping car, grips the road better and guess what else? I can overtake large groups of cyclists quicker. Seems safer to me. Name me a car that hasn't been able to do 70 In the last 50 years. A car's top speed isn't some sort of danger marker. I'd rather drive around with whollops of torque on hand than thrashing the crap out of it to get up a decent hill. Do you also release that all laws surrounding cars and their limitations were set decades ago when brakes were made of cardboard and 100 was seen as really,really fast. Hopefully the government will bring in max gearing ratios to stop cyclists going over 18mph. Seems reasonable?

So essentially your argument is that you (and all other drivers) can be trusted not to break the law, or at least only to do so when it's safe.. Choose whether you're right or not, surely you can see this is the exact same argument about whether retailers shouild offer bikes for sale without front brakes? The "danger" resides in the use, not simply in the machine.

Edit: you're at least not right about some other drivers  http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/driver-caught-doing-111mph-in-40mph-zone-...

good point, but it seems way worse than this...

the main justification for building cars that way is the "get out of trouble" argument - it seems safer to overtake quicker, there's not even an inkling that actually waiting patiently and not being in such a hurry to get somewhere is actually safer, instead the car driver needs to get past slower moving traffic - presumably car drivers have much more important places to be than slower moving traffic?

In practice of course, most cars do have the ability to go twice the speed limit with all that extra torque and better brakes - the result is a queue of cars pumping out more exhaust fumes just in case of the 0.00000000001% of the time that they might actually have needed to "get out of trouble" - but in fact they didn't - far more often they got themselves into trouble because they're not used to doing anything remotely similar and the abilities of the car way exceeds their abilites as a driver...

on top of this, modern cars do have speed limiters and it has absolutely no bearing on the torque or braking - and unlike the 18mph cycling example, there is actually a 70mph speed limit for motorised vehicles.

so the real justification here is - "Name me a car that hasn't been able to do 70 In the last 50 years." - in other words, everyone has one, it is considered normal, therefore nothing needs to be done about it.

beezus fufoon wrote:

In practice of course, most cars do have the ability to go twice the speed limit with all that extra torque and better brakes - the result is a queue of cars pumping out more exhaust fumes just in case of the 0.00000000001% of the time that they might actually have needed to "get out of trouble" - but in fact they didn't - far more often they got themselves into trouble because they're not used to doing anything remotely similar and the abilities of the car way exceeds their abilites as a driver...

And of course, that brings with it a load of expectation and sense of entitlement. Dummies are sold cars to drive on the open road... Cars are sold on their performance and driving ability, not their queuing in traffic ability.*

This is a massive perception/reality disconnect, and increases idiot drivers' frustrations as they see cyclists filtering past or lose a commute-busting SEVERAL SECONDS as they wait to overtake safely.

I have two cars, but didn't buy either as a commutepod to sit in traffic, and that's a big factor in me riding to work.

*This really hit home with me about 10, 12 years ago when VW ran a Golf campaign that showed someone eagerly getting up in the middle of the night to drive their Golf along empty, lit city streets. Its tagline was 'When was the last time you just went for a drive?'. Huh. Good point, I thought. I can't remember.

Unfortunately, the car I had sitting outside at the time was a newish Golf GTI. I sold up pretty soon after and bought a car I actually wanted to drive, and never once used the replacement for commuting.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

I think many of the comments are harsh on Mr Briggs. He has lost his wife, and his children have lost their mum. He has seen inconsistencies in the law which were of direct relevance to his case, and I would defend his right to point them out.

and we can empathise with that and understand the grief and the urge to make something positive out of a sadly needless death, but that doesnt mean we should then shy away from pointing out this campaign is horribly misguided.